The seven justices and at times nine judges hearing the 2020 Election Petition have been called upon on 11 occasions to rule on various issues.

These are matters that have seen lawyers representing the Respondents (EC and President Akufo-Addo) take positions contrary to the position of the petitioner, John Mahama.

The seven judges hearing the case are Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, Justices Yaw Appau, Marful Sau, Nene Amegatcher, Prof. Kotey, Mariama Owusu, and Gertrude Torkonoo .

They have on three occasions been joined by Justices Amadu Tanko (all three occasions) and Prof Henrietta Mensa Bonsu (twice) and Avril-Lovelace Johnson (once).

The rulings so far

All the court’s decisions in the last few weeks have been unanimous 7-0 and 9-0 on four occasions.

1. First it unanimously granted the petitioners request to amend the petition Ie correct minor mistakes that did not affect the substance of the petition.

Mahama’s lawyers move to correct errors in 2020 election petition

2. It unanimously dismissed a request for interrogatories to be served. These were 12 questions they wanted the EC Chairperson to answer

Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s 12 interrogatories for the EC

3. Constituted as a 9 member panel, it unanimously dismissed a request to substitute a paragraph and add additional ground in a push by the petitioner to have the interrogatories ruling reviewed.

Allow me to demonstrate further that your ruling was contrary to law – Mahama to Supreme Court

4. This 9 member panel also unanimously dismissed the review of interrogatories ruling itself.

Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s application to review ruling on interrogatories

5. The original 7 member panel by a unanimous decision struck out portions of the petitioner’s witness (Asiedu Nketia) statement (7 paragraphs) while maintaining 3 parts following a request by the Respondents.

Election petition: Supreme Court strikes out 7 portions of Asiedu Nketia’s statement

6. This panel also unanimously dismissed a request by the petitioner for documents to be inspected.

Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s application to inspect 6 EC documents

7. The panel unanimously struck out 5 parts of 32 paragraphs of the petitioner’s witness statement (Mettle-Nunoo)

Supreme Court strikes out 5 paragraphs from Mettle-Nunoo’s witness statement; 27 maintained

8. The panel unanimously rejected the petitioner’s request to compel the EC to call Jean Mensa to testify

We cannot compel Jean Mensa to give evidence – Supreme Court judges 

9. The panel unanimously dismissed the petitioners request to reopen his case

You cannot reopen your case – Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s application

10. The enhanced 9 member panel dismissed the petitioner’s request that it reviews its decision not to compel Jean Mensa to testify.

Jean Mensa cannot be compelled to testify – Supreme Court affirms earlier ruling

11. An enhanced 9 member panel dismissed a request that it reviews its decision not to allow the petitioner reopen his case

Review jurisdiction should not be used as emotional reaction to unfavourable judgment – Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s latest application

From the above, it is only on one occasion that a request by the petitioner has been wholly granted.

This was the request to correct mistakes.

The petitioner’s viewpoint has been partly upheld on two occasions when it came to striking out portions of witness statements.

The legal arguments of the Respondents have however swayed the judges 8 times.