Incumbent President of the Republic of Ghana, H.E Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has, through his lawyers, filed a response to the amended election petition of John Dramani Mahama.
Speaking on behalf of the President in an interview with Citi News, spokesperson of the president’s legal team, Mr Henry Nana Boakye said the president’s response was in line with a directive by the Supreme Court.
He said, “By the natural sequence of events, once the petitioner has sought the audience of the court to make some amendments in their petition, it is only proper that the respondent also do the same by today. The Supreme Court gave an order that if you have any response to the amended petition, you should file it today.”
The legal team spokesperson, however, insists that the president’s lawyers maintain its preliminary objection for the case to be dismissed.
“They do not have to waste the court’s time on these issues because the facts they have presented do not support their case,” he added.
As part of arrangements to challenge the Electoral Commission’s declaration of Nana Addo being the president of Ghana after the just ended-crunch general elections on 7 December 2020 which John Mahama declared as a flawed one, the NDC flagbearer through his lawyers filed a petition to the Supreme Court on December 30, 2020.
According to him between himself and President Akufo-Addo who had the most votes, none of them attained the clear majority of 50% + 1 votes to be declared the winner.
The Electoral Commission in announcing the election results said President Akufo-Addo garnered 51.59 per cent of the votes while Mr Mahama got 47.37 per cent.
But a few days ago the legal team of the former president filed a report to have some corrections made following their realization of the petition containing mistakes including, interchanging the Electoral Commission and President Akufo-Addo in one of the reliefs being sought.
Mr Mahama who filed a motion to amend the said errors was given the green light by the Supreme Court who in granting the motion said the typographical errors sought to be corrected did not materially affect the substance of the case.