.JPG)
Inside the Supreme Court
Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Wednesday April 17, 2013
The landmark election petition at the Supreme Court gripped the attention of
Ghanaians yesterday, but hearing was delayed for at least another 24 hours.
The court proceedings televised across the country
for the first time in the court caught the attention of Ghanaian as most
streets were empty with people showing interest in the process. It was also
broadcast live on major radio networks.
According to the nine-member panel chaired by
Justice William Atuguba, the highest court of the land was adjourning
proceedings until today because the Electoral Commission (EC) which is the 2nd
respondent in the case had still not filed its affidavits.
Nana Akufo-Addo leaves court
The court therefore asked the EC, to file its
affidavit and for the registry to ensure service on the petitioners and other
respondents before hearing starts today.
Live
Television
The court, for the first time, allowed television
coverage of the proceedings, perhaps taking a cue from what recently transpired
in Kenya where a similar election petition was disposed off within two weeks.
In a rare turn of events, the judges were seen using
laptop computers in the proceedings, a development that is likely to expedite
the trial.
The courtroom was packed as usual and the security
was also very tight. No room was given to intruders like cane wielding party
supporters who had in previous hearing stormed the court.
Afari-Gyan
Storms Court
Making his maiden appearance in court was Dr. Kwadwo
Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the EC whose persistent absence once attracted a
comment from one of the justices.
Dr. Afari-Gyan was in court for the first time
He was in court with some of the top officials of
the commission including his immediate deputy who recently retired, Kwadwo Safo
Kantanka and when he announced himself as representing the commission, there
was laughter in the courtroom, a move that attracted ‘order’, ‘order’ from the
court’s clerk.
Before the main case commenced, the court drew the
attention of the parties to the fact that they had decided to allow the
proceedings to be carried live on television and sought the views of the legal
teams.
Justice Atuguba told the parties that “preliminary
issues arising from the case is the issue of televised proceedings…We invite
your views to rule on it so we proceed.”
Parties
Endorse Live Coverage
Philip Addison, lead counsel for the three
petitioners said live coverage of the proceedings “Is of immense national
interest. It is of importance to the whole democratic process.”
He said that the instant petition is above “ordinary
litigation” and added “it goes to the core of our democratic dispensation.”
Mr. Addison said “we already laid an application for
live coverage and we are happy that this is now being granted. The live
coverage is important. The interest of the people will be best served when they
see it live.”
Tsatsu Tsikata - NDC lead counsel
He said when the courts allow live coverage there
will be no need for lawyers to hold press conferences to explain issues to the
public.
Tony Lithur who leads the John Dramani Mahama (1st
respondent) team said “we welcome the live coverage” and hoped other
international media will be allowed to also provide live coverage.
James Quarshie-Idun, lead counsel for the EC said
“we will go along with sentiments expressed.”
Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the NDC (3rd
respondents) said “we not only heartily welcome it, we believe international
media who also have interest can also be granted access.”
He said the idea of live coverage can be a model for
other courts.
Ruling
The court after hearing the submissions of the legal
teams officially endorsed television coverage of the proceedings life.
The court cited Article 126 (3), the Cause Act as
well as Rule 69 C (3) of C.I. 16 to back its decision to allow live television
coverage.
Main
Petition
After the ruling, all was set for the case to
proceed when Mr. Addison told the court that the petitioners had not received
the affidavit of both the EC and NDC.
He then told the court that his colleague had
alerted him that President Mahama filed his affidavit on behalf of the NDC,
thus leaving the EC as the only respondent yet to file adding “I am told that
more are being filed by the 1st and 3rd respondents.”
Mr. Lithur then came in to confirm that the
President and the NDC filed the same affidavit.
NDC legal team
Mr. Quarshie-Idun told the court that the EC was
served with the affidavits of the respondents only last Thursday and added that
as a result, the five day period within which to file had not elapsed.
Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a member of the panel
then asked the EC counsel whether or not the commission had filed its affidavit
and counsel replied “We have not filed, we will file today.”
Mr. Tsikata then took the floor, arguing that as far
as the NDC was concerned, “we are ready because nothing in the court’s orders
say that without filings affidavits, definite hearing cannot proceed.”
“As far as the petitioners are concerned, there is
absolutely no reason why we cannot proceed today. The 2nd Petitioner
(Dr. Bawumia) has filed affidavit before you and we can proceed to hear the
evidence. We hope it is not an application for adjournment.”
As the debate became heated, Mr Addison cut in to
say that the court gave specific orders detailing the timeframe within which
the parties should file their affidavits and pointed out that all the parties
should be made to file their affidavits before oral evidence can be taken from
the witnesses.
“He has our affidavit but we do not have theirs.
They should file for us to proceed.”
Mr. Tsikata countered, insisting “they cannot wait
on the service before they do their case.”
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie again sought from Mr. Tsikata
whether “you have affidavits of your witnesses”, to which counsel replied
“according to the order of the court we have filed our affidavits.”
NPP legal team
Justice Atuguba then asked the petitioners counsel
whether “you are not opposed to the hearing starting today,” to which Mr.
Addison said “EC is the most important party in the petition but it has not
filed its affidavit.”
Mr. Tsikata then said the EC has already filed its
answers and that was enough for the petitioners to start their case and Mr.
Lithur also said “we are also ready to start. The order was that hearing must
start today.”
The EC counsel then supported the arguments of the
counsel for President Mahama and the NDC by holding that “the petitioners have
the burden of proof and it is strange that instead of starting, they are
waiting for us to start.”
Adjournment
After about 30 minutes break, the court ruled that
they were ‘reluctantly’ adjourning the proceedings to today in the ‘interest of
peace’.
Justice Atuguba said “the 2nd respondent
(EC) should file its affidavits” by close of work and as soon as it is filed,
the registrar was ordered to “serve the petitioners” on the same day.
Emerging
Issues
Later when Mr. Addison tried to impress on the court
to allow them permission to fix their equipment in advance in the courtroom as
part of the presentation they intend to give to the court, the judges were
reluctant and there was therefore no definite order on the request.
Justice Sophia O. Adinyira, another panel member
wanted to know from the respondents whether they submitted their evidence in
both hard and soft copies since the petitioners submitted both.
Mr. Lithur replied that they did not have both in
hard and soft copy but said they had ‘five short exhibits’ and added that “We
are not doing power point presentation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment