The Ho High Court has ordered Peter Amewu who is the second respondent in the ongoing SALL election denial case to provide his testimony on July 2, 2024.
This was after Counsel for Mr Amewu told the court that he had not been able to produce his client before the court because he was on a national assignment.
Counsel for the petitioners, Tsatsu Tsikata pointed out to the court that the behaviour of the 2nd Respondent was undermining the authority of the Court since at the last adjourned date, he was expected to testify.
Prior to the commencement of the case, Mr Amewu is alleged to have evaded court bailiffs for nearly a year in addition to his thugs inflicting violence on bailiffs.
The court also added two additional issues to the trial, which were filed by Mr. Amewu’s counsel.
These issues questioned the court’s power to declare the enactment of C.I 128 unconstitutional and whether the Electoral Commission had the power to place the SALL communities under the Jasikan District.
The addition of these 2 issues was after an extensive legal exchange between counsels for the various parties.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the issues already set down by the court covered these additional issues, while Mr. Amewu’s counsel argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to declare C.I 128 unconstitutional.
He referenced Article 130(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution to support his argument.
Also, the Counsel for the Electoral Commission argued the same position, insisting that C.I 128 was the instrument under which the 2020 election had been conducted throughout the country.
In response to this, Mr Tsikata emphasized that the matter before the High Court was in respect only of 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 second respondent wish to file an additional witness statement after filing the additional issues, they should do so within three days.
Counsel for the second respondent indicated that they may not file additional witness statements.
He also indicated that, his client may opt not to testify at all.
ALSO READ:
