Lawyer for one of the plaintiffs in the John Mahama, EC chair appointment case has said their writ was not against the newly appointed chair of the Commission Mrs Charlotte Osei.

Danso Acheampong told Joy News hours after their case was dismissed by the Supreme Court that the writ was to bring clarity on the mode of appointment of the EC chair and also to put an end to the controversy that surrounds the appointment.

"Mrs Osei was never mentioned in the writ," he said adding it was in the middle of their case that the president appointed the first woman chair of the EC.

The Supreme Court dismissed the suit filed by Richard Sky, a journalist with CITI FM and one other person, suits which sought to clarify how the president ought to go about the appointment of the Chair of the Commission.

The suits were filed shortly after Dr Afari Gyan had gone on retirement and the president was considering a replacement.

The plaintiffs among other issues raised article 72 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and argued that the process to appoint a new EC chair has to be initiated by the Council of State and not the president.

They also argued that the president was bound to accept the Council's suggestions as to who is appointed chair of the Commission.

But the Supreme Court judges dismissed the writ saying the suggestions by the Council of State is not binding on the president but at the same time, the president cannot go outside the suggestions made by the Council.

Danso Acheampong told Joy News he is disappointed with the ruling.

He said the framers of the constitution believed that even though the president had powers of appointment there were some of the appointments, that he needed approval from the Council of State before going ahead.

He said there were some of the appointments if left for the political appointing authority, could lead to the appointments of people who support his ideology.

"What is the use of the Council of State if their suggestions can't be binding?" he asked.

Even though he was disappointed, he said that will be the end of the road for him in seeking clarity on the matter, adding the Supreme Court's ruling is final.