Mahama's lawyers file new application to put main election trial on hold
Mahama's lawyers want a review of his interrogatories application
Jonas Danquah 
Lawyers of the NDC's 2020 presidential candidate, John Dramani have filed for a stay of proceedings of the Election Petition at the Supreme Court.
The application is asking the Apex Court to put the main Election Petition trial on hold until it hears and determines his application for review seeking to overturn the court’s dismissal of another application which sought leave to serve 12 interrogatories on the Electoral Commission (EC).
Mr John Mahama, through his lawyers had filed a motion at the court seeking a review of the Supreme Court’s ruling denying him the opportunity to put some 12 direct questions [interrogatories] to the Electoral Commission, which he argued would have helped narrow down the issues for trial.
Mr. Mahama wanted the EC to answer among others, questions relating to the processes involved in the transmission of results from the constituencies to the regional offices of the EC.
READ ALSO:
Supreme Court's ruling on interrogatories a grave injustice - Mahama
He was also seeking to solicit responses on whether or not the National Communications Authority (NCA) in any way facilitated the transmission of results from the various centres to the national Headquarters of the EC.
However, the court in dismissing the application said the petitioner failed to convince the court on the relevance of the questions and as such, denied the petitioner the application.
“The court is of the opinion that the crucial issue of relevancy has not been established in this application…We accordingly refuse to grant the application and same is accordingly dismissed,” portions of the ruling by the seven-member panel of Justices hearing the case stated.
But in a five page writ, Mr Mahama averred that its application for a review “is based on certain fundamental errors of law that the court made in its ruling, leading to a miscarriage of Justice”.
He further maintained in the writ that for the hearing of the petition to proceed before the Review is heard “would cause an irreparable harm to the conduct of our case since I would have been denied the benefits of a normal pretrial process”.
