Written address by John Mahama: The 170-paragraphed address (20 pages) filed on behalf of the President by his lawyer, Mr Tony Lithur, states: “There are many reasons why adherence to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies makes absolute sense in the particular context of this case. “It is patently clear from the history of this case that the petitioners failed to make a case for the occurrence of the alleged irregularities at the various polling stations nationwide and to provide the Electoral Commission the opportunity to deal with these allegations administratively and on the spot because they simply lacked the evidence to back their claims” According to the President’s lawyer, the strategy the petitioners adopted was simply to trigger the jurisdiction of “this court by filing a petition and then go back to look for the evidence”. He further submitted that the refusal or neglect of the petitioners to file any complaints relating to the alleged irregularities at the various polling stations and collation centres should have ordinarily denied them the opportunity to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Article 64 of the 1992 Constitution. “The petitioners failed to prove their allegations and for that reason the petition must be dismissed by the court,” he held.
Posted on: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:34:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015