A seven-member review panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Yaw Appau will today rule on an application for review from lawyers of the interested parties from Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe and Lololo otherwise known as (SALL).
The apex court panel of five on January 4, this year, unanimously quashed the decision of the High Court in Ho for injuncting John Peter Amewu, the then Member of Parliament-elect for the Hohoe Constituency from being gazetted.
Following the quashing of that application, lawyers of the interested parties led by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata are seeking to convince the court to reverse that ruling.
Moving an 18-ground relief, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata argued that, there was a fundamental error in the apex court’s ordinary bench’s decision occasioned them a miscarriage of justice.
He argued that there was a complete miscomprehension on the part of the ordinary bench about the case of the interested parties based on the ruling which held that, it was the Electoral Commission that organised the elections and Peter Amewu was only a participant.
He argued further that, the case of the interested parties is that, the denial of over 17, 000 voters to vote undermines the elections of the Hohoe Constituency.
Mr Tsikata posited that the ordinary bench’s ruling that, Peter Amewu had nothing to do with the case that was put forth at the Ho High Court was a fundamental error and wanted the Court to have the Hohoe Constituency parliamentary elections annulled.
He contended that it was enforcement of fundamental rights to vote under Article 33 of the Constitution that the interested parties were seeking and not an election petition.
It was also the case of Mr Tsikata that, the likelihood of biased raised about Justice Clemence Honyenugah, a member of the ordinary panel should have recused himself when it was challenged by the interested parties.
AG opposed
Chief State Attorney, Grace Awol while opposing the application argued that, the case of the interested parties have already been dealt with by the ordinary bench.
He however conceded that, the issue of fundamental human rights as was cited by the council.
He argued further that, the other grounds made by the interested parties counsel was a rehearsed of the argument and that in terms of Rule 54 which make it relevant for the Court to review the decision of the ordinary bench.
This application he said does not meet the requirements of Rule 54.
Background
It would be recalled that, on December 23, last year, the High Court in Ho presided over by Justice George Boadi granted an injunction application after some residents of SALL argued that their inability to vote in December 7, 2020, parliamentary election amounted to a breach of their constitutional rights.
But, the apex court in the Certiorari application filed by the Attorney General’s department ruled that the said injunction order elapsed before Mr Amewu was gazetted.
