Supreme Court dismisses Mahama's application to reopen case
The Chief Justice who read the ruling said the petitioner has not satisfied the grounds necessary to convince the court to allow reopening of the case
Jonas Danquah 
The Supreme Court has in a unanimous decision dismissed an application by John Mahama seeking leave to reopen his election petition case.
Counsel of the petitioner had urged the court to grant his request saying he intends to subpoena EC Chairperson, Jean Mensa to testify.
Arguing his case yesterday, lead counsel for Mr Mahama, Tsatsu Tsikata said they were taken by surprise when the EC Chairperson opted not to testify after submitting a witness statement, hence the decision to reopen the case and ask for a subpoena.
He insisted that there were also allegations that came up during the cross-examination of their witnesses and these are matters only the EC Chairperson can speak to.
As reported by myjoynewsonline, lawyer Tsikata giving further arguments before the ruling today, said he has listed new authorities that will back claims that the Chairperson is an individual and therefore can be subpoenaed.
But this request had been opposed by lawyers for the EC and President Akufo-Addo; the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the election petition hearing.
READ ALSO:
Blame the 'higher authorities' for looming judgement debt - John Jinapor
Both sides insist that the petitioner is simply seeking to use the back door to boost a petition he has failed woefully to prove.
The two counsels further argued that if the quest is to provide new evidence, then Mr. Mahama’s team has failed to demonstrate that there is a piece of evidence they can extract from the EC Chairperson with the potential to materially affect how the case is determined.
Backing this stance, Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah who read the ruling said the petitioner has not indicated how the evidence he intends to solicit from the EC Chairperson will help to determine the case.
He explained that the discretion to allow a petitioner to reopen a case must not be abused and can only be granted when two grounds have been satisfied
This includes whether the new evidence will have an influence on the case and if it could have been obtained through due diligence.
Both grounds, he maintained where not satisfied by the counsel for the petitioner during his oral argument.
The hearing has been adjourned to Wednesday, February 17.
