Supreme Court judges hearing the constitutionality of the presidential pardon granted to the Montie trio by former President John Mahama have lashed out at lawyers for delays in the case.
The Supreme Court last year ordered that three different suits filed on the same matter by three different individuals be consolidated for it to be gone into.
However, when the case came up in court on Tuesday, March 20 it emerged that the lawyers had just filed the consolidated memorandum of issues that very morning.
The seven-member panel chaired by Justice Sophia Adinyira, expressed indignation at the delays because it has taken almost a year for the consolidated memorandum to be filed at the court registry.
Though lawyer for Nana Asante Bediatuo, one of the applicants in the case, explained the delays were due to difficulty in getting in touch with the other parties but Justice Adinyira did not accept the excuse.
In view of the development, the court adjourned the case to March 28 to enable the judges study the documents as well as allow the Attorney General which is the respondent, to be served and respond accordingly.
The apex court in 2017 ordered the consolidation of three separate suits challenging the constitutionality of former President Dramani Mahama granting amnesty to the Montie 3 – radio panelists – Alistair Nelson, Godwin Ako Gunn and Salifu Maase aka Mugabe.
The Court held the issues raised in the various cases were identical.
It stated that all the cases filed by the various plaintiffs were seeking an interpretation of Article 72 of the 1992 Constitution, a reason the court finds it expedient to consolidate the cases.
The judges stated that the parties should also file their agreed memorandum of issues.
Nana Asante Bediatuo, Elekplem Agbameva and Alfred Tuah Yeboah had filed the suit at the apex court challenging the rightfulness of ex-president Mahama to free the three paddies.
The SC directive came after all the lawyers for the Plaintiffs, had agreed with the court to consolidate the cases.
On January 12, last year, Justice Yaw Appau, a sole judge who sat over the case, revealed that there were three different suits challenging the constitutionality of the former president’s decision.
The court noted that the Plaintiffs in the matter had filed similar suits.
The Attorney General (AG), represented by Grace Oppong, Principal State Attorney, entered appearance and the court gave the AG seven days to file its statement of case in response to the matter.