Supreme Court endorses live coverage

The Supreme Court Tuesday endorsed the live telecast of its proceedings via television and radio to, as it were, ease the tension, the taking of sides and acrimony that had characterised the petition challenging Mr John Mahama’s presidency.

Prior to the endorsement, the Chief Justice, Mrs Georgina Wood had in a statement on Monday directed that the proceedings of the presidential election petition be broadcast live via television and radio.

The President of the court, Mr Justice William Atuguba, at the beginning of the hearing of the substantive case yesterday, gave the endorsement of the court and explained that the court ruled that allowing the live telecast was in accord with the law and expressed the hope that it would erase any misconceptions held about the matter.

The court, however, adjourned to today (Wednesday) the hearing to enable the Electoral Commission to file its written affidavits in response to the affidavits filed by the petitioners.

Mr Justice Atuguba informed the court that before the hearing could begin, the issue regarding the live telecast of proceedings had to be trashed out, since the trial had been raised in two quarters, namely the court and elsewhere.

He said the 1992 Constitution governed all the people of Ghana and it was important to, once and for all, clarify the issue of live telecast in the interest of justice. He subsequently invited views from lawyers of the parties.

The lead counsel   for the petitioners, Mr Phillip Addison, responded that the matter was of immense national interest and primary importance to the democratic process.

“The petition is above any ordinary litigation between two individuals or parties and the Constitution, at Chapter 11, states that justice emanates from the people,” he said, and added that the Courts Act also enjoined the court to hold its sittings in public.

The exercise, he noted, was of great importance to the people of Ghana, since their interest would be best served if they saw live the court’s proceedings by eliminating any middlemen.

Mr Tony Lithur, the lead counsel for the President, said they also welcomed the proposal and expressed the hope that the gesture would be extended to international media networks such as CNN and Aljazeera.

For his part, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the NDC, also welcomed the live telecast and associated himself with the remarks made by Mr Lithur, so that those international media networks could beam the court’s proceedings live.

He was hopeful that the matter would serve as a model for the live telecast of matters in the other courts of Ghana.

It was after the live telecast issue had been considered that the president of the court indicated that the stage was now set for the hearing of the substantive matter.

But that did not happen.

Mr Addison told the court that the petitioners had not been served with any affidavits from the EC, although he had just received one affidavit filed on behalf of the President and the NDC.

When lead counsel for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun, was asked whether his client had filed anything, he responded in the negative and indicated that the burden of producing evidence lay on the petitioners and, therefore, they should be made to proceed with the matter.

Mr Tsikata said the NDC was ready to proceed with the hearing, pointing out that at the court’s last sitting, it had been anticipated that certain affidavits might not have been filed and yet the court had directed that hearing was tentatively going to go on yesterday.

“There is absolutely no reason why the second petitioner cannot proceed and be cross-examined, having filed his affidavits,” counsel said, and expressed the hope that what petitioners’ counsel had said was not an application for an adjournment.

“I did not say we are not ready to start,” Mr Addison retorted, and indicated that the respondents had not filed any affidavits and thought they must comply with the court’s order to that effect.

Mr Tsikata continued that it was the petitioners who had brought the respondents to court and that having filed their affidavits, the petitioners ought to start with the hearing because they had been served with affidavits from the President and the NDC.

He said if the petitioners wanted an adjournment, then they should give good reasons.

Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a panel member, then asked Mr Tsikata whether he could confirm that his clients had filed any affidavits, to which counsel replied in the affirmative and said they had complied with the order of the court and that counsel for the petitioners had indicated having been served.

When Mr Addison was finally asked whether the case was not going to start, he replied that the EC had not filed anything and that since the EC was the most important party in the matter, it had to file before the hearing could proceed.

Following that, the court took a 43-minute break to arrive at its decision to reluctantly adjourn the hearing.

An application by Mr Addison seeking to rely on some equipment in Dr Mahamadu Bawumia’s evidence was turned down by the court.

For the first time, the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, was present in court and represented the commission.

Other panel members of the court are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

Story: Stephen Sah