Dr. Dominic Ayine, A member of the legal team of the petitioner, Dr Dominic Ayine said the decision by the Supreme Court not to dismiss John Mahama's motion to reopen the case was wrong.

He, however, said since that is the decision of the apex court, they will abide by it.

"In our view, the court was wrong; in our view, the reasons of the court were based upon wrong legal premises but the Supreme Court is the final decision-maker when it comes to the law and we are bound by what it said" he noted speaking to the media after the ruling today.

"We cannot depart from it but the lead counsel for the petitioner has indicated that he’s filing an application for review with respect to the earlier decision rendered on the 11th of February relating to their decision with effect to the compellability of the witness testimony of the Electoral Commission" he added.

READ ALSO:

Nana Addo suspends Independence Day Parade

Arguing his case on Monday, February 15,  lead counsel for Mr Mahama, Tsatsu Tsikata said they were taken by surprise when the EC Chairperson opted not to testify after submitting a witness statement, hence the decision to reopen the case and ask for a subpoena.

He insisted that there were also allegations that came up during the cross-examination of their witnesses and these are matters only the EC Chairperson can speak to.

 Lawyer Tsikata giving further arguments before the ruling today, said he has listed new authorities that will back claims that the Chairperson is an individual and therefore can be subpoenaed.

However Chief Justice Anin Yeboah, in his ruling quoted several authorities to buttress the court's position in dismissing the application.

"A mere filing of a witness statement is not an election to testify", Justice Anin Yeboah said.

"As we’ve already indicated in this ruling supra, the petitioner in this application has not given us an inkling of the new or fresh evidence he wants to bring to the fore through the Chairperson of the first respondent and how that evidence could assist the court to do justice to the matters under consideration in this petition. Neither has he disclosed how that evidence will advance the cause of his petition."

"For the above-stated reasons, we find no merit or favour in the petitioner’s application to reopen his case for the sole purpose of compelling his adversaries’ intended witness to testify through a subpoena without indicating the sort of evidence he intends to solicit from the said witness and how that evidence is going to help the court in resolving the dispute before us. We accordingly refuse the application and proceed without any hesitation to dismiss it", the CJ added.