Justice Yaw Owoahene Acheampong of the High Court, Ho, yesterday set July 29, 2024, for his judgment in the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe, and Lolobi (SALL) traditional areas case in which over 17,000 were allegedly disenfranchised by the Electoral Commission (EC)at the 2020 election.

This was after John Peter Amewu finally gave up openly speaking on his claim to winning the Hohoe Constituency seat, running away from testifying in the SALL election petition filed by Professor Margaret Kweku, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Parliamentary candidate in the 2020 election.

The Ho court had prepared to hear the Railway Development Minister testify at yesterday's proceedings, justifying the credibility of his election, but the Court was left disappointed. Earlier, the EC had also refused to enter the witness box.

Mr. Amewu was the candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the Hohoe Parliamentary contest and was eventually declared by EC after 17,688 registered voters were not allowed to vote in that election.

EC officials have recently been running away from speaking about their conduct from the witness box.

Yesterday, counsel for Mr. Amewu, Benedict Kofitse, notified the Court that his client had decided not to testify in his defence.

This is despite having filed an amended witness statement on July 1, 2024.

Kofitse indicated that the issues in the case were mostly legal, and he would address the Court on them.

The Court had stood the case down when it was called earlier because counsel for Amewu was in another court.

Justice Owoahene Acheampong indicated after consultation with the lawyers that the addresses by counsel for the petitioners, as well as the 1st Respondent (EC), should be filed within seven days.

Counsel for Amewu, who had asked for 14 days, was granted ten days to file, with Justice Owoahene Acheampong, indicating that non-compliance with these timelines will not be tolerated.

Yesterday's date was fixed after Amewu's counsel informed the Court that he had not been able to produce his client before last Wednesday's court session because Amewu was on a national assignment.

Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the petitioners who is supposed to cross-examine the Railway Development Minister if he turns up in Court, pointed out to the Court that Amewu's behaviour was undermining the Court's authority.

The trial was due to continue on June 26, 2024, and Amewu was expected to testify. Before the commencement of the case, Amewu evaded court bailiffs for nearly a year, and his thugs allegedly inflicted violence on bailiffs.

The Court also added two additional issues filed by Amewu. These issues were whether or not this Court has the power to declare that the enactment of C. I 128 violated Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution and whether or not this Court has the power to declare that the 1st Respondent had no power to place the SALL communities under the Jasikan District (as was done under CI 119 per Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution).

The addition of these two issues followed an extensive legal exchange between counsels for the various parties. Tsikata emphasized that the issues already set down by the Court covered these additional issues.

He referred to the Court's previous consideration of whether C. I 95 had been validly amended by C.I 128.

He argued that there was no dispute about the interpretation of Article 47(5) and that the Court was only being called upon to apply the provisions according to their terms, which did not require a reference to the Supreme Court for interpretation.

He cited several Supreme Court decisions to support his argument, indicating that C. I 119 was inconsistent with the Local Governance Act and did not change the composition of the Hohoe Municipality.

Benedict Kofitse argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to declare that C. I 128 was enacted in violation of Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution, referencing Article 130(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution.

Counsel for the EC also argued this position, insisting that C.I 128 was the instrument under which the 2020 election had been conducted throughout the country.

In response, Tsatsu Tsikata emphasized that the matter before the High Court concerned only the Hohoe constituency and the validity of C.I 128, in removing the SALL traditional areas from that constituency.

In the end, the Court ordered that should the 2nd Respondent wish to file an additional witness statement after filing the additional issues, they should do so within three days from today.

Benedict Kofitse, counsel for the 2nd Respondent, indicated that they may not file an additional witness statement and may opt not to testify at all.