A member of the legal team for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Abraham Amaliba says the live telecast of the Presidential election case at the Supreme Court is the “beginning of the demise of the case of the petitioners”, hence maintaining the party’s position that the elections were devoid of irregularities.
Describing the NPP’s petition as “frivolous”, Lawyer Amaliba maintained that the petitioners have no case and so, the hearing will mark the collapse of the petition by the three leaders of the opposition New Patriotic Party, challenging the legitimacy of President Mahama.
He stressed that the 2012 general elections were free and fair.
Speaking in an interview with Radio Gold, he expressed support for the live broadcast of the election case.
“We agree and we support and we are in line with the decision taken by the Chief Justice to have a live telecast of this matter, and we shall go along with it.”
President John Mahama and the NDC filed a joint affidavit to commence hearing of the substantive matter of the petitioners’ case.
The affidavits, according to lawyer Amaliba, are a rebuttal to all the charges and allegations levelled against the President, which pointed out that the 2012 December 7 polls were rigged to favour the ruling party and President Mahama.
He explained that in the joint affidavit, “we have decided that Johnson Asiedu Nketia who has sworn to the affidavit, will give evidence on behalf of the NDC and the President. And so, the President has provided what is called a power of attorney through Asiedu Nketia to represent him in court and give evidence. So, that is the joint affidavit. That is the implication of that joint affidavit. The affidavits themselves are a rebuttal of or a reaction to the petitioners claim that there were irregularities; there were malpractices, omissions in the 2012, 7th and 8th elections. And so, basically, we are refuting all charges, we are refuting all allegations and saying that the elections held on the 7th and 8th December, 2012, and the will of the people must not be tampered with by the Supreme Court.”
He was certain there is no merit in the petitioners’ case, stressing that “we have always maintained that this case is frivolous. We have always maintained that the petitioners have no case. We have always maintained that these elections were free and fair.”