Advertisement
Advertisement
Ghana News

SALL parliamentary representation: Court dismisses Amewu’s application to halt ruling

Advertisement

The High Court in Ho denied a motion made by John Peter Amewu, Member of Parliament (MP) for Hohoe, to postpone the court’s judgment on an electoral petition concerning the disenfranchisement of inhabitants of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lipke, and Lolobi (SALL) in the 2020 general elections.

The application was set to be heard by the presiding judge, Justice Owoahene Acheampong, on December 21, 2023.

Advertisement

This was in response to an application filed by the petitioners’ attorneys, Tsatsu Tsikata, based on admissions made by the Electoral Commission (EC).

The proceedings were, however, halted due to an application from Mr. Amewu’s counsel.

The motion requested, among other things, a stay of the court’s ruling and permission to submit a defense as the petition’s second respondent.

The matter was then rescheduled until January 9, 2024, to allow Benedict Kofitse, representing Mr. Amewu, to make his application to stay the decision.

However, events in court took a new turn.

Mr. Tsikata, the petitioners’ lawyer, submitted an application on notice to withdraw the original motion for judgment based on the EC’s admissions.

In response, the court denied Mr. Amewu’s plea to stay the decision, which had yet to be filed, and granted Mr. Tsikata’s application for permission to withdraw the motion for judgment based on the admissions of the EC.

Mr. Tsikata called the court’s attention to the absence of the EC’s counsel, Sekyi Boampong, who had been engaged in an accident, and requested that the case be adjourned to a more convenient date.

Despite his and his clients’ desire for a speedy trial, Mr. Tsikata believed that justice would not be served if his newest motion was considered in the absence of the EC’s (first respondent’s) counsel, who was injured in an accident.

Both the petitioners’ and Mr. Amewu’s attorneys asked the court to delay so that the EC, the first respondent, could be present when the matter was heard.

Initially, Justice Acheampong insisted on Mr. Tsikata making his motion in the absence of the EC, despite the fact that the EC had initially rejected the motion that Mr. Tsikata was sought to withdraw and also in the interest of an expeditious adjudication of the matter.

Mr. Tsikata, on the other hand, contended that the EC should have been present when the application was moved.

Justice Acheampong eventually relented and delayed the case to January 19, 2024, to consider Mr. Tsikata’s plea.

 

 

Advertisement
Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement
Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker!