That the Supreme Court permitted a live broadcast of the proceedings, even before the petitioner would apply for that permission in court indicates how magnanimous the apex court has been.
Considering the fact that in 2012, it initiated those processes, based on the dynamics of the time, we have every reason to assume that that act of magnanimity has come to stay, particularly when our Law Lords and Ladies themselves have exhibited commitment that matters of law and justice need no longer by mystified.
Unfortunately, while the eminent justices at the Supreme Court themselves are playing to the rules in laying bare the issues in terms of applications, running dates, case management, and all the reviewed instruments that former Attorney-General Marita Brew supervised, counsels have generally sought to use the space granted them by the processes to push their cases in the court of public opinion.
Again, while the media strives to perform its duties to the best of its knowledge, inviting the experts for their views in most cases, counsels involved in the case appear to the general public to be playing to the gallery by addressing and assuring their constituents that they are winning their case and the opponent losing because of A, B, C, and D.
Since the commencement of proceedings, the disease has afflicted the two parties in the case, with the phrase ‘court of the public’, opinion instead of ‘evidence’ and truth taking centre stage.
NDC The result is that ordinary citizens, caught in the political antics inherent in the ongoing political war between the New Patriotic Party as respondents and the National Democratic Congress as petitioners, are losing out on the real issues of why the NDC went to court and whether it is true that they won; or that none of the litigants won the 2020 presidential elections or that the NDC is only baying after the blood of the Electoral Commissioner, who is an accomplished citizen by any stretch of the word even before she entered the position.
They must also prove that if they have problems with the figures, they owe it a duty to the public and the Supreme Court to fill in that lack by way of evidence to show that they know what ought to be the figures that they are contesting.
Lawyers fighting the case of the respondent and the lawyers of the Electoral Commission, in our opinion, also owe the nation a duty to affirm that they truly conducted themselves fairly and responsibly in declaring or being declared victors in the crucial elections.
Any attempt or plot, therefore, to speak to the condition of the hearts of their supporters or constituents therefore must be seen more as satisfying the court of public opinion than the sacred dictates of the Supreme Court.
That is where a commitment to put Ghana first becomes more necessary than any other consideration. And that is also why we must also be forthright and honest with our constituents and sympathizers in pointing out to them that while we have elected to slug it out in court, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to sift the wheat from the chaff and give Ghana – not one political party – the verdict, based on the facts and evidence before the court.
We believe this is important in getting the hoodlums of our streets in case one party lost and the wrong messages are picked and acted upon.
It is on this score that we appeal to the counsels of both parties to help us as a people to litigate wisely and move forward cautiously, without igniting our political space and social stability as well as our future and our democratic gains.
As one justice pointed out, the Supreme Court, like all average, modern, credible courts, is a court of records.