SALL election denial case: Court sets 2nd July for Peter Amewu to testify after several delay tactics

The Ho High Court, today ordered that Hon. Peter Amewu is to provide his testimony on July 2, 2024.

This was after Counsel for Mr Amewu told the court that he had not been able to produce his client before the court today because he is on a national assignment.

Counsel for the Petitioners pointed out to the court that the behavior of the 2nd Respondent was undermining the authority of the Court since at the last adjourned date the trial was due to continue today June 26, 2024 and he was expected to testify.

Prior to the commencement of the case, Amewu evaded court bailiffs for nearly a year in addition to his thugs inflicting violence on bailiffs.

The Court also added to the issues for trial, two additional issues that had been filed by Counsel for the 2nd Respondent Hon. Peter Amewu. These issues were:

1. Whether or not this Honourable Court has the power to declare that the enactment of C.I 128 was in violation of article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution.

2. Whether or not this Honorable Court has power to declare that the 1st Respondent had no power to place the SALL communities under the Jasikan District (as was done under CI 119 per Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution.

The addition of these 2 issues was after an extensive legal exchange between counsel for the various parties. Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the issues already set down by the Court covered these 2 additional issues. He referred in particular to the fact that the court has already set down as an issue whether C.I 95 had been validly amended by C.I 128. He argued that there was no dispute about the interpretation of Article 47(5), and therefore, the Court was only being called upon to apply the provisions according to its terms. This did not require a reference to the Supreme Court for the exercise of its powers to enforce or interpret the constitution. He referred to a number of Supreme Court decisions to buttress his argument. Counsel indicated that C.I 119 was inconsistent with the Local Governance Act and so did not change the composition of the Hohoe Municipality.

Counsel for Hon. Peter Amewu argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to declare that C.I 128 was enacted in violation of Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution. He referenced Article 130(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution to support his argument.

Counsel for the Electoral Commission also argued the same position, insisting that C.I 128 was the instrument under which the 2020 election had been conducted throughout the country.

In response to this, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata emphasized that the matter before the High Court was in respect only of the Hohoe constituency and the validity of C.I 128 in removing the SALL traditional areas from that constituency

In the end, the court also ordered that should 2nd Respondent wish to file an additional witness statement after filing the additional issues, they should do so within three days from today.

Counsel for 2nd Respondent indicated that they may not file additional witness statement. He also indicated that 2nd Respondent may opt not to testify at all.