Mahama needs SC to administer on his application prior to hearing starts

  

The candidate, for this situation, John Dramani Mahama has recorded an application for stay of procedures at the Supreme Court. What this basically implies is that the candidate needs the Supreme Court to briefly end the knowing about the 'principle' appeal until such a period that the survey application and the application to examine archives served on the first respondent have be heard and controlling given by the Court. 

What we can be sure of is that, the way that the applicant has documented a cycle for stay of procedures consequently implies the becoming aware of the case will be stopped. The Court will take contentions from the candidate and the respondents (for this situation they are probably going to contradict the application) prior to making a last assurance whether to allow the application for stay of procedures or not. 

At the point when the moment application is truly, the court will require to be postponed the knowing about the appeal and manage the survey application and different cycles the solicitor has documented. At the point when the court denies it, at that point the knowing about the appeal will continue as planned. You review that at the last hearing when lead counsel for the candidate caused the Court to notice the reality they had applications before it for assurance before they could document their observer explanation, an individual from the board, Prof Ashie Kotey, JSC, answered that the recording of the survey application doesn't work as remain of procedures. 

The candidate's legal advisors have not degraded their position that their applications should be resolved before the becoming aware of the appeal begins. This doesn't in at any rate adds up to 'defer strategies' as the second respondent's legal counselors have tirelessly affirmed. The obligation of the applicant is to arraign his case in a way that will bring him the ideal outcomes, and the respondents are there to respondent to whatever the candidate will document. The respondents' work isn't to guide the candidate on the best way to indict his case. 

This case is certainly not a stroll in the recreation center as representatives of the second respondent at first idea. It resembles a cow excrement, it's dry at the top however underneath is exceptionally sloppy. How about we check whether the Court will allow the stay of procedures or not.