A private citizen, Kwaku Antwi-Boasiako of Accra, has said it is dangerous for anybody to “blackmail” judges in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition because some decisions of the court do not go their way.
He said the actions and utterances of those who were not getting “favourable” rulings at the hearing are trying to suggest that “the Supreme Court must bend backwards to accommodate their motions when such motions do not meet the standards of the law.”
He said in a release yesterday that “How can a petitioner come to the Supreme Court under Article 64(1) of the 1992 Constitution, but when their lordships apply the spirit and letter of Article 64(3) and thus rely on Rules of Court and Statute (such as C.I. 16, as amended by C.I. 74 and C.I. 99, and Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323) to determine and dismiss motions that do not meet the standards of the law, then all hell break loose among constitutional lawyers, social commentators and civil society organizations?
“As an unlearned person, I feel particularly scandalized by the suggestions from constitutional lawyers that somehow, there is nothing wrong for an election petition to be filed under a constitutional provision but there is everything wrong for the Supreme Court to then insist that ‘our jurisdiction invoked in this election petition is a limited jurisdiction clearly circumscribed by law. We do not intend to extend our mandate beyond what the law requires of us in such petitions brought under article 64(1) challenging the validity of the election of a President.’”
Weird Argument
“I feel even more scandalized by the suggestion that the posture of the Supreme Court can lead to a situation where in future, supporters of a losing presidential candidate would resort to violence rather than allow their candidate to seek redress at the Supreme Court. Really? Are we stooping so low to blackmail? Are we being asked to treat the petitioner as a spoilt child who must be showered with candies, otherwise he will throw tantrums and resort to violence to destroy every breakable in the house?” he said.
He said “another suggestion that has been made is that it will not hurt anybody for the Supreme Court to ignore Article 64(3) and just use its discretion to force the EC Chairperson to testify against the rules and statute to satisfy a certain public opinion and certain progressive election petition jurisprudence. We are told that even if that can lead to a situation where once in every four years we may have a ridiculous election petition filed at the Supreme Court, that will be better than losers in the current election petition losing faith in the judicial process (i.e., the Supreme Court).”
Respondents’ Rights
He said there was a petitioner and there were respondents in the instant election petition, adding, “Regardless of the so-called public interest that will be served by the proposal being espoused, the respondents also have an equal right to ‘justice’.”
“Any suggestion that the respondents’ right to justice must be sacrificed for the benefit of the petitioner and to satisfy some public opinion and progressive election petition jurisprudence is grossly misplaced and unfair,” he said, adding “what is the guarantee that supporters of a future petitioner, who presents a ridiculous petition to the Supreme Court, will also not hold the country to ransom by insisting that regardless of how ridiculous the petition may be the Supreme Court cannot dismiss the petition, failing which they will destroy the country?”
He said he had no doubt there would be electoral reforms and new constitutional instruments regulating future presidential elections and election petitions in Ghana, following lessons from the 2020 Presidential Election.