Ramadan’s Review Application A Waste Of Time – Kwesi Pratt

Despite the plaudits coming the way of People’s National Convention Youth Organiser (PNC), Abu Ramadan’s resolve to seek a review of the Supreme Court’s ruling granting the relief of Bernard Mornah of the same party on the unconstitutionality of the courts sitting on holidays while hearing an election petition, Managing Editor of Insight newspaper, Kwesi Pratt Jr. opines it was a “waste of time from the word go”.

The Managing Editor of the Insight Newspaper was of the view that it was procedurally wrong for one to move straight to the apex court of the land, seeking to compel public officials to perform their duties.

According him, the review application filed by Abu Ramadan “was a waste of time from the very beginning…why? If public officials are failing to perform their duties, you don’t go to the Supreme Court. You go to the High Court to file a mandamus application to compel them to do their duty”.

“…when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution, what the Supreme Court says is final. If nine judges of the Supreme Court have come to this conclusion by a unanimous decision, what else can I say about it?” the Senior Journalist asked.

Though he did not get into the substance of the issues, Mr. Pratt noted on Peace FM’s flagship program, ‘Kokrokoo” that the locus of any applicant in matters of this nature, as well as the procedure used are very important because “they are part of the case”.

His comments comes on the heels of The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to dismiss a review application filed by Abu Ramadan that sought to pray the court to reverse an earlier relief it granted Bernard Mornah on the unconstitutionality of the courts sitting on holidays while hearing an election petition.

That decision also outlawed provisions of CI 74 (71) which prohibited the Supreme Court from entertaining any review application when it decides an election petition.

The Court ruled that Abu Ramadan had no capacity to file the review because he was not a party to the original case and deferred reasons for its decision to October.

Comments