'We are committed to an expeditious trial' – Mahama’s lawyer

Despite the dismissal of their application for interrogatives in the 2021 election petition, lawyers for petitioner John Dramani Mahama insist that they are ready for an expeditious trial.

“We are committed to an expeditious trial. In fact, our application on the contrary was the one that was designed to lead to an expeditious trial and we are very ready for this trial.

“They (respondents) thought this was going to be a walk in the park? Then what they saw today is a tip of the iceberg,” Dominic Ayine, a representative for the petitioner told the media after day two of the hearing.

In an earlier interview, a lawyer for the second respondent, President Akufo-Addo, accused the petitioners of deliberately engaging in tactics that would potentially delay a speedy completion of the hearing.

The legal team of former president Mahama said they were shocked by the decision of the courts to not admit interrogatives more so because it appeared that the court was sidestepping its own rules, procedures, and precedent.

Lead counsel Tsatsu Tsikata asked the court for a detailed ruling on the application with Ayine hinting that after studying it, they would decide whether to ask the court to reconsider its stance.

The petitioners wanted the Electoral Commission chairperson to admit errors in her declaration of the winner of the 2020 presidential race. The petition remains in the pre-trial or case management stage.

Ayine told pressmen outside the premises: “The court today did something that astounded us and that is because it ruled that we cannot make an application for interrogatories based on existing rules.

“And if you listened carefully to what the learned Chief Justice said, that given the new rules, that is C.I. 99, we could no longer bring applications for interrogatories in respect of election petitions, that really is surprising to a lot of us as lawyers.

“Because basically what the court has done is to overrule its own decision in the 2013 election petition without according reasons as required by the constitution and existing practices and precedents,” he added.