On the fourth. In January, the Supreme Court will hear a petition challenging the victory and swearing-in of Mr John Peter Ameyu, the elected MP for the Hoho constituency.
This decision was taken after a five-member panel chaired by Justice Yaw Appau granted the request of the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Godfried Yeboah Dame, to withdraw his request to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. January.
Consequently, the High Court of the District Court ordered Mr Tsatsatsu Tsikata, representing the parties concerned, to submit his reply in the Prosecutor General’s case by the 31st day. December at noon.
According to the Court, A-G could also provide a possible answer to the questions raised in Mr Cicata’s case before the closure of the case on 31 December. December of this year.
The lady, who had made an application for restraint, pointed out that the High Court had wrongly granted the application and requested the Supreme Court to uphold the decision of the Ho High Court of 23. December.
Mr. Lady said he wanted the Supreme Court to take the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The month of January would be resumed.
He noted that the case concerned the right of residents of the electoral district of the Hoho to be members of the Eighth Parliament and to sit in the Parliament.
Mr Tsikata, who said that he had learned of the ex-parte time saving request through his junior colleague, asked the Supreme Court to investigate the case because of its urgency.
According to Mr Cicata, the interested parties wanted the case to be dealt with first because of its urgency. January next year.
In his opinion, he did not want the court to rely on his earlier decision when he was asked to come to the merits of the case after examining the motion for a summary judgment.
He declared that they were ready to present their response to the General Assembly by the 31st. December.
The 29th. In December of this year, the Attorney General (AG) invoked the oversight power of the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the Ho High Court of 23 December of this year against the injunction issued against Mr Amewu, a Hoho delegate elected from the office of the representative of the constituency.
The Ho High Court, chaired by Judge George Buadi, has, at the request of the former parties, prevented the elected Member of Parliament from exercising his mandate as a constituent.
The A-G seeks an order prohibiting the High Court from hearing or dealing with the application.
According to the GA, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction for parliamentary elections on the basis of Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution and does not offer any remedy, provisional or otherwise.
A-G is looking for a certificate sent to the Supreme Court of Ho, AG said on 23. The December judgment of the court is invalid and thus contrary to Article 99 of the Constitution.
Therefore, in an ex parte request, the AG sought to shorten the period within which the parties could respond to the Supreme Court’s request for a review of jurisdiction.
The fact is, on the 7th. Presidential and parliamentary elections were held throughout the country in December this year.
According to the state, Mr Amewu, who was on the NPP ticket, was declared the winner of the general election in the Hoho constituency in the Volta area with 55.18 percent.
The results of the general elections were duly announced by the Electoral Commission on 22 December this year.
According to the information provided by the State on 23 November 2000. On 12 December this year, under the leadership of the defeated candidate of the National Democratic Congress for the electoral district of the Hoho, the persons concerned invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Hoho on the basis of Article 33, invoking a violation of their human rights during the general elections for the electoral district of the Hoho and asking the Court to grant them various remedies.
There is therefore no doubt that the appeal to the Supreme Court, Ho, is a clear abuse of process. Judge Bouadi’s miscarriage of justice is a serious error that seems to be reflected in the report.
This Court should exercise its power of supervision in order to prevent secret attempts by interested parties to enforce voting rights in a manner not authorised by the Constitution.
Their argument is based on bad faith and an attempt to seek legal sanctions for unconstitutionality.
This is nothing more than a notorious attempt to disrupt the hard-won victory of Hoho’s constituency in the general election by an unjustified appeal to the Court of Human Rights, the state says.
Disclaimer : Ghana News is not responsible for the reports or opinions of the authors published on the site.
Send your messages to [secure email] and via WhatsApp at +1-508-812-0505.
Related Tags:
