<<Print>>

The National Youth Organizer of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), Henry Nana Boakye says the legal team of the 2nd Respondent in the ongoing 2020 election petition is going to alert the Supreme Court about the scandalous and contemptuous comment from the legal team of the petitioner.

Dr Dominic Ayine, a Spokesperson for the petitioner in the ongoing 2020 election petition has described the ruling of the Supreme Court to quash the application of the petitioner to reopen his case and also subpoena the Chairperson of the 1st Respondent to be cross-examined as a “predetermined agenda” of the Supreme Court against the petitioner.

Dr Ayine also expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that the Supreme Court claim "there is only one issue to be determined". Dr Ayine also expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that the Supreme Court claim "there is only one issue to be determined".

" . . these are germane issues under the constitution of Ghana and to reduce the petition into a single issue petition is rather unfortunate and smacks of a predetermined agenda to rule against the petitioner in this matter," he said.

Reacting on Okay FM’s 'Ade Akye Abia' Morning Show, Nana B as he is popularly called said that the comment of Dr Ayine is rather scandalous and contemptuous, making the Supreme Court appear before the public as an institution which is set to shield wrongdoing.

To him, the Bolgatanga East Member of Parliament and a former Deputy Attorney-General who ought to respect and protect one of the arms of government is instead insulting the Judiciary with his “predetermined agenda” comment.

“This is scandalous and contemptuous . . . again if he says that Jean Mensa has done something wrong and the Court is encouraging her to the point that the Court is covering up for her or shielding the wrongdoing of the Chairperson, it is again scandalous and contemptuous because the court is not there to cover up for anyone who has done something wrong,” he pointed.

“This impression he has created is bad; he has scandalised the Supreme Court . . . you can criticise the ruling of the Court based on certain authorities and case law you have which are contrary to the positions of the judges of the Supreme Court on the application you have filed, but to say the Court has a 'predetermined agenda' is an insult and cast slur on the sanctity of the Judiciary,” he chided.

He, however, made it clear that the legal team of the 2nd Respondent will alert the Supreme Court on the happenings so as to call Dr Dominic Ayine to explain to the Supreme Court judges his “predetermined agenda” comment.

“ . . if the Supreme Court is not aware of what is happening, we will remind or alert the Supreme Court about it. If he says the Court has a 'predetermined agenda', he has to explain to the Court what he meant by that,” he indicated.