Empanelling all Supreme Court Justices will halt judicial administration – Lawyer Nimako

Read Comments Comments (20)

• YAW ASIEDU 11 years ago

  Komfo Anokye grade C trokosi

  Komfo Anokye grade C trokosi

  reply
• OMari Dominic 11 years ago

  The Supreme Court has power to remove Mahama from office and make Akufo Addo President.
  We know that when big masquerades appear, little ones take to their heels. Nobody has and will ever dispute the fact that those who sta ...
  read full comment

  The Supreme Court has power to remove Mahama from office and make Akufo Addo President.
  We know that when big masquerades appear, little ones take to their heels. Nobody has and will ever dispute the fact that those who start running usually start walking and in most times, crawl? Is it not equally true that neither the Amalgamation of Nefarious Alliance against Democratic Dividends nor a conglomerate of deficient and criminally-minded persons have ever succeeded in any part of the world? The Nefarious Destructive Cancer seems to have forgotten one important thing and it is better they are reminded to enable them come to the realization that a day of reckoning awaits them and that the day the lion is fatally crippled will be the day the sheep will go to demand what rightly belongs to it. Surely, there can be no peace without justice.
  But it is a sad phenomenon today to realize that this cardinal principle has been thrown overboard by Ghanaians. Our philosophy of being one another’s keeper is no longer tenable. Negative Politics has taken the better part of us for everything one does or think is hinged on that.
  The December 7, 2012 Elections have come but the reverberations are still with us. The New Patriotic Party which happens to be the largest opposition party in the country has smelt a rat in the conduct of the elections and is in court to challenge its outcome. All eyes will from now on be feasted on the Supreme Court which is the final adjudicator of the case.
  The likely scenario at the Supreme Court: There are four likely scenarios to emerge from the petition at the Supreme Court. These are –
  The petition can be thrown out due to lack of evidence. Under that scenario, the status quo remains.
  The results from polling stations where irregularities took place can be annulled and fresh elections ordered.
  It can order a Re-Run Elections between the top contenders in the last elections.
  The Supreme Court can order that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo won the elections and should be sworn in as President.
  Nigeria as a Test Case: I have been an expert on Nigerian politics and have chosen to use the country as a test case because we share a common history and ancestry with that country. We cannot discount the fact that when Nigeria sneezes, Ghana catches cold. Recently, when there was gas shortage in the country, President John Mahama quickly rushed to Nigeria to have discussion with the country’s political leadership on how to remedy the situation here in Ghana.
  Nigeria was the first to stage a coup d’état in 1965. Ghana followed suit in 1966. The two countries have had a history of expelling nationalities of other African countries from its territory. Ghana first did it in 1969. Nigeria retaliated twice in quick succession. Ghana was the first of the two countries to hand over power from the Military to a civilian administration when in 1969 the NLC’s Three Member Presidential Commission led by Lt. Gen. Okatakyie Akwasi Amankwaa Afrifah handed over power to Prime Minister Kofi Abrefa Busia in 1969. Twenty years later, Nigeria’s Matthew Aremu Okikiade Olusegun Obasanjo of the Supreme Military Council Handed over power to the newly elected President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN).
  Nigeria introduced the National Service Scheme and Ghana quickly followed suit. Nigeria began the concept of the JSS& SSS concept and Ghana had no choice but to tag along. Here, it must be stated that one or two English speaking West African Countries had earlier taken the lead before Nigeria. Again, it was Nigeria that mooted the ECOMOG idea and Ghana joined. What about the National Road Safety Corps? It was Nigeria First, Ghana Second. The same with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation! Ghana now has the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation whose one time Chairman, Tsatsu Tsikata was sacked by Jerry Rawlings at the twilight of the First NDC’s administration.
  Nigeria is yet to execute any of its past leaders for alleged acts of embezzlement, corruption and dissipation of public funds. Ghana had in 1979 executed eight high ranking military men including three former heads of states. We must however not overlook the fact that in the Eighties Nigeria had executed more than sixty soldiers and civilians for their complicity in a coup attempt to remove the evil genius of a President, General Ibrahim Badamosi Babaginda and his Vice, Admiral Augustus Aikhomu from power. But enough of the comparison!
  The country called Nigeria: It is a Federal State, made up of 36 States with Abuja as its capital. The status of Abuja is like that of Washington DC. The country has an Executive President assisted by a Vice President and an Executive Council made up of Ministers. In appointing Ministers, the issue of Federal Character is strictly adhered to, for each State of the Federation has to be represented. The Government is modeled on that of the United States. It has a bi-cameral legislature, made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each State is represented by Two Senators. Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population - for the larger the population the larger its representation at the House of Representatives.
  State Governors: Each State is administered by a Governor, assisted by a Deputy who is elected on the ticket of a political party by the citizens of the State. Its le legislative functions are performed by the State Legislature headed by the Speaker.
  Many of the State Governors have been removed from office due to proven acts of voting irregularities, including blatant rigging. The following are examples of how different State Election Petition Tribunals and the Courts of Appeal handled cases in respective states of the Federation. We should not forget that in a Federal States, Governors wield executive powers similar to those held by Presidents of countries like Ghana.
  Anambra State: Dr Chris Ngige of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was sworn in as Governor in May, 2003. He fell out with his God-father, Chris Ubah. In the heat of the confusion, Chris Ubah had stated publicly that he would tell the true story of how the PDP won the election and how it did not win the elections. Peter Obi of the All People’s Grand Alliance (APGA) filed a writ challenging the declaration of Dr Ngige as winner of the 2003 Gubernatorial Elections. In March 2006, the Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu declared that Ngige’s electoral victory in 2003 was fraudulent. Peter Obi was then sworn in as Governor when his submission that he had scored majority of votes cast in the Anambra Gubernatorial Election was upheld by the court.
  He had only served for nearly one year out of his Four Year mandate when the Electoral Commission ordered a General Election thereby bringing his tenure to a premature end. Andy Ubah of the PDP was elected Governor and sworn in May, 2007. Peter Obi brought an action at the Federal High Court challenging INEC decision to hold gubernatorial election in Anambra State, arguing that his tenure would end in March 2010, rather than 2007, having taken the Oath of Office on 17th March, 2006. His petition was thrown out at both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal. On further appeal before the Supreme Court in June 2007, the Court ordered his re-instatement on grounds that his tenure would start on the day when he took the Oath of Office.
  Osun State: Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola of the PDP became Governor in May, 2003 and was re-elected in 2007. Rauf Aregbesola initiated a petition against the election and declaration, but the State Election Petion Tribunal threw the case out. He appealed again and fresh hearing started in 2009. Governor Oyinlola was caught on tape telling local PDP politicians on how he would supply army uniforms, arms and ammunition to party foot soldiers so that they could rig the re-run elections in nearby Ekiti State.
  On November 26, 2010, the Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan and presided over by Justice Clara Ogunbiyi ruled that Oyinlola had not won the 2007 Gubernatorial Election and that Rauf Aregbesola of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) be sworn in as Governor.
  Ondo State: Olusegun Agagu of the PDP was declared winner of the April 2007 Gubernatorial Election by INEC. The candidate of the Labour Party, Dr Olusegun Rahman Mimiko challenged the results of the declared election.
  On July 25, 2007, the Ondo Stat Election Petition Tribunal, chaired by Justice Garba Nabaninwa sacked Agagu from office after discounting invalid votes in 3 Local Government Areas. The Tribunal found out that Olusegun Agagu had 128, 669 votes against Rahman Mimiko’s 198, 269 votes. It ordered that Mimiko be sworn in as Governor.
  Ekiti State: On 26th September, 2006, the State House of Assembly impeached Governor Ayo Fayose of the PDP and his Deputy, Mrs. Abiodun Christine Olujumi on charges of gross misconduct.
  On 19th October, 2006, President Obasanjo declared a State of Emergency and appointed Lieutenant Colonel Tunji Olorun as Sole Administrator. He was replaced by Tope Ademuluye in 2007.
  Olusegun Oni was elected Governor in April, 2007. The Action Congress Party’s candidate, Dr. Fayemi Kayomi challenged the results. The Tribunal ordered a cancellation of the results in 63 wards and ordered a Re-Run in the affected wards. The State Electoral Commissioner refused to announce the results alleging fraud and went into temporary hiding. The incumbent Governor, Olusegun Oni won in May, 2010 by a split decision of 3 to 2 at the election Tribunal.
  Not satisfied with the judgement, Dr Kayomi appealed at the Appeal Curt, which is the final adjudicator of gubernatorial elections. On September 14, 2010, the Court declared Dr Fayemi Kayomi as Governor after nearly three and half years of legal battle.
  Edo State: In the April 2007 Gubernatorial Elections, Dr Oserheimen Osunbor of the PDP was declared winner over Comrade Adams Aliyu Oshiomole of the Action Congress of Nigeria by the Independent National Election Commission (INEC). Comrade Oshiomole contested the outcome in court. On March 20, 2008, Edo State Election Petition Tribunal nullified the election of Osunbor and declared Oshiomole the winner.
  On November 11, 2008, a Federal Appeal Court, sitting in Benin City upheld the ruling of the State Elections Petition Tribunal declaring Comrade Adams Aliyu Oshiomole to be Governor of Edo State. The decision was based on several voting irregularities.
  The Ghanaian situation: I have given these copious examples to illustrate how the court system works in various African countries of which Ghana is one. The write up is to serve as a precursor and prepare the minds of the citizenry on the likely consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision.
  Alhaji Bature’s assertion: I vehemently disagree with the assertion by Alhaji Bature that the Supreme Court cannot declare Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo winner of the December 7, 2012 Presidential Elections, if evidence points to the fact that he obtained the highest number of valid votes cast. Evidence abounds in the examples I have given. In the case of Ondo State, the court even gave the exact number of votes gained by the contending parties.
  Alhaji Bature by his assertion is attempting to throw dust into the eyes of Ghanaians. It is mischievous and if not challenged and rebuffed, is bound to cause chaos and confusion in the likely event of the Supreme declaring Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo as President–Elect. Alhaji Bature’s assertion has been echoed by other devious characters like THE TRAITOR Kwasi Pratt and the turn coat Kakra Essamuah.
  Unnecessary delay at the court’s proceedings will be meaningless: Any of the contending parties, especially the NDC can adopt all the delay tactics in its arsenals, but it will amount to nothing. No amount of ‘filibusting’ can prevent the Crossing of the Rubicon. The pragmatic forward march of the progressive forces cannot and will never be halted by any amalgamation of Nefarious Alliance Against Democratic Dividends.
  People are under the erroneous impression that if the court process is not concluded within four years, that will be the end of the matter. But that is not correct. The mandate of the President is Four Years. Therefore, if even the case is concluded in December 2013 and Nana is sworn in as President in January, 2014, his mandate will expire in January 2017, not in January 2016 as is the belief amongst members of the Nefarious Destructive Cancer. To such people I advise them to face reality and not be taken in by the propaganda of agents from the kingdom of darkness who are out to win converts for their rapidly shrinking kingdom.
  Need to enact a law to punish EC officials who aid or abet in rigging elections: I am very optimistic that the Supreme Court’s verdict will make it necessary for an amendment to the electoral laws to be effected. The verdict, if it goes against President Mahama and the EC will open a can of worms whose cancerous spread can only be checked by meting out stiffer punishment to staff of the EC and anybody who aids or abets in rigging elections to make it possible for an unpopular candidate to emerge. This of course, includes the Commissioner himself.
  Parliament should start thinking of enacting a Law to establish a Special judicial body to ensure enforcement of the Court’s verdict, should it go against the incumbent government.
  No need to panic: There appears to be a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel. It is hoped that the two contending parties will willingly accept the court’s verdict whichever way it goes. Both parties were signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding signed in Kumasi. Thus, the call on both parties, especially the President to give an undertaking to abide by the verdict is neither here nor there. Both have already committed themselves.
  Conclusion: Ghanaians expect nothing but the truth from the Nine Eminent Judges of the Supreme Court who will adjudicate over the petition. The future survival of this great country of ours depends on their arriving at a fair decision which will be acceptable to all including the international community. We therefore pray that in arriving at such a decision, the Judges will be guided by the principle of fairness, transparency and the Fear of God.
  Daniel Danquah Damptey. (0243715297)
  (damptey_daniel@yahoo.com) (danieldanquah_damptey@yahoo.com)

  reply
• Alain Book 11 years ago

  Elections are not won in law court.

  Elections are not won in law court.

  reply
• OMari Dominic 11 years ago

  Elephant Patriots] Dr. Michael Buadoo
  Dr. Michael Buadoo Michael@buadoo.com via googlegroups.com
  Greetings friends - I am glad to rejoin you to share ideas and discuss matters of interest to our nation. Bro. Okukuseku ( ...
  read full comment

  Elephant Patriots] Dr. Michael Buadoo
  Dr. Michael Buadoo Michael@buadoo.com via googlegroups.com
  Greetings friends - I am glad to rejoin you to share ideas and discuss matters of interest to our nation. Bro. Okukuseku (what a bad name!!! J) thanks for your kind re-intro…
  I thought it was respectful to let you know where I was going and what I was going to do. I am glad to have served my country in a very small way by supporting my friend, Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom, and party, Progressive People’s Party, (PPP), with my very little efforts. I however commend the people on the ground who did all the work.
  I look forward to numerous healthy discussions with you, that are geared toward keeping Ghana on a highway to ‘wellness’ and finding ways to make things better for our dear Ghana. I wish to clearly state that I am not here to make statements on behalf of PPP in any way, shape, or form. As many of you know, I was here (in this forum) before PPP was born. It was clear to all then that Dr. Nduom was my friend and I would sport him, if he asked me to, yet that did not impair our ability to participate in healthy discussions here. I am a free man but a loyal team player. I joined Nduom’s group because I believed in their mission, and I stand by all decisions that I make. In the process, I learn from those decisions rely on them to help me be a better man. Brothers and Sister’s I AM BACK!!!
  I went back and read a couple of postings and thought I’d offer my view on some hot topics such as the Electoral Commission (EC) / Supreme Court (SC) issue, MPs Boycott of the vetting process, and the banning of Haruna Mahama from this forum, to see if I can learn more from you: 1. First, I wish to commend the NPP Party for taking on the EC in COURT for an election that could clearly have used a more careful supervision. You have my support on your approach. Ghana has a constitutional process to address such issues and your path demonstrates discipline. Keep it all the way up!
  
  I think It is best if NPP enjoys the backing of all its members and even all who believe in a peaceful democracy. There is a dispute, and you have gone to court to resolve it! Period! Nothing wrong with that at all! It is indeed the only way to go. Let me be clear. I am not saying that NPP will win or lose. I am saying that the process you have chosen to handle this dispute is admirable. The judges, after hearing all the evidence, will decide and we will all be honored.
  
  Also, the NPP flag bearer, Honorable Nana, was nominated by NPP via a credible process, right? If so then one does not have to like him… BUT you must ALL support the NPP legal process throughout and TILL THE END. A party is not owned by any flag bearer. The party is in court. I think all who seek to serve the interest of our nation via the party’s platform must support the party in this proceeding. Not wise to be divided!
  
  A question for those who do not support the party in the EC case SOLELY because they do not like Nana. >>> Do you expect to enjoy the support of those from Nana’s camp when a future flag bearer/candidate is one you favor? Guess what? You may NOT! What will that do to your party? Mess it all up, right? – How then does a part stand tall when it is divided during an external fight? Isn’t keeping your fights internal and presenting a unified front externally the way to go? Think about it!
  
  2. I still need to learn more as to why the NPP MPs in parliament should boycott the vetting process. I have read all the arguments available to me and still do not understand why that is necessary. These are questions that keep coming to mind: a. Will boycotting that constitutional process influence or an attempt to influence the outcome of the court hearing in favor of NPP? I hope this is not NPP’s position because if it is, then NPP may inadvertently be suggesting that it is OK to use any tactic that would influence the outcome of the court’s decision, even if it means violating a constitutional process – if so then what stops the opponent from using their own evasive tactics?
  
  I therefore suggest that the MPs stay to fulfill their oath of office and let the process move forward. It is a very important process and I do not see any legal ground to violet it. That is certainly not the process, stated in our constitution, for addressing such issues. Unless there is God himself amongst the group who knows the outcome, then what if NDC/EC wins the court case? Wouldn’t NPP MPs then have wrongly failed Ghanaians?
  b. If the court rules in favor of NPP, will the current government step down? (they will !!! and there is a process to ensure that – so why boycott a constitutional process that we are all fighting to defend via the same constitutional provision. Does NPP choose and pick what parts of the constitution to adhere and which park to violet?
  
  I have read the arguments and the various convincing scenario’s that have been offered but I will be grateful is someone can answer my question above on legal grounds ONLY. Is it not that basic principle that NPP is in court to defend to which many none NPP individuals such as myself encourage? - Until I learn otherwise many of us will be very disappointed if the NPP MP’s boycott the vetting process. 3. The call for any party to start preparing for 2016, regardless of who is making that call, or whether or not there are other ongoing activities, is not a bad idea at all, or is it? What is wrong with it? Will there not be an election in 2016 whether or not NPP wins the EC legal case? Can’t a party, full of resources and talents, not handle multiple activities of this nature at the same time? How does it benefit or hurt the legal process if there are other party members who are available to start strategizing for the 2016 elections? Why should any party wait when others are strategizing? Should all of NPP be consumed by this one legal process?
  
  Granted, some like Nana, others like Allan and Kuffour etc etc….. of what relevance does that have to do with proceeding with strategies that will surely benefit a time ahead that will surely come, ill respective of the preferences of those who are calling for 2016 planning? Do you say no to such a wise advice just because the origin does not support Nana? Can’t both processes parallel in the interest of a party? Where is the central committee? Take away emotions and one may see what I see.
  
  4. Banning Haruna Mahama from this forum: I think you have made this guy a star by the amount of energy spent on his case in this forum. I humbly wish to say however, that I still do not know what specific rule of this forum he has violated. I will share why in my next posting.
  
  Cheers, Michael

  reply
• Ross 11 years ago

  Fast track it. Include the chief justice.
  All other cases can follow after peace and justice .

  Fast track it. Include the chief justice.
  All other cases can follow after peace and justice .

  reply
• Atinga Kobla Atongo 11 years ago

  LAWYER NIMAKO SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, THE CASE AT HAND IS TOO MUCH IMPORTANT FOR OUR NATION GHANA, AT THE MOMENT THERE IS NO CASE BEFORE THE SC WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS. UNLESS HE CAN MENTION ONE. OUR YOUNG DEMOCRAC ...
  read full comment

  LAWYER NIMAKO SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, THE CASE AT HAND IS TOO MUCH IMPORTANT FOR OUR NATION GHANA, AT THE MOMENT THERE IS NO CASE BEFORE THE SC WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS. UNLESS HE CAN MENTION ONE. OUR YOUNG DEMOCRACY ON WHICH OUR NATION IS BUILT , THROUGH OUR CONSTITUTION IS SERIOUSLY UNDER THREAT.
  NOT TO EVEN TALK ABOUT DECEPTION THE OF THE GHANAIAN POPULACE.
  IF THE ALLEGATION IS FOUND TO BE TRUE.THIS WILL BECOME CRIMINAL AND A STIFFER PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE MATED OUT TO WHO EVER CAUSED IT, IF DELIBERATE.
  
  REMEMBER HOW 80 YEAR OLD, THE DISABLED WERE ALL IN CUES BAYING FOR THEIR CHANCES TO EXERCISE THEIR LEGAL FRANCHISE, LAWYER NIMAKO, YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
  ROSS, I AGREE WITH YOU. THIS SHOULDN'T LAST FOR MORE THAN 12WEEKS.IT' MAINLY ALL SIMPLE CALCULATIONS, EXPERTS CAN BE BROUGHT IN TO ASSIST THE PROCESS
  THE SC SHOULD CONTROL AFFAIRS IN THEIR COURT AND NOT ALLOW ANY UNNECESSARY AND DELIBERATE TIME WASTING TO PROLONG PROCEEDINGS.
  PEOPLE FOR GET THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME IT HAS HAPPENED ON PLANET EARTH,
  IT HAPPENED IN UKRAIN THAILAND AND A STATE IN THE US.
  IT WAS SORTED PEACEFULLY, NO SHOTS WERE FIRED.
  WE SHOULD ALL HAVE PATIENCE, GOD ALMIGHTY WANT TO SHOW US GHANAIANS THAT HE SINCERELY LOVE US. AMEN!

  reply
• ghanaba 11 years ago

  THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES ARE NOT GOING TO SIT EVERYDAY ON NANA AKUFO ADDO'S PETITION CASE. THEREFORE, BY CLAIMING THAT IT WILL HOLD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY FALSE AND DECEPTIVE.GHANAIANS CAN THINK BETTER THAN YOU TH ...
  read full comment

  THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES ARE NOT GOING TO SIT EVERYDAY ON NANA AKUFO ADDO'S PETITION CASE. THEREFORE, BY CLAIMING THAT IT WILL HOLD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IS TOTALLY FALSE AND DECEPTIVE.GHANAIANS CAN THINK BETTER THAN YOU THINK.

  reply
• YAW ASIEDU 11 years ago

  Okomfo Anokye grade C trokosi student

  Okomfo Anokye grade C trokosi student

  reply
• heckad 11 years ago

  This is no ordinary case. The SC must empanel all justices as it the practice in developed countries. That's the reason ballooning SC was uncalled for. US/Canada all have 9 Justices but because politicians give job to the boy ...
  read full comment

  This is no ordinary case. The SC must empanel all justices as it the practice in developed countries. That's the reason ballooning SC was uncalled for. US/Canada all have 9 Justices but because politicians give job to the boys Ghana has 13. In constitutional matters such as this ALL THE JUSTICES MUST SIT ON THE CASE TO PROVIDE UNBIASED FAIR RULINGS. THIS CASE IS ENOUGH TO OCCUPY THE ATTENTION OF SC AND SHOULD NOT BE MEDDLED WITH OTHER MINOR CASES. There are lessor court to handle cases that are not constitutional in nature. There would no dereliction of justice if we empanel all. How this guy be a lawyer- a show of ignorance and incompetency.

  reply
• FORTUNE TELLER 11 years ago

  THIS REQUEST WAS DEFINITELY SPONSORED BY THE NPP. JUST AS I HAVE POSTED EARLIER, THE NPP WILL NEVER ACCEPT ANY RULING THAT IS AGAINST THEM. THEY WANT THE WHOLE NATION TO GRIND TO A HALT. EVEN IF YOU EMPANEL ONLY KNOWN NPP NEC ...
  read full comment

  THIS REQUEST WAS DEFINITELY SPONSORED BY THE NPP. JUST AS I HAVE POSTED EARLIER, THE NPP WILL NEVER ACCEPT ANY RULING THAT IS AGAINST THEM. THEY WANT THE WHOLE NATION TO GRIND TO A HALT. EVEN IF YOU EMPANEL ONLY KNOWN NPP NEC MEMBERS AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO TRY THIS CASE, THEY WILL STILL DOUBT IF THEY WOULD RECEIVE A FAIR JUDGEMENT. (Because they have elements like WEREKO BROBBEY and P. C. APPIAH OFORI amongs the NPP). THIS MEANS THAT NOBODY, AND I REPEAT NOBODY IN THIS GHANA AND THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD EXPRESS ANY OTHER VIEW ON THIS CASE, OTHER THAN WHAT THE NPP HAVE. THIS IS VERY ANNOYING. OH NPP, YOU ARE GRADUALLY ALIENATING YOURSELVES FROM EVERY DISCERNING GHANAIAN.

  reply
• OTCHERE DARKO 11 years ago

  "Lawyer Nimako said the allegations of bias or prejudice does not call for the empanelling of all the Justices on the said case. “Granted that this case travels for even three months, are we saying that for all the three mo ...
  read full comment

  "Lawyer Nimako said the allegations of bias or prejudice does not call for the empanelling of all the Justices on the said case. “Granted that this case travels for even three months, are we saying that for all the three months no other case can go on in the Supreme Court except this case”, he questioned."
  .......................................................................................................................................................
  
  Empanneling ALL the Supreme Court Justices will NOT lead to the halting judicial administration because.....
  
  THE SUPREME COURT WILL NOT SIT ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION CASE FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, SEVEN DAYS IN A WEEK.
  
  THERE WILL BE PART OF THE DAY AND SOME DAYS IN THE WEEK THAT ALL THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WILL NOT SIT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
  
  *EMPANELLING ALL SUPREME COURT WILL GIVE ANY RULLING THAT THE COURT WILL MAKE 'THE AUTHORITY' OF FULL MEMBERSHIP.
  
  Nobody can then say the case ended like this, or that because these or those members were NOT on the Panel of Justices that sat on, and decided the case.

  reply
• no-nonses 11 years ago

  I believe all Ghananians will better sever if all the Supreme Court Justices sit on the case because is more important than all cases before the Justiices

  I believe all Ghananians will better sever if all the Supreme Court Justices sit on the case because is more important than all cases before the Justiices

  reply
• COMMON SENSE 11 years ago

  WHICH LAW SCHOOL THOUGHT U THAT FULL PANEL ON ONE CASE WILL HALT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. SOME OF U ARE A DISGRACE TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

  WHICH LAW SCHOOL THOUGHT U THAT FULL PANEL ON ONE CASE WILL HALT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. SOME OF U ARE A DISGRACE TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

  reply
• nana addo 11 years ago

  The SC should do as it thinks fit,he npp should do the worst if not happy abt the panel.why have thy not contested the panel of oher equally important issues?the character of the leaders of npp are self greedyness,obsessed it ...
  read full comment

  The SC should do as it thinks fit,he npp should do the worst if not happy abt the panel.why have thy not contested the panel of oher equally important issues?the character of the leaders of npp are self greedyness,obsessed ith power which will not materialize till maybe 2020.the supreme court is more powerful than every single party in Ghana.were the judges there on the panel by themselves or they were vetted,sellected nsworn in?what are the implications of all these?

  reply
• Abeeku Mensah 11 years ago

  Is there any case pending before Ghana's Supreme Court more grave than the very survival of a fledgling, mirage of a democracy Ghana is supposedly practicing?
  Should in case "lawyer" Nimako has forgotten what makes our syste ...
  read full comment

  Is there any case pending before Ghana's Supreme Court more grave than the very survival of a fledgling, mirage of a democracy Ghana is supposedly practicing?
  Should in case "lawyer" Nimako has forgotten what makes our system of government an imitation of democracy as practiced in civilized western nations, is there has never been a functional/functioning democratic government with a missing third leg of government. The very liberties Ghanaians are seeking to enjoy vanish without the requisite functional three (3) branches. Yes in most years, citizens of Ghana cannot tell if one of the branches is functioning on all cylinders except stories about stealing from the national coffers.

  reply
• john tetteh 11 years ago

  Will u be happy if your case is suspended bcos of akufo ado,bawumia who are seeking their private interest to be come president& vice? i thinck the npp is being arrogant in their demands.

  Will u be happy if your case is suspended bcos of akufo ado,bawumia who are seeking their private interest to be come president& vice? i thinck the npp is being arrogant in their demands.

  reply
• Afroman 11 years ago

  I agree with you brother, How should someone be held on remand or detention when all judges are empanelled for a case involving just 2 political parties? That will be very unfair to the ordinary Ghanaian.

  I agree with you brother, How should someone be held on remand or detention when all judges are empanelled for a case involving just 2 political parties? That will be very unfair to the ordinary Ghanaian.

  reply
• john tetteh 11 years ago

  are u not aware that the moment the hearing begins the justices are to sit without break or even on public holidays? elections are worn at polling stations not at court.better luck 2016 npp

  are u not aware that the moment the hearing begins the justices are to sit without break or even on public holidays? elections are worn at polling stations not at court.better luck 2016 npp

  reply
• OBINNA 11 years ago

  Judges do not work on one case at a time. All the supreme court judges sitting on this very important case will not bring to a halt the administration of justice in the country.

  Judges do not work on one case at a time. All the supreme court judges sitting on this very important case will not bring to a halt the administration of justice in the country.

  reply
• KWAME 11 years ago

  Even though this contribution is not related to the topic under discussion, I wish to make the following discussion relating to the ruling by the 9 justices of the Supreme Court which was published on 23/1/13 on the web.
  Min ...
  read full comment

  Even though this contribution is not related to the topic under discussion, I wish to make the following discussion relating to the ruling by the 9 justices of the Supreme Court which was published on 23/1/13 on the web.
  Mine is not a ruling on the issue but I want clarification on the aspects which are not clear to me.
  I have problem with the position by Justice Baffoe Bonney that the president can resign from his political party and still rule with an Executive powers. I will like to be educated on the aspect of the law which provides this.
  A candidate on the ticket of a political party campaigns on the message of that party which can make that candidate attractive or unattractive to the electorate. This influences the candidate’s election or rejection. Assuming this candidate wins, he/she turns round to resign from this party.
  For the sake of argument, President John Mahama may have lost this election if he had stood as an independent candidate. The probability that he would have won as an independent candidate was really slim when compared to the probability of winning on the ticket of the NDC.
  If a party has a vested interest in an issue, should the law deprive such a person from protecting that interest? If the NDC can realize the same effect through the first respondent, should this position deprive the party from applying to be a joinder? Are the positions of the NDC and President Mahama mutually exclusive?
  The dictionary in my computer provides synonyms like ‘’intruder, interfere,’’ to the word intervene as used by Justice Anin Yeboah. How is NDC an intruder if the same entity has a vested interest?
  It is the expectation of our people that our justices of the Supreme Court will be fair at all times because they are setting precedents in their rulings. I am particularly interested in this case because the sovereign will of the people which I am part should never be tampered with otherwise we should return to dictatorship.

  reply