Supreme Court needlessly shielding Jean Mensa - Kwaku Azar

Lawyer Kwaku Asare has suggested that the Supreme Court is needlessly shielding the EC boss from accountability.

The lawyer and accounting professor said the EC boss, Mrs. Jean Mensa will do the country a lot of good if she is allowed to testify in the ongoing petition.

In an opinion expressing his views in the processes so far at the court, the lawyer said: "The Court seems to be needlessly shielding the election manager from examination, including having problems with her name being mentioned, her responding to discovery and her being examined."

"The Court should not take the position that affidavits and witness statements do no matter and can be used as legal strategy. Witness statements matter. Once they are served they have an effect, which at a minimum includes the opposing party being able to assume that it can cross-examine on it."

"The election manager will do the country a lot of good by mounting the box and addressing any and all questions by the petitioner,” he added.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed Mr Mahama’s application seeking leave (permission) to reopen his case to enable his lawyers to subpoena Mrs Mensa to appear before the court and testify.

The seven-member panel in a unanimous decision held that the application was without merit because the petitioner could not provide any cogent legal justification to back it.

“Neither has he (petitioner) disclosed how that evidence will advance the cause of his petition. For the advanced stated reasons, we find no merit whatsoever in the petitioner’s application to reopen his case,” the court ruled.



Read his full post below.

It is disturbing that the petitioner has failed to file its closing statements as ordered by the Court.

I understand that the petitioner has filed a review and a stay. But I do not think this is enough for it to ignore the Court order.

The better action, in my opinion, is to file a provisional statement with a caveat that it is incomplete and will be substantially revised after it has called the election manager into the box.

Having said that, I also strongly believe that the petitioner is entitled to examine the election manager on Form 13 and the changing total votes cast.

The many unanimous decisions by the Court to deny the petitioner’s prayer remain unconvincing and weak.

The Court seems to be needlessly shielding the election manager from examination, including having problems with her name being mentioned, her responding to discovery and her being examined.

The Court should not take the position that affidavits and witness statements do no matter and can be used as legal strategy. Witness statements matter. Once they are served they have an effect, which at a minimum includes the opposing party being able to assume that it can cross examine on it.

The election manager will do the country a lot of good by mounting the box and addressing any and all questions by the petitioner.

I strongly believe that more harm will be done by her failure to do so. It is also procedurally unfair for any petitioner to be denied some of these basic requests.

#SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament. Will anyone be held accountable or it will be another fa ma nyame?

Da Yie!