Former President John Dramani Mahama has taken his legal battle to Supreme Court Judges as his lawyers have filed an application for stay of proceedings of the presidential election petition.
Mr. Mahama is asking the apex court to suspend hearing of the main petition until a determination is made on his request for review of an earlier decision taken by the Court.
The court on Tuesday dismissed an application for interrogatories filed by his lawyers to allow him question the Electoral Commission (EC) Chairperson Mrs Jean Mensa.
Mr Mahama had prayed that the court had given him the opportunity to the EC chairperson whether or not the National Communication Authority (NCA) assisted in the transmission of the December 7 presidential results to the headquarters of the Commission in Accra.
He also wanted to know how Mrs. Mensa, arrived at the figures she used in declaring candidate Nana Akufo-Addo winner of the 2020 presidential polls.
Although, Lead Counsel for Mr. Mahama, Tsatsu Tsikata said tthe questions are critical as it would help the court determine the authenticity of the results that saw the NPP presidential candidate, emerging as the winner of the 2020 polls, the court in a unanimous ruling dismissed the motion insisting the questions were to the case.
Unsatisfied with the ruling, Mr. Mahama, through his lawyers file for a review of the ruling.
Just yesterday, Mr Mahama’s lawyers filed for stay of proceedings of the substantive case before the review application is heard
In an affidavit in support of the motion for stay, sighted by THE CUSTODIAN, Mr. Mahama stated that the application for Review is based on certain fundamental errors of law that the court made in its ruling, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Lawyers of the ex-president stated that discoveries such as interrogatories are normal pre-trial processes to limit the scope of trial and that the Review Application seeks to recognize the right to have recourse to them.
It added that, “in this particular case the use of the mechanism of interrogatories will ensure a speedy trial” and that “the denial of us leave to serve interrogatories is a serious miscarriage of justice which we expect to have remedied in the Review.”
The affidavit further indicated: “for the hearing of the petition to proceed before the Review is heard would cause irreparable harm to the conduct of our case since I would have been denied the benefit of normal pre-trial processes.”
The 13–paragraph affidavit further urged the judges: “all the above constitute exceptional circumstances on the basis of which we respectfully seek orders of the court staying proceedings in this case until the determination of the Application for Review. ”
It again argued that “not to stay proceedings would create the unfortunate impression that the Review Application has been pre-determined” and that “no prejudice will be caused the Respondents by the grant of such leave.”