Tsatsu Tsikata, the Lead Counsel for the Petitioner in the Election Petition has said most of the decisions taken by the justices of the Supreme Court during the Election Petition won’t stand the test of time in the legal jurisprudence of this country.

Speaking on the KSM show, the legal luminary said, “I am convinced that in time some of the decisions which I am suggesting humbly are not right that [were] made by the judges about the interrogatories and so on; they are decisions which will not ultimately stand the test of time. That’s my conviction.”

Tsikata observed: “They won’t stand the test of time because when you look at the framework of the constitution that we have, and the way in which that framework seeks to make public officials accountable it is difficult to square that constitutional framework with decisions which just put a shield, a cordon around public officials and does not enable them to step forward to give an account of what they’ve done. So, I think that the whole constitutional framework that we have seeks to enhance the accountability of public officials.”

Tsikata indicated that that is a very underlying principle and therefore if your decisions do not advance that, in the long run, it will be seen as an aberration.

Background

The Supreme Court during the 2020 Election Petition unanimously dismissed an application filed by John Dramani Mahama asking it to review a decision to disallow him from asking the Electoral Commission some 12 questions.

Lead Counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata had argued that the interrogatories are relevant as it would help the apex court determine the authenticity of the result that was declared on December 9, 2020, by the EC.

Again, he explained that Order 22 under CI 47 can still be applied since it will not affect the 42-day timeline the court wants to meet under the CI 99.

But giving its ruling, the court held that the threshold required of the applicant to enable it to review its decision had not been met.
The Supreme Court explained that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to necessitate the review powers of the court; neither had any new evidence been added to urge the court to take a different view.