A seven-member review panel of the Supreme Court has dismissed the review application brought before it by Counsel for the Interested parties in the SALL case, Tsatsu Tsikata.
The Court, presided by Justice Yaw Appau, also had Justices; Samuel Marful-Sau, Gertrude Torkonoo, Amadu Tanko, Yoni Kulendi, and Henrietta Mensa Bonsu.
According to the presiding judge, the full details of the ruling will be filed at the registry of the Apex Court.
Moving an 18-ground relief, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata argued that, there was a fundamental error in the apex court’s ordinary bench’s decision occasioned them a miscarriage of justice.
He argued that, striking out certain reliefs sought in the High Court, Ho when the application brought by the Attorney-General did not ask for any reliefs to be struck out, occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
He contended that the Supreme Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to make those orders.
Mr Tsikata argued that no opportunity was given to the Interested Parties to be heard in respect of the orders of the court made on the reliefs.
The Supreme Court, he argued that, made a fundamental error in having Justice Hoenyenugah participate in the determination of the objection as that amounted to being a judge in his own cause.
He, therefore, requested the Supreme Court in the interests of justice, to review its decision and allow the case in the High Court, Ho, for the enforcement of the fundamental human rights of the Interested Parties to “run its course.”
The Respondents therein, including Amewu and the Attorney-General, have every opportunity to present their case to that court.
He argued that it is undoubtedly in the interests of justice that the Interested Parties are heard expeditiously in respect of their serious allegations of violations of their fundamental human rights.”
Chief State Attorney, Grace Awol while opposing the application argued that, the case of the interested parties has already been dealt with by the ordinary bench.
The Chief State Attorney, however conceded that, the issue of fundamental human rights as was cited by the counsel.
Arguing further, Grace Awol said the other grounds made by the interested parties counsel was a rehash of the argument and that in terms of Rule 54 which makes it relevant for the Court to review the decision of the ordinary bench.
This application, the Chief State Attorney said, does not meet the requirements of Rule 54.