Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo and Dr Mahamudu Bawumia surrounded by friends and security at the Supreme Court yesterday.Inset: Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan
The landmark election petition at the Supreme Court gripped the attention of Ghanaians yesterday, but the hearing was delayed for at least another 24 hours.
The court proceedings, televised across the country for the first time, caught the attention of Ghanaians, as most streets were empty, with almost everyone glued to their television sets. 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), the 2nd respondent in the case, had still not filed its affidavit.
The court therefore tasked the EC to file its affidavit and 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 of within two weeks.
In a rare turn of events, the judges were seen using laptops in the proceedings, a development that was likely to expedite the trial.
The courtroom was packed as usual and the security was also very tight. There was no room for intruders such as cane-wielding party supporters who had on previous occasions stormed the court to cause havoc.
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.
He was in court with some of the top officials of the commission including his former Deputy, Kwadwo Safo Kantanka, who recently retired. And when he announced himself as representing the commission, there was laughter in the courtroom, which 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 on that.
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 was in order because the petition “is of immense national interest. It is of importance to the whole democratic process.”
He said the instant petition was above “ordinary litigation” and added that “it goes to the core of our democratic dispensation.
“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.”
He said when the courts allow live coverage there would be no need for lawyers to hold press conferences to explain issues to the public.
Tony Lithur, who led the John Dramani Mahama (1st respondent) team said “we welcome the live coverage” and he expressed the hope that the international media would 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 could be a model for other courts.
Ruling
The court, after hearing the submissions of the legal teams, officially endorsed television coverage of the proceedings.
The court cited Article 126 (3), the Courts Act (Act 459) as well as Rule 69 C (3) of Supreme Court Rules (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 the NDC.
He then told the court that his colleague had alerted him that President Mahama had 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.
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 filing 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 could 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.”
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 had 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 was 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 intended to give to the court, but 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 had 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 “we are not doing power point presentation.”
Justice Adinyira then said, “I was just asking.”
Posts
