2020 Election Petition: Mahama May Not File His Closing Address-Nana B Claims

The National Youth Organizer for the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), Lawyer Henry Nana Boakye says he has reasons to suspect that the petitioner, former President John Dramani Mahama may not file his closing address as instructed by the Supreme Court in the ongoing 2020 election petition.

According to him, he has heard the Director of Legal Affairs for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Lawyer Abraham Amaliba saying on another media platform that the legal team of the petitioner has the intention to file for an application of stay of proceedings and a review of the ruling of the Supreme Court over the application to reopen their case.

Speaking on Okay FM’s Ade Akye Abia Morning Show, lawyer Henry Nana Boakye who is also part of the legal team of President Akufo-Addo in the ongoing 2020 election petition said that the legal team may not honour the instruction of the Supreme Court for all the parties to file their closing addresses simultaneously.

The Supreme Court has instructed after all the parties in the 2020 election petition had closed their cases to file their closing addresses on February 17, 2021, simultaneously and then follow with the oral address on February 18, 2021.

But, lawyer Henry Nana Boakye thinks that the petitioner for the second time may not respect the directive of the Supreme Court judges as he did when the Court ordered the parties to file their witness statement.

He stressed that he has heard lawyer Amaliba saying that the petitioner has not made his mind to file his closing address as the lawyers of the petitioner have filed two processes; an application for review of the ruling of the Supreme Court on 11th February and also filed a stay of proceeding.

“This is exactly what they did the last time when the Supreme Court asked the parties to file their witness statements. The petitioner did not do it and disrespected the Court by refusing to file their witness statement and rather filed a stay of proceedings and the Court was angry and threatened to throw away the petition as the CI99 stipulates”, he claimed.