The Supreme Court of Ghana has ruled on the Peter Amewu case today. After the judgment was read, many are of the view that the NDC, lead by Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata has lost the case. But a closer look at the judgment revealed that the most important relief the Deputy Attorney General asked the apex court, ie “an order to prohibit the Ho High Court from hearing the substantive case relating to Amewu” was rejected by the court.
Ho High Court granted interim injunction on December 23 and it was to last for 10 days. Before the AG filed the application at the Supreme Court, he knew that before judgment today that the 10 days would have elapsed. The AG went to the supreme Court in search of two things:
- An order of certiorari to quash the interim injunction which the AG knew would elapsed before today’s judgment
- An order to prohibit the Ho High Court from hearing the substantive case relating to Amewu.
Deductively, the AG’s most important relief is relief 2. In other words, the AG wanted the SC to stop the Ho High Court from sitting on the Amewu case. Both the AG and Amewu do not want to appear before the Judge at the Ho High Court.
Mr Tsikata opposed the AG’s application and mounted fierce argument against both. The argument by the AG and Tsikata for and against relief 1 was not necessarily to determine whether Amewu can be sworn in or not but for public interest reasons relating to legal practice in future. The question as to whether Amewu could be sworn in as MP was answered on January 2, 2021 when the Injunction elapsed.
Technically, the crucial issue before the court which both lawyers were interested in was relief two (the prohibition order). For relief 1, the Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that it had elapsed so there was really no injubction to be quashed. However, because the action was brought to the court before it elapsed, the court made an order to quash it. If same was not quashed, the best Mr Tsikata could possibly do would be to repeat the motion on notice and get all Parties served before it could be move. Such a move would have been fruitless especially when we have about 24 hours to swearing in.
So relief 1 was really of no importance to Mr Tsikata. His interest was relief 2. He opposed the AG’s argument relating to relief 2. The Supreme Court Justices saw wisdom in Tsatsu’s argument in opposing the AG on relief 2 so same was granted. As it stands now, both the AG, EC and Amewu will have to go back to the Ho High Court, a place they do not want to go, and face Tsatsu.
How on Earth could this judgment be a lost to Lawyer Tsikata and the NDC