Former Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine says the 12 interrogatories put together by the legal team of John Mahama to the Electoral Commission are very relevant to the election petition process.

According to him, statements that the questions are a ploy to delay court proceedings are false and seek to undermine the entire election petition.

“It’s false because if you watch proceedings that day, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata took time to take the court through all the 12 questions that he had filed to be administered to the Electoral Commission.

"Then also, very importantly, the lawyer for the Electoral Commission, Justin Amenuvor on his feet said that the answers we are seeking are found in their answer which means that they are relevant to the process,” he said.

Lawyers for the petitioner, John Mahama are asking the EC to answer, among others, how the Chairperson of the EC, Jean Mensa, arrived at the figures she used in declaring candidate Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the 2020 presidential poll.

Also, the request requires the exercise of discretionary power that is granted when a case for relevance is made but since this has not been established hence the decision to dismiss the motion.

Following the court’s decision, Lead Counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata has filed an application urging the court to review its decision.  

Speaking on Newsfile Saturday, the Member of Parliament for Bolgatanga East said the administration of interrogatories will grant the legal team of the NDC's John Mahama the much-needed information to go ahead with their election petition.

According to him, the Electoral Commission in their submission to the court only narrated how they complied with the law in executing their duty while failing to touch on what actually happened on the ground.

“What the respondents did especially the 1^st respondent was basically to narrate how they complied with the law by just taking the law itself and narrating the procedure. Our questions are to find out in actual fact what happened. That is very important. “

Reacting to host, Samson Lardy Ayenini’s remark that the legal team could ditch the interrogatories for a cross-examination instead, Dr. Ayine stated that cross-examinations were too weak and could be overruled.

“Under cross-examination when you ask a question, it can be overruled. So cross-examination as a mechanism for putting that information forward is weaker than the administration of interrogatories.

“Because once the answers have been provided by the respondent and filed, they’re deemed admitted. So it is very important for us to have these answers," he said.