Mahama’s motion for inspection of EC documents dismissed

A seven-member of the Supreme Court panel presided over by Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah has dismissed a motion for inspection of documents filed by lawyers of the petitioner.

The unanimous decision of the panel states that the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that he does not have duplicate copies of those documents.

The panel chaired by Chief Justice Anin Yeboah in dismissing the application said the applicant was unable to raise an issue regarding the authenticity of the documents in their possession.

Motion

Moving the application for inspection of documents, Mr Tsikata said per the declaration made by the EC there are four different figures out there and do not know which exactly was the basis for her declaration.

He argued that the EC is the custodian of all original documents of the presidential election and the document if granted will enable the Petitioner to compare with what is in their possession.

Mr Tsikata argued further that for the purposes of fair hearing, access to the documents will ensure proper appreciation of the petition before the court.

Lawyers of the Petitioner per the motion are asking order of inspection of documents from the Electoral Commission for originals of all constituency presidential election results collation forms and summary sheets of all constituencies in Ghana.



He prayed the court to grant their request for the interest of justice and the EC has

Lawyers of the EC led by Justin Amenuvor while opposing to the motion said the Petitioner had 21 days after the declaration to make such request.

According to counsel, the Petitioner instead filed such request 34 days after the declaration and even gave the EC three days to respond, this he said has no basis in law.

When his attention was drawn to Order 21 of Mutual Discoveries by the bench, he said even if that was so, it was to have been carried out in 14 days.

He contended that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proof that the inspection of those original documents is necessary to their case.

For his part, Akoto Ampaw lead lawyer of the 2nd Respondent Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo argued that the petitioner has failed to provide documents in their own possession regarding the claims they are making.

According to the application does not provide any evidence to warranting grant.

He described it as misconceived and one that cannot promote fair hearing.

Source: Starrfm.com.gh