Former Chief of Staff and lawyer, Nana Ato Dadzie, has expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the election petition filed by former President John Mahama.
Speaking to JoyNews, Mr Dadzie indicated that the petition presented before the apex court sought to question the figures purported by the Electoral Commission, therefore, the Justices should have permitted Chairperson Mrs Jean Mensa to mount the witness box.
He told Winston Amoah: “This matter was essentially a question of figures, whether the figures are right or wrong. If the person who has all the figures stays out, that is where the problem begins. I think am disappointed because I thought the court could have even exercised its own discretion to compel the EC.
“If two people are contesting over a figure or an issue, and there is a third person who holds the answer or the item, what do you do? You bring that third person in to find out if A is right or B is right.”
According to him, the Supreme Court has missed an opportunity based on its decision, to make an opening for some interventions to ensure there is a clear resolution of the issues at stake.
Mr Dadzie further noted that the rules governing Ghana’s legal practice make room for the court itself to call in a witness to assist the case.
He added: “This is a civil case. I mean with all due respect to the learned Supreme court, I am not contesting their judgement in that sense I am entitled to my opinion but this is a civil case and you hear the issues on the balance of probabilities. I mean, a submission of no case in a civil case is even rare.
“The court too has said so. I mean on such a competitive situation like this you do not go straight, I don’t think we should have gone straight with the purely legal procedural approach that we did.”
He iterated that it would “have been fair to have the EC Chair brought in” as an active participant in the election petition trial.
ALSO READ:
“The Supreme Court in its wisdom could probably have said ‘okay, we throw it back to you, find a way of looking at the results again. What would have been wrong with that?
“I think they could have been innovative, broken new grounds for us to move away from the purely legalistic approach to find a way of reconciling the issues and then they could have come back with the results.
“They asked the accounting firm to go and reconcile the issues and bring it back. So what was wrong, why couldn’t we do it this time around. That is my problem,” he stated.