By
Felix Engsalige Nyaaba
The Supreme Court yesterday fixed August 7, 2013 as a
provisional date for counsel for all parties in the Election Petition to be
heard orally by way of clarifications and necessary additions in their
addresses to the court.
The president of the nine member panel of Supreme Court
hearing the case, Mr Justice William Atuguba issued the directives when court
resumed hearing after the two weeks adjournment to enable parties for their written
submission written addresses.
According to the court, “the oral clarifications and
the necessary additions will be within 30 minutes each.
The court
directives was reached after the NDC which failed to meet the
deadline for filing the written address was allowed for haven filed the process yesterday at 9:50
am Wednesday morning.
The oral submission on the matter by parties is to
help the judges in determining the outcome of the petition which has been
before the court for seven months now.
Tsatsu
Explained Late Filing
Lead counsel for National Democratic Congress (NDC) Mr.
Tsatsu Tsikata yesterday had explained to the Court that the compilation of
appendices for the address was the reason for delayed in filing process to meet
the deadline.
According to
him, the documents they were to file were not properly put together as most of
the appendices were scatted and needed to be bind together , adding that he
took personal responsibility for the delay for he thought it was not the best
to file the address in pieces.
He however pleaded with the Bench to adopt his
address which was filed early on Wednesday 31, despite missing the deadline.
Addison
Objection
Despite Tsikata plea for forgiveness from the court
over the delay in filing, lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Philip Addison,
raised objection to the request by NDC counsel, arguing that court orders ought
to be respected at all time and that the third respondent was using what he
described as, “communist inferior tactics” with the aim of outwitting the
Petitioners as far as the filing of addresses are concerned.
He contended
that the three respondents had spent the entire night combing through the
Petitioners’ address with the intention of arming themselves in that regard.
Mr. Addison
further argued that Court orders are orders meant to be obeyed and therefore
expressed bemusement about the NDC’s inability to respect that order by the
Bench for the addresses to have been filed by Tuesday July 30, 2013, adding
that the respondent should have notify the court through application for
consideration.
Court
Decision
The presiding judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba in a unanimous ruling on the matter said,
“We note that the act that caused the delay in complying with the dateline of
July 30, 2013 for filing addresses was for the benefit of this court”.
“Nonetheless, counsel should have as a senior
counsel been guided by the reasonable fore seeability test in preparing his
loose addresses.”
“It must not lightly be thought that court orders
are any but solemn matters which ought to be treated as such".
The court further held that, considering the close
extent of the delay, the third respondent’s address was filed at 9:50am
Wednesday morning and that the sins of counsel should not be visited on the
head of the client.
It added that in the convenience of the court, which
was the mischief aimed at in defaulting to comply with the time limit set, and
the sheer magnitude and gravity of the case, “We waive the default and admit
the address as filed by on behalf third respondent”.
The court then adjourned the case to Wednesday
August 7, 2013 as a cautious date for all the parties to be heard orally by way
of clarifications and necessary additions in their addresses to the court.
The address is to be made within 30 minutes each.
The court also noted that the oral submission would
not be an opportunity for the parties to re-open their cases but would be
heavily curtailed to the two areas of clarifications and the necessary
additions.
The court would also give direction on that day as
to which of the parities will start the oral and for responses from other
parties.
The petitioners were the first to file their address
on Tuesday followed by the legal teams of the President and the Electoral
Commission.
After months of cross-examination of witnesses, the
Court is expected to give a verdict with the submission of the written
addresses.
The 2012 Presidential Candidate of the main
opposition New Patriotic Party, Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate Dr. Mahamudu
Bawumia and the party’s national Chairman Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey went to the
Court to challenge the results on grounds that the 2012 general elections were
fraught with irregularities.
The
respondents in the case are President John Mahama, the Electoral Commission and
the governing National Democratic Congress.
While the
petitioners, in their 175-page address, argue that the presidential candidate
of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) should have been declared winner of the
December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential poll, the respondents hold a different
view.
According to the three respondents, the Electoral
Commission (EC), President Mahama and the NDC, the petitioners had not been
able to establish the grounds for the annulment of votes and the subsequent
declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the presidential poll.
No comments:
Post a Comment