[ad_1]
Mr. Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, spokesperson for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo in the 2020 presidential petition trial, questioned on Tuesday why Mr. Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo was not used as a witness by petitioner, John Dramani Mahama.
He said Mr Mettle-Nunoo should have stepped into the witness stand, taken an oath and told the court that he had spoken with Ms Jean Mensa, chairman of the electoral commission and had been instructed to leave the vault of the THIS.
Previously, Dr Michael Kpessa-Whyte, the petitioner’s second witness, former President John Dramani Mahama, during cross-examination told the Supreme Court that Ms Mensa had asked him and Mettle- Nunoo, to convey a message to the petitioner, then had declared the results on their absence.
Mr Nkrumah said defendant’s lawyers believe that “if Mettle-Nunoo had raised the witness stand, the court would have caught him for perjury because he could not take an oath and tell lies”.
According to Mr Nkrumah, “This is the reason why the petitioner turned to Dr Kpessa-Whyte, who now admits that he never spoke to the President and yet she was under investigation, but the one who heard the instruction was available and alive. , but refuses to set up the witness box ”.
He stated that three key issues had been resolved in their view, which were the error initially expressed and amplified by Dr Kpessa-Whyte that the President of the EC had given them.
“We are starting to see clearly that this error is at best something that could not stand cross-examination,” he said.
He said it was not just the exchange of words as an instruction, but what “we want the media to take particular note of is that there is nowhere in the witness statement that the instruction was used, but rather that it was “asked” who was used “.
He said that now in the witness stand and under oath, the witness is seeking to change this and intensify the claim that they have been instructed and that is why lead counsel, Mr. Akoto Ampaw of President Nana Akufo-Addo (second respondent) did not allow too much time in his cross-examination.
He said that they were clear in their mind that the error had been resolved and the tribunal would take legal notice, and that it could not even be true that the President of the EC would instruct a representative of ‘a candidate and that they would obey.
He said that they thought it was becoming very clear that these issues were settled and related to the main issue; “If someone got more than 50 percent, if the statement violates section 63 (3), these key questions will now be answered.”
Mr Nkrumah said that another issue that had received attention was FORM 13, there was an allegation suggesting that the document that was shown to the witness was drafted by the backdoor and was not the FORMULA 13.
The spokesperson said that the claim that the witness was harassed by the bench (the judges) was a tactic used by the claimant’s lawyers to poison the minds of the Ghanaians against the bench as they could begin to see through the questions and answers which they gave gaps in their case.
“The judiciary has the right to ask questions for the sake of clarity and we believe that when our witnesses arrive at the ballot box, they will also ask questions and there is nothing wrong with that,” he said. added.
Meanwhile, the petitioner’s lawyers filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking for an order to inspect the election commission documents.
The notice motion was due to be moved on Tuesday, concerns some original documents regarding the presidential results collection forms.
The six-point motion requests the originals of all constituency presidential election results collection forms and summary sheets for all constituencies in Ghana.
— GNA
Source link
