• Mr. Tsikata argued the motion for the production of documents for inspection. He stated that the Petitioner was looking to inspect the originals of the documents stated in the application because of the differences in the figures put out by the EC. He stated that there was a need to be clear about the numbers used for the declaration. He argued further that unlike the 2013 election petition, the Petitioner had not brought any documents but was instead relying on the declaration of the EC and that the grant of the application will ensure the Petitioner is granted a fair trial.
• Mr. Amenuvor opposed the application and stated that no request had been made by the Petitioner within the 21 days prior to filing his Petition. He stated that today was the 34th day after filing the Petition and that the Petitioner had not acted timeously in bringing the application. He argued that the burden of proof was on the Petitioner and that it could not be shifted to the EC.
• Mr. Ampaw opposed the application. He argued that the burden of providing evidence and the burden of persuasion were on the Petitioner. The Petitioner had to show that the documents he has in his custody are different from the documents he is seeking to inspect. He argued that the Petitioner has refused to produce any document before the Court and rather wants to inspect documents to assist him in prosecuting his case.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not produced the carbonised copy of the documents he seeks to inspect to challenge the authenticity of the documents in the custody of the EC. The Petitioner has not provided any evidence of lack of transparency and wants to use the application to “conjure away the burden of producing evidence” before the Court. He argued further that the application had not met the test of necessity under law and therefore, was completely unmeritorious.
• The Court held that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that he did not have copies of the documents he seeks to inspect and that the Petitioner’s own witnesses admitted that they have the documents in their possession. The Court held that no proper case had been made to warrant the exercise of its discretion to grant the application and that there had been no issue of authenticity raised. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.
• Mr. Tsikata then informed the Court that he had a peculiar matter that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Court in chambers.
• The Court, having heard the matter in chambers together with counsel for all the parties, adjourned the Petition to Friday, 5 February, 2021.
Coram: Anin Yeboah, Apau, Marful-Sau, Amegatcher, Kotey, Owusu, Torkornoo
Parties: Petitioner represented by the General Secretary (Johnson Asiedu Nketia).
1st Respondent represented by the Chairperson (Jean Adukwei Mensa).
2nd Respondent represented by Campaign Manager (Peter Mac Manu).
Legal representation: Tony Lithur led by Tsatsu Tsikata for Petitioner; Justin Amenuvor with Somuah Asamoah for 1st Respondent; and Akoto Ampaw with Frank Davies, Kwaku Asirifi and Yaw Oppong for 2nd Respondent.
CREDIT: Kow Essuman
