Naagyei 90.3 Fm Agyapa
Justices of the Supreme Court are unhappy about the petitioner of the 2020 Presidential Election and his lawyers after failing to comply with orders made by the court.
The apex court, last Wednesday ordered the parties to file their processes with strict timelines.
But, the petitioner who has not filed his witnesses statement and other processes, instead filed a stay of proceedings ahead of today’s sitting.
In court on Tuesday, January 26, 2021 when the case was called, Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, Justice Yaw Appau, Justice Prof Ashie Kotey, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo all members of the panel took turns to express their unhappiness for the petitioner and his lawyers not to file their witness statement as ordered by the court.
Justice Yaw Appau for instance wondered why the court should hear the petitioner’s stay of proceedings when they have not complied with their orders.
Earlier, Mr Lithur prayed the court to stand the case down for Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata to arrive, but such didn’t go down with the court.
Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah responded by saying that, the matter was fixed for 9:30am and cannot rise again.
EIB’s Court Correspondent Murtala Inusah reports that after forth and back, between Mr Lithur and the bench, the court took a decision to rise into their chambers.
When the court resumed the sitting, the apex court gave the petitioners another window of opportunity to submit to the processes and file their witness statement by close of day tomorrow, January, 27, and adjourned sitting to Thursday, January, 28, 2021.
“The petitioner is referred to the following rules of court. Rule 69 (C4B) of the Supreme Court of rule C.I.16 as amended by C.I. 99 which reads the court may dismiss the petition where the petitioner fails to file the processes regarding the petition within the specified time or hear and determine the petition when the respondents fail to file their answers or the processes regarding their answer within the specified time. Indeed this position in the procedural rules of the Supreme Court relating to presidential election petition is echoed through the different hierarchy of court in current case management structure and will not be compromised.”
“Order 32 rule 7 of A sub-rule 3 of the High Court civil procedure amendment rule 2004 C.I. 87 which governs trials in the High Court has a similar provision which states where a party has failed to comply with any of the directions given at a case management conference or pre-trial review or both, the judge may make the following by striking out the action, if the non-complying party is a plaintiff or strike out the defense and counter if the non-complying party is a defendant or order any party to pay a cost or make any appropriate order. The petitioner is again directed to file his witness statements on the matters raised in his petition and other pleadings and his response to the preliminary objection by close of the day, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, failing which this court will proceed to invoke the sanctions imposed on this court by the rules of court.”
