General News of Thursday, 17 January 2013
Source: Daily Searchlight Newspaper
Mr Philip Addison, the lead counsel for the petitioners challenging the results of the 2012 presidential elections, has described the application for joinder filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) as incompetent, unmeritorious and intended to muddy the waters.
He has stated that in his opinion the NDC is not even properly before the court, and therefore the Supreme Court should throw away the petition by the party, since it has not been able to establish how its interest would be affected to a worse extent than the first respondent in the case, Mr John Mahama.
Nana Akufo-Addo, the flag bearer of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has filed a petition challenging the validity of the election of John Mahama as President of Ghana.
Also cited in the petition is the Electoral Commission. Nana Akufo-Addo is joined in the application by Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, his running mate, and Mr Jake Obestebi Lamptey, the National Chairman of the NPP.
Addressing the court yesterday in response to the motion for joinder filed by the NDC, Mr Philip Addison, who was leading a posse of Ghana’s legal best stated that the petitioners/ respondents were totally opposed to the application, describing it as completely unmeritorious.
He stated that there is the issue of whether it is even properly before the court.
He stated that they came on Rule 45 (4) of C.I. 16, which provides that the court may in its own wisdom make a person a party to the motion in court. He said that under the applicable law there is no provision for joinder, and that there are clear differences under the rules under which the NDC came and he rules that ought to be used.
“We say so because there are clear differences in invoking the processes involved in part 8 and part 4. In part 4 there is no bound. There is no restriction in part 4, whilst part 8 there is restriction, which is that you have to be a citizen. Part 4 was made pursuant to article 130, whilst part 8 was made pursuant to article 69.
"We submit that since there is a specific provision for joinder in part 4 and not in part 8 the presumption is that the exclusion is general. There is no action under part 4 and if they bring it under part 4 it is incompetent.
“Furthermore a joinder is not anticipated in part 8 and if it is granted it would defeat the express purpose of part 8, which is the expeditious trial of this case,” Mr Addison stated.