Did Judges Run To Amend Ruling In Chambers?

0

The landmark election petition hearing which finally ended with the Supreme Court dismissing the application brought to it by petitioners, Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and Jake Obetsebi Lamptey and thereby granting John Mahama the opportunity to continue his term as President, seemed to be challenged by many people who indeed believed justice might have been tempered with.

Information however is that, after the declaration of the verdict in open court on Thursday August 29th 2013, the judges at the Supreme Court moved to correct the said anomaly, which was done.

In open court on that Thursday, According to Atuguba, ?Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe, and Akoto-Bamfo, dismiss the claim of over voting.?

?Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe, Akoto-Bamfo, dismiss the claims relating to absence of signature of presiding officer.?

?Atuguba, Adinyira, Dotsey, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe, Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claim relating to voting without biometric verification.?

?Ansah, Owusu and Anim Yeboah grant all the three claims, that is to say, over voting, absence of presiding officers? signature and voting without biometric verification, annul the votes involved and order a rerun of the affected areas.?

?Dotsey JSC grants the claim of over-voting but has provided a road-map in his judgement as in the figures of votes to be ascertained and cancelled and a re-run of the areas affected.?

?Dotsey JSC upholds the claim relating to absence of presiding officers? signatures on the pink sheets cancels the results concerned and orders a rerun of the areas affected.?

?Baffoe-Bonnie JSC grants the claim of voting without biometric verification cancels the votes involved and orders a rerun of the areas affected.?

In this his ruling, Justice William Atuguba named Justice Baffoe Bonney as one of the judges who dismissed the case of voting without biometric verification-one of the electoral irregularity cited by the Petitioners; he is also on record to have named the same judge as having upheld the voting without biometric verification irregularity.

On the specific case of voting without biometric verification, the new ruling as corrected reads: “Atuguba, Adinyira, Dotse, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo, JJSC dismiss the claim relating to voting without biometric verification.”

The court, according to information gave its reason as an administrative decision to effect the correction. Indeed, this has also been battled with clear case of the point that ?Administrative order cannot override a judicial decision,? and hence the Court must not do so administratively but rather inform parties involved and call them to court for that correction to be made.

Serious questions have been asked as to the conduct of the justices in regards the delivery of justice. The issue according some legal luminaries as declared in court had become ?Functus Officio,? and thus the court needs to call all parties to court before making any correction to their verdict.

Some also say, the Supreme Court did not exercise any jurisdiction before rushing to make corrections to the verdict declared in open court when it was obvious that the declaration is ?Functus Officio.?

However, High Court Civil Procedure rules CI 47, Oder 16 rule 10, (Correction of Clerical Errors) reads, ?clerical mistakes in judgements or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at anytime be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or notice to the parties or on an application without an appeal.?

With the above rule, legal brains argued that although the court has inherent jurisdiction to correct accidental slips, omissions or clerical errors in its judgements it cannot, on its own motion do so after it has become ?functus officio.?

A member of the legal team of the Petitioners, Godfred Dame noticed that the ruling was flawed in that regard.

However, with the correction, four of the judges have been deemed to have upheld the Petitioners’ claim of voting without biometric verification, bringing the decision to 5-4 in favour of the Respondents, instead of the 6-3 (in favour of the Respondents) earlier announced by the presiding Judge.

According to Godfred Dame the correction or change is curious and raises several legal issues, expressing doubts at how the judges having announced the verdict in open court in the full glare of the public will now seek to amend the ruling in chambers.

?If anything, the judges ought to have reconvened in open court to make the correction formal,? he said.

He explained the rules of court stipulates that once a verdict has been given, the verdict becomes an order and takes effect almost immediately, and that the court cannot go back to amend the order in chambers.

Godfred Dame insisted the “contradiction” in the ruling is only a testimony of ruling handed in “haste.”

Many other lawyers, and the public as well are demanding to know whether it was the presiding judge alone who corrected the anomaly, whether it was all the nine judges and if it wasthe registrar?

The Justices who sat on the case were, Justice William Atuguba presiding, include Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe- Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

Justice William Atuguba, President of the bench, who read the decision, concluded by saying that ?in the circumstances, the overall effect is that the first respondent was validly elected and the petition is therefore dismissed.”

Below is the full text of the judgement as read by Justice Atuguba in open court:

The Final Verdict:

Well, this is the decision we have arrived at:

Upon a scrutiny of the petition, we found that the issues to be determined are as set out at page 125 of the counsel for the petitioners? written address were as follows:

1. Over voting, 2. voting without biometric verification, 3. absence of the signature of the presiding officer, 4. duplicate serial numbers, that is to say occurrence of the same serial numbers on pink sheets for two different polling stations, 5. duplicate polling station codes, that is to say occurrence of different results of pink sheets for polling stations with the same polling station codes, 6. unknown polling stations, that is to say results recorded for polling stations that are not part of 26,002 polling stations provided by the second respondent in the petition.

We unanimously dismiss the claims relating to duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes, and unknown polling stations that is for short.

Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe, and Akoto-Bamfo, dismiss the claim of over voting.

Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe, Akoto-Bamfo, dismiss the claims relating to absence of signature of presiding officer.

Atuguba, Adinyira, Dotsey, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe, Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claim relating to voting without biometric verification

Ansah, Owusu and Anim Yeboah grant all the three claims, that is to say, over voting, absence of presiding officers? signature and voting without biometric verification, annul the votes involved and order a rerun of the affected areas

Dotsey JSC grants the claim of over-voting but has provided a road-map in his judgement as in the figures of votes to be ascertained and cancelled and a re-run of the areas affected

Dotsey JSC upholds the claim relating to absence of presiding officers? signatures on the pink sheets cancels the results concerned and orders a rerun of the areas affected

Baffoe-Bonnie JSC grants the claim of voting without biometric verification cancels the votes involved and orders a rerun of the areas affected

In the circumstances the overall effect is that the first respondent was validly elected and the petition is therefore dismissed.

Our various judgements for the sake of convenience are handed over to the registrar of this court

We highly commend the services of KPMG, the referee appointed to undertake the count of the pink sheet and also the counsels on all sides of this case.

That is our judgement.

Send your news stories to [email protected] Follow News Ghana on Google News

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here