The review application filed by Mr Mahama (petitioner) was urging the court to change its earlier ruling on February 16, this year, not to allow him to reopen his case to enable his lawyers subpoena the Chairperson of the EC , to testify in court.

In a unanimous ruling Monday, a nine-member review panel of the apex court, held that the application for review failed to meet the criteria for review as set out in Rule 54 of the Supreme Court rules, 1996 (C.I 16):

It ruled that Mr Mahama, in the review, failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that had occasioned a miscarriage of justice to him (Mahama), neither did he introduce any new matter that could convince the court to change its ruling.

Tsikata’s argument

Lead counsel for the petitioner, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, had argued before the court that the ruling not to allow his client to reopen his case was fraught with fundamental errors of law and therefor had occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

He said the court in its ruling did not consider Section 72 of the Evidence Act, which, he said, would have allowed his client to subpoena the Chairperson of the EC, and and rather relied on the Black Law Dictionary.

Counsel said the court should had relied on the Evidence Act which was a statute of Ghana , and not the Black Law Dictionary.

He also said the court should allow his client to reopen his case so that the Chairperson of the EC will testify and be accountable to Ghanaians.

He, therefore, urged the justices to use their conscience and reopen the case so that the EC Chairperson will testify.