The Supreme Court will on January 4 hear the application challenging the victory and swearing-in of Mr John Peter Amewu, Member of Parliament Elect for Hohoe Constituency.
This was after the five member panel presided over by Mr. Justice Yaw Appau granted the request by Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, Deputy Attorney General’s request to hear the application before January 7.
The Apex Court of the land, therefore, ordered Mr Tsatsu Tsikata who represented interested parties to file his response to the Attorney-General’s case on December 31, this year by 12:00 noon.
According to the court, the A-G could also file response if any to the issues relating to Mr Tsikata’s case by close of day on December 31, this year.
Mr. Dame, who moved the abridgment time application, indicated that the High Court erred when it granted the injunction and wanted the Supreme Court to quash the Ho High Court decision on December 23.
Mr. Dame’s said he would like the Supreme Court to hear the matter before January 7.
He noted that case affected the rights of the residents of Hohoe Constituency to have an MP in the composition and commencement of the eighth parliament.
Mr Tsikata, who said he became aware of the ex-parte-application of abridgment of time through his Junior Colleague, prayed the Supreme Court to hear the matter due to its urgency.
According to Mr Tsikata, the interested parties wanted the matter be heard on January 1, next year due to its urgency.
He was of the opinion that he did not want the court to revisit its precedence when after hearing an abridgment of time application, he was asked to proceed with a substantive issue.
He said they were ready to file their response to the AG by December 31.
On December 29, this year, the Attorney-General (A-G) invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to quash the decision of a Ho High Court on December 23, this year, in respect of an injunction against Mr Amewu, Hohoe MP Elect from holding himself up as representing the constituency.
The Ho High Court presided over by Mr. Justice George Buadi, in an ex-parte application, restrained the MP-elect from taking his seat as Member of Parliament for the constituency.
The A-G is seeking an order restraining the High Court from hearing or conducting proceedings in the suit before it.
According to the AG the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution matter in a parliamentary election petition and grant any reliefs, interim, interlocutory or whatsoever.
The A-G is seeking an order of certiorari directed at the Ho High Court, the AG said the Court’s decision on December 23, was void and same violates Article 99 of the constitution.
The AG, therefore, in an ex-parte application has asked for abridgement of time within which the interested parties to the invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may respond.
The case of the AG were that on December 7, this year, Presidential and Parliamentary elections were held nationwide.
According to the state, the Parliamentary election in the Hohoe Constituency in the Volta Region, Mr Amewu who stood on the ticket of the NPP was declared winner after obtaining 55.18 per cent.
“That the results of the Parliamentary elections were duly gazetted by the Electoral Commission on December 22, this year.”
According to the state on December 23, this year, interested parties led by the losing parliamentary candidate of the National Democratic Congress in the Hohoe Constituency invoked the jurisdiction of the Ho High Court under Article 33 claiming a violation of “their human rights in the conduct of the parliamentary election in the Hohoe Constituency and prayed the court for a number of reliefs.
It is, thus, beyond doubt that the action at the High Court, Ho is a palpable abuse of the process. The wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by Justice Buadi was a serious error apparent on the face of the record.
This Court ought to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to prevent a situation where the interested parties will, through the backdoor, surreptitiously seek to assert the right to vote in a manner which is constitutionally frowned upon.
“The interested parties’ case is borne out of mischief and an attempt to judicially sanction an unconstitutionality.
It is merely a vile attempt to upset the hard-won electoral victory of the winner of the parliamentary election in Hohoe constituency through an unjustified invocation of the court’s human rights jurisdiction,” the state held.