National Youth Organizer of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Abu Ramadan has expressed shock at the decision by the Supreme Court to refuse granting the reliefs he sought regarding his review application.
He believes the final verdict would have favoured him if the nine-panel judges had studied the application thoroughly.
According him, he was stunned to hear the nine judges rule that he had no capacity to file a review because he was not a party to the original case.
“Honestly when they (Judges) read the ruling, some of us thought the judges should have gone through the application thoroughly before pronouncing their final verdict. If they have done that, they would have changed their minds,” he noted.
The Supreme Court threw out a review application by the PNC’s National Youth Organiser on Wednesday. By a 9-0 decision, the judges ruled that Abu Ramadan had no capacity to file a review because he was not a party to the original case.
The PNC youth leader had prayed the court in search of a review of a ruling which was handed in favour of PNC General Secretary Bernard Mornah months ago.
Mr. Mornah had earlier craved the Supreme Court to quash CI 74 (71) which made it impossible for a review of an election petition at the Supreme Court.
The same law also allowed judges hearing an Election Petition case to sit on holidays, a situation Bernard Mornah described as illegal. The court upheld the case of Mr. Mornah and ruled in his favor.
Speaking on PEACE FM’s ‘Kokrokoo’ Morning Show, Abu Ramadan stated that his outfit might seek a review of the ruling sooner or later.
“We think there is the need for the court to look at certain aspects of the law again and probably change the ruling again because the court might not have noted that areas well in the law before handing out the ruling,” he said.
“Before going to court, truly we knew yes…we were not parties to the matter but we felt that this being an Election Petition suit (and having a bearing on us all as Ghanaians), we could get the court to really see the need for us to be heard in the matter…but the judges felt the rules of court still stands…,” he added.