Election Petition: 'Review' your decision - Mahama tells Supreme Court over motion to reopen case

Former President John Dramani Mahama, the petitioner in the ongoing election petition has filed an application for review of the Supreme Court’s ruling that prevented him from reopening his case.

The petitioner had sought to reopen his case to enable him to compel Madam Jean Mensa into the witness box to testify as a hostile witness.

But the motion was thrown out in a ruling on 16 February 2021 because it failed to provide any evidence to warrant the reopening of the case.

The Chief Justice who was reading the ruling said: "A witness, who has not yet entered the witness box to testify, cannot, therefore, be called an adverse or hostile witness under any circumstance...We accordingly refuse the application and proceed without any hesitation to dismiss it"

Review of SC ruling on reopening of case

In a review application filed by the petitioner's lawyers, Mr Mahama said the SC made fundamental errors of law, including the ruling being per incuriam of constitutional provisions, statutes, and previous decisions of the Supreme Court.

“I am advised by counsel and verily believe the court made fundamental errors of law including the ruling being per incuriam of constitutional provisions, statutes and previous decisions of the Supreme Court...Among these errors, I am advised by counsel and verily believe is an error whereby the courts subordinates a provision in the Evidence Act to a rule in subsidiary legislation by the Rules of Court Committee” portions of the application read.

According to him, “I am advised and verily believe that they constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant the court reviewing its own decision”

The court will hear this application on Monday, 22 February 2021.

February 18 ruling

It may be recalled that the petitioners had earlier filed two applications: a review of the Supreme Court's February 11th decision and stay of proceedings.

However, on Thursday, February 18, 2021, the apex court dismissed the review application and described the second motion as moot.