The Supreme Court by a unanimous ruling on Wednesday, dismissed a submission of ?no case? in the matter brought against the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Dramani Sakande, over his alleged dual nationality.
The court asked the MP to open his defence, ordered the court’s registrar to serve hearing notice to the Attorney-General, and adjourned the case to June 12.
The nine-member panel was chaired by Professor Justice Date-Baah, who announced that, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, a member of the panel, could not attend court because she was indisposed.
She, however, indicated to the court that she had read and agreed on the ruling.
Other members were, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice Sule Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
The Attorney General was not present in court, but counsels for Dramani, Mr Yonni Kulendi, Mr Egbert Faibille Jnr and Mr Bernard Archer were present.
Dramani was on July 31, 2009, brought to court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud, and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP, but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
Mr Sumaila Biebel, a cattle dealer in March 2009, filed a suit at the High Court, challenging the eligibility of the MP on the grounds that the MP held both British and Burkinabe passports. The court, in a default judgment on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat.
Disappointed with the court?s decision, counsels for the MP appealed against the decision, resulting in the Court of Appeal declaring in a unanimous decision that Mr Biebel should have gone by an electoral petition, since the matter bordered on electoral dispute.
All matters relating to electoral disputes are to be heard as electoral petitions and those petitions are to be heard 21 days after the results of the elections have been declared.
Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal?s decision, Mr Biebel went to the Supreme Court, which decided to take evidence from him.
He has since testified and been cross-examined by Mr Faibille.
The defence filed a submission of ?no case? after Mr Biebel had completed his evidence-in-chief and had been cross-examined.
It said Mr Biebel had failed to fully comply with the rules of evidence, and for that reason there was no evidence before the Supreme Court.
The defence said the standards for submitting exhibits had not been met by Mr Biebel and for that reason the court should strike out his case.
Mr Biebel is also the complainant in the criminal action against the MP at the Fast Track High Court.