The 2020 presidential candidate of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), John Dramani Mahama has written to the Supreme Court to request for a live broadcast of the hearing of his petition challenging the results of the 2020 polls.
This is according to documents sighted by citinewsroom.com
The document said, “that counsel for and on behalf of petitioner shall move this Honorable Court for an order directing live transmission of the whole of the proceedings in this petition upon the grounds contained in the accompanying affidavit, and such for further or other orders as the Honorable Court may deem fit.”
On Wednesday, December 30, 2020, lawyers for Mr. Mahama filed a suit at the Supreme Court following the party‘s audit of the 2020 Presidential results “and extensive consultations with the National Executive Committee and Council of Elders of the party”.
In a statement, the NDC said the petition details “serious violations of the 1992 Constitution by the Electoral Commission and its Chairperson and Returning Officer for the Presidential Election, Mrs. Jean Adukwei Mensa in the conduct of their constitutional and legal responsibility.”
The petition seeks among others, a declaration from the Supreme Court to the effect that, “the purported declaration of the results of the 2020 Presidential Election on the 9th day of December 2020 is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”
He subsequently asked the court to annul the election result and order for another poll to be conducted between himself and President Akufo-Addo.
However, the President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the election petition.
President Akufo-Addo described Mahama’s petition as “incompetent, frivolous and vexatious”.
“That in the circumstance, the petition is incompetent, frivolous and vexatious and discloses no reasonable cause of action in terms of 64(1) of the constitution.”
“2nd respondent accordingly invites this honourable court to determine that the petition is incompetent, frivolous and vexatious and discloses no reasonable cause of action in terms of 64(1) of the constitution and sets the issue down for legal arguments.”