The Legal team of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) says the party feels vindicated by the Supreme Court decision that revoked the power of the country’s courts to sit on public holidays. The team says many party activists have in the past been victims of the New Patriotic Party (NPP)’s manipulation of the court’s power. Citing a couple of instances in the 2008 elections to back its case, Nana Ato Dadzie, a leading member of the NDC legal team said on a public holiday in 2008, the NPP, led by Lawyer Atta Akyea went to court to try and overturn the declaration of Prof. John Evans Atta Mills as president. Again he recalled on another public holiday in December, some two NDC members were arrested, an action they firmly believed was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court Tuesday rewrote the rules governing election petitions. It rejected the previous regulation that required judges to hear election petitions even on weekends and holidays. It also removed a previous clause in the law that barred parties in an election petition from appealing the verdict. Member of the NPP legal team, Gloria Akufo said the courts must now simply apply the law and avoid hearings on holidays. General Secretary of the People’s National Convention (PNC) Bernard Mornah on Tuesday 30th April, won a writ he filed at the Supreme Court seeking to nullify portions of the Constitutional Instrument (C.I) 74. Rule 71B of C.I 74 provides that the decision of the Supreme Court in respect of a petition presented to challenge the election of a President cannot be reviewed. But lawyers for Mr Mornah argued that "To the extent that Rule 71B of C.I 74 seeks to extinguish the constitutional right in article 133 of the Constitution to seek a review of a decision of the Supreme Court in Presidential election petitions, same is unconstitutional, null and void, and of no effect”. The five member panel which sat on the matter upheld the lawyers’ argument. It also ruled that the Supreme Court sitting on public holidays will be unconstitutional. Mr Mornah also challenged Rule 69C (5) of the CI.I. 74 which stipulated “the Court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays" when hearing a Presidential election petition”. His argument was that it violates the Public Holidays Act.