Source: Peacefmonline.com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Featured Video
1. THE SUPREME COURT, AS THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND, GIVES RULINGS TO AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE EXISTING LAWS TO CONSOLIDATE FAIRNES AND CONSISTENCY IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. 2. THE DECISION OF THE SC IS NOT MEANT TO SATISFY ANY PARTY BUT TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW FOR ALL IN THE SOCIETY. 3. WHATEVER DECISION SC MAKES ON THE ISSUE BECOMES LAW FOR FUTURE ADJUDICATION OF JUSTICE. THIS REQUIRES THE SC TO BE FIRM AND CONSISTENT WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR. 4. GHANAIANS MUST THEREFORE EXPECT FROM SUPREME COURT A RULING THAT AGREES WITH UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES THAT REGULATES GIVING TESTIMONY AT COURT. 6. THE SC RULINGS SHOULD THEREFORE PROVIDE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SUCH AS: A) CAN SOMEONE BE COMPELLED TO GIVE TESTIMONY? AND IF YES FOR WHAT. B) CAN SOMEONE CHANGE HIS MIND ON A MATTER EVEN IF ALREADY ALLUDED TO DO SO? AND IF YES SHOULD IT BE APPLICABLE TO ALL OR ONLY SOME AS FOUND IN THIS TRIAL . C) WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, PETITION OR TESTIMONY? WOULD THERE BE A NEED FOR TESTIMONY IF THERE IS NO PETITION. AND IF THE PETITIONER CAN AVOID INTERROGATION FROM THE WITNESS STAND WHY THEN THE RESPONDENT(S) CANNOT DO LIKEWISE, IF A COURT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT? D) CAN ONE TRUST THE WISDOM AND DISCERNMENT OF THE COURT TO LEAVE MATTERS IN THE HANDS OF JUDGES RATHER THAN TO DEFEND ONESSELF? E) IS THE SC NOT A COURT OF LAW RATHER THAN A COURT OF BEST OPINIONS. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT TOMORROW WILL BE A LANDMARK IN OUR JUDICIAL AND DEMOCRATIC HISTORY AND THE VARIOUS JUSDGES IN THE PANEL WILL BE REMEMBERED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THAT HISTORY. NOBODY WILL REMEMBER THE DEFENSE OF LAWYERS AND NOR ANY OUTCRY OF PUBLIC OPINIONS BUT IT SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN IN THE ARCHIVES THE RULING OF OUR JUDGES.
The lady Mrs. Brew had been AC before and she was supposed to know better in light of the law, especially that guiding the election petition. Because it was revised and instrumented, drawing informed experiences from 2012-election . And it was during her tenure sa AC. Inneed, to date as it stands, the petitioner had not been able to made his case yet, based on what he sought to really arrive at with the petition. The petioner had awfully failed to adduce evidence by presenting three witnesses without exhibiting material, objective facts which as as stakeholder or a party to the election, has in carbon copies. Erroneously, the petitioner believes he can discredit EC-Boss Mrs Jean Mensa if given the chance to do so in court. So as to establish a contradictory basis to discredit the declaration of the President as the winner of the presidential election. I say with due respect to the petitioner to tell that to the marines. If you did ask me about the performance of the lawyers of the petitioner, I would say they had done pretty poor job.