https://www.myjoyonline.com/supreme-court-to-hear-motion-on-reopening-of-mahamas-petition-case-request-to-subpoena-jean-mensa-today/-------https://www.myjoyonline.com/supreme-court-to-hear-motion-on-reopening-of-mahamas-petition-case-request-to-subpoena-jean-mensa-today/

The Supreme Court will today hear the application filed by counsels for the 2020 NDC presidential candidate, John Mahama to reopen his case in the ongoing election petition.

The motion comes on the back of a ruling by the Apex Court that the EC Chair, Jean Mensa cannot be compelled to testify.

Lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata who closed his case after three witnesses for John Mahama were cross-examined, had raised objections when the lawyer for the EC, Justin Amenuvor said he will not be calling any witnesses and therefore moved to close his case.

The objection by Lawyer Tsikata subsequently led to oral arguments by all the counsels as to whether a person can be compelled to testify or induce evidence in court.

Giving its ruling in favor of the EC, the 7-member panel of judges made up of the Chief Justice, Anin-Yeboah; Justices Yaw Appau, Marful Sau, Professor Ashie Kotei, Mariama Owusu, Nene Amegatcher, and Gertrude Tokonor said the apex court cannot force Jean Mensa to testify in court.

This according to the judges is because the court has no say in whether a party should testify or not and "will not yield to the invitation being extended by counsel for the petitioner to order the respondent to enter the witness box to be cross-examined."

But documents sighted by JoyNews on Friday, February 12, indicated that the petitioner will subpoena the EC Chairperson to testify if his application to reopen his case is granted.

Meanwhile, the Electoral Commission through its chairperson Jean Mensa has filed an affidavit in opposition to this request.

Mrs. Mensa argued that at no point has she ever indicated a desire to testify in the ongoing hearing.

The Chairperson also added that should the court even grant the request for the case to be reopened, it should not order her to testify since such a decision will defeat its earlier ruling that she cannot be compelled to testify.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.


DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.