Review jurisdiction not for emotional reactions to unfavourable judgement - Chief Justice

Review jurisdiction not for emotional reactions to unfavourable judgement - Chief Justice

- According to him, the jurisdiction is for special circumstances

- The Court dismissed the former president’s request for review

- The court said the application had no merit

Our manifesto: This is what believes in

Chief Justice, Justice Anin Yeboah has said the review jurisdiction is not an outlet for “emotional reactions to an unfortunate or unfavourable judgement.”

He explained that the review jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction to be exercised in exceptional circumstances.

Review jurisdiction not for emotional reactions to unfavourable judgement - Chief Justice
Photo credit: Kojo Oppong Nkrumah
Source: Facebook

“It is not an appellate jurisdiction. It is a kind of jurisdiction held in reserve…for when a fundamental and basic error may have inadvertently been committed by the court…which error must have occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice,” he stated.

He added that it is not intended as a “try on by a party after losing an appeal…nor is it an automatic misstep from appeal neither is it meant to resort to as an emotional reaction to an unfortunate or unfavourable judgement.”

Read also

Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s review application

The court went ahead to dismiss former President John Mahama's request to review its earlier decision that he cannot reopen his case to subpoena the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Jean Mensa, into the witness box for cross-examination.

According to rule 54, which provides the grounds for review; the Court may review any decision made or given by it on the following grounds

(a) Exceptional circumstances which have resulted in miscarriage of justice;

(b) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him.

A case can therefore be allowed for reopening only when the aforementioned grounds were satisfied—which in this case the court held that they were not.

The court said there is no provision in the constitution or statute that shows that the EC boss can be subjected to different rules contrary to established rules of procedure and settled practice.

Read also

Election petition: Mahama requests a delay in today’s proceedings for Tsatsu Tsikata to adequately prepare

He said the court found no merit in the argument made by the counsel for the petitioner that the court did not rule in accordance with the laws of the land but rather the black dictionary which is a subsidiary.

Enjoy reading our stories?

Join's Telegram channel!

Download YEN's news app on Google Play now and stay up-to-date with major Ghana news!


Online view pixel