Tsatsu Tsikata
The fate of Energy Minister, John Peter Amewu, who pulled a shocker in the parliamentary election on December 7, 2020, would be determined today as the Supreme Court gives its judgement in a case challenging his gazetting as MP-elect of Hohoe Constituency in the Volta Region.
The five-member panel presided over by Justice Yaw Appau heard oral arguments from Deputy Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing the state as a party to the suit and lawyer for the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), beneficiaries of the injunction, Tsatsu Tsikata.
The case before the apex court is challenging the propriety of a Ho High Court’s injunction on the Electoral Commission from gazetting John Peter Amewu as MP-elect for Hohoe Constituency.
Recusal Dismissed
As the court was set to hear the application, counsel for the beneficiary of the injuction which was secured via an ex parte motion at a Ho High Court late last year, Tsatsu Tsikata, raised an objection over the inclusion of Justice Clemence Jackson Honyenuga on the panel.
He then said the respected judge should recuse from the case, but the court dismissed the objection saying it lacked merit.
Mr. Tsikata had argued that Justice Honyenuga was a close friend of Mr. Amewu hence could be bias in the determination of the case before the court.
He added that there are witnesses who were willing to testify to the fact that the judge and the MP-elect have a long-standing close relationship.
Dame Fire
The objection was opposed by Deputy Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who stated that Mr. Tsikata has a duty to establish the case of bias against the said judge but has not done so, and that the claims are only premised on “speculative and conjecture.”
The five-member panel presided over by Justice Yaw Appau and assisted by Justices Samuel K. Marful-Sau, Honyenuga, Gertrude Torkornoo and Issifu Imoro Amadu Tanko overruled the objection as not having merit.
The court held that an allegation of bias against a judge is a serious case which must be backed with “irresistible evidence.”
He insisted that the move by Mr. Tsikata was meant to delay the process of adjudicating the substantive case before the court and must not be entertained.
Court Rules
The five-member panel when it reconstituted after rising for about thirty (30) minutes to consider the objection, dismissed the preliminary objection of Mr. Tsikata by holding that Mr. Amewu is not a party to the instant application even though he may be remotely affected by the decision of the court.
To this end, the court stated that whatever relationship that may exist between Justice Clemence Hoyenuga and John Peter Amewu “does not arise for consideration whatsoever,” adding, “There being no merit in the instant application therein, same is hereby dismissed.”
Main Injunction
A Ho High Court presided over by Justice George Buadi on December 23, 2020, granted an interim injunction aimed at restraining the Electoral Commission from gazetting John Peter Amewu as MP for Hohoe in the Volta Region.
The injunction was after an ex parte application was presented before the court by lawyer for some residents who claimed to be from the Hohoe Constituency.
Lawyer of the applicants, Tsatsu Tsikata, who argued for the ex parte motion, said the injunction was necessary because his clients who hailed from towns within the Hohoe Constituency were prevented from voting in the parliamentary elections that saw John Peter Amewu elected as Member of Parliament for Hohoe.
Substantive Case
But the Attorney General’s (AG) office went to the Supreme Court challenging the decision and argued that the orders of the court presided over by Justice George Buadi constituted a “flagrant abuse of the process of the court.”
The AG through Mr. Dame argued that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Article 33 of the Constitution and Order 67 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C. I. 47 to consider, determine or grant remedies in a matter of the nature of a parliamentary election petition, constitutionally required to be instituted under Article 99 of the Constitution and Section 16 of Representation of the People’s Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284).
“The wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by the court below and the orders made in consequence thereof, apart from being a patent error on the face of the record, portend a recipe for constitutional chaos. A possible consequence is that a part of the Hohoe Constituency will be in the Volta Region, and another part in the Oti Region, contrary to the express prohibition in Article 47(2) of the Constitution and as interpreted by this Court already,” he said.
The suit is seeking an order of certiorari directed at the Ho High Court to bring into the Supreme Court for the purpose of being quashed the orders of the court dated December 23, 2020.
The court is expected to deliver its judgement today.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak