Election petition: Mahama exercised his right to be heard, Akufo-Addo exercises his right not to speak – Nana Adjoa Adobea

President Akufo-Addo’s spokesman said it was his client’s right to remain silent on the ongoing election petition case.

This follows a decision by counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants not to call witnesses to present evidence in the case before the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, counsel for both Respondents cited Order 38, Rule 3 (e) sub-rule 1 and 5 of IC 47 as amended by IC 87 as the basis for their decision to close their case and not to appeal. witness.

Defending his position further after Tuesday’s proceedings, Nana Adjoa Adobea Asante said that just like the petitioner, John Mahama has the right to be heard, President Akufo-Addo has the right not to speak.

According to her, Mr. Mahama and his lawyers should be happy with this decision of the 1st and 2nd defendants, as it works in their favor assuming that they have actually argued in court.

“The right to be heard is a proven principle of law, but the right not to speak is inherent. The petitioner exercised his right to be heard and they took the floor. But we have decided as the second respondent not to exercise this right.

“And in fact, a petitioner who has full confidence in their case should be happy. Probably, by popping champagne or drinking tea because we decided not to present any evidence, ”she said.

Mrs Asante therefore asked why the legal adviser of the petitioner was unhappy with this decision taken by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

According to her, the line of conduct of the legal representatives of the Electoral Commission and of President Akufo-Addo “is a masterstroke and has disturbed the camp of the petitioner”

“It is therefore curious that the petitioner who bears the burden of proof wants the electoral commissioner to raise the witness stand, so that he can use the EC to prove his thesis. We don’t hear about it. “

“We are in the Court and we hope that Thursday the Court will rule in our favor,” she said.

Meanwhile, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that the witnesses of the 1st and 2nd defendants, in particular the President of the EC, Jean Mensa, are obliged to take the witness stand.

According to them, EC should be responsible for clarifying the anomalies that have been highlighted by the petitioner.