The spokesperson for President Akufo-Addo’s legal team has described the utterances by Dr Dominic Ayine of a predetermined agenda by the Supreme Court in the election petition hearing as scandalous.    

Kojo Oppong Nkrumah’s statement comes after Dr Ayine (a member of John Mahama’s legal team) alluded to a “predetermined agenda” by the Apex Court to rule against the petitioner in the ongoing election petition.

Dominic Ayine’s outburst followed a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss an application by lawyers for the petitioner that sought leave to reopen Mr Mahama’s case and subpoena the Electoral Commission Chairperson, Jean Mensa.

Reacting to this, the Ofoase Ayirebi MP indicated that it is unfair to the Judiciary to claim that the decision made by the justices of the Supreme Court was prearranged to rule in favour of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC) Jean Mensa.

“We keep making the point that it is not fair to the judicial system, it is not fair to our democracy, it is not fair to the people of Ghana that when you lose an application because it is not grounded in law or because you have failed to meet the legal standards, then you come here and literally poison the minds of the public and make claims that they may be having a predetermined agenda.

“That is scandalous of the court. When you make a legal argument and it is upheld, that one is good. When you make an argument and it doesn’t meet the threshold, then it means that they are wrong in law or that they had a predetermined agenda.”

Mr Oppong Nkrumah further explained that even though applications filed by the petitioner have so far been dismissed by the apex court, it does not mean the court is predetermined to rule against them.

The ruling of the Justices after every hearing, according to him does not in any way make the Supreme Court Judges misplaced in their judgement as purported by the legal counsel of the petitioner.

“It is true that all the applications that have come before this court have fallen flat but how can it be that the petitioner’s communication team now argues that the 7 justices or the 9 justices are always wrong in law and only Mr Tsikata is the one who understands the law, knows the law and is therefore always right. It cannot be,” he stressed.