Supreme Court erred in dismissing joinder applications - Senuna

Lawyer for 327 applicants whose joinder in a suit challenging the 2012 election was dismissed, Kwablah Senanu, has suggested that the Supreme Court erred in its decision to dismiss the applications.

The applicants came from some 11,000 polling stations where the petitioners - Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia and Jake Obetsebi Lamptey - are alleging that widespread irregularities were recorded in the 2012 General elections.

In 35 different applications, the 327 applicants stated that they were bringing the action in their capacity as citizens, who cast their ballots during the December 7 and 8, 2012 polls.

But lead lawyer for the petitioners, Philip Addison, had argued that the court will open the flood gates for needless joinder applications if it granted that of the applicants. He also maintained that the joinder would delay the hearing of the case.

The Supreme Court on Thursday morning came to the conclusion that they were not a necessary party because their interests were being served by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and President John Dramani Mahama who were already respondents in the petition.

But the lawyer for the applicants, Kwabla Senanu told Joy FM’s Top Story that it was erroneous for the court to assume that the applicants are sympathisers of the NDC.

“I believe that if we are going to say that all the people whose votes are being sought to be annulled are NDC supporters then we are playing to the wrong alley.

“...It is not everybody who voted for President Mahama necessarily belongs to the NDC; then why do we have floating voters in this country?” he asked.

Mr Senanu asserted. “I think that trying to designate those who brought these applications whom I represent all of them are NDC supporters, it is rather unfortunate...it is intellectually unfortunate for anybody to categorise all my clients as belonging to the NDC”

Meanwhile, a member of the NDC legal team, Victor Adawuda has indicated that the respondents may rely on the dismissed applicants as witnesses when necessary.

“If we see them that they are necessary parties, that’s they have evidence which is compelling, which will help the case, why not we will call them as witnesses.”