Barring any changes, the Ho High Court, will tomorrow, Tuesday, July 2, 2024, witness Peter Amewu, giving testimony to justify his 2020 Parliamentary victory in the Hohoe Constituency of the Volta Region, after over 17,000 voters were allegedly disenfranchised by the Electoral Commission (EC).
Tomorrow’s date was fixed after Amewu’s counsel informed the court that he had not been able to produce his client before last Wednesday’s court session, because Amewu was on a national assignment.
Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the petitioners who is supposed to cross-examine the Railway Development Minister, if he turns up in court, pointed out to the court that Amewu’s behaviour was undermining the authority of the court.
The trial was due to continue on June 26, 2024, and Amewu was expected to testify. Before the commencement of the case, Amewu evaded court bailiffs for nearly a year, and his thugs allegedly inflicted violence on bailiffs.
The Court also added two additional issues filed by Amewu. These issues were whether or not this Court has the power to declare that the enactment of C. I 128 violated Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution and whether or not this Court has the power to declare that the 1st Respondent had no power to place the SALL communities under the Jasikan District (as was done under CI 119 per Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution).
The addition of these two issues, followed an extensive legal exchange between counsels for the various parties. Tsikata emphasized that the issues already set down by the Court covered these additional issues.
He referred to the court’s previous consideration of whether C.I 95 had been validly amended by C.I 128.
He argued that there was no dispute about the interpretation of Article 47(5) and that the Court was only being called upon to apply the provisions according to their terms, which did not require a reference to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
He cited several Supreme Court decisions to support his argument, indicating that C.I 119 was inconsistent with the Local Governance Act and did not change the composition of the Hohoe Municipality.
Counsel for Amewu, argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to declare that C.I 128 was enacted in violation of Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution, referencing Article 130(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
Counsel for the Electoral Commission also argued this position, insisting that C.I 128 was the instrument under which the 2020 election had been conducted throughout the country.
In response, Tsatsu Tsikata, emphasized that the matter before the High Court concerned only the Hohoe constituency and the validity of C.I 128, in removing the SALL traditional areas from that constituency.
In the end, the court ordered that should the 2nd Respondent wish to file an additional witness statement after filing the additional issues, should do so within three days from today.
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent indicated that they may not file an additional witness statement and may opt not to testify at all.
