Mensah Thompson: Introducing NDC video evidence does not help respondents in any way

On the introduction of video evidence of NDC press conferences claiming victory in the 2020 election by Akoto Ampaw when cross-examining star witness Asiedu Nketia for the petitioner, I am not sure how this helps the respondents defend themselves regardless of its eligibility.

Because the petitioner’s witness claimed victory in the election outside the courtroom, his insistence on the administrative and mathematical error made by the first defendant becomes moot.

You can make claims outside of court, but when you go to court you are bringing a reasonable action that you can prove or satisfy without a doubt.

In the 2012 elections, the NPP also held a series of press conferences claiming victory, even when they lost the parliamentary elections, but when they went to court their argument was that the court should overturn the results of some polling stations before they can be declared. winners.

If they had provided a sufficient basis for the Court, that these votes were illegitimate, their demands outside the Court would not have mattered.
Their case was dismissed because they were unable to provide a reasonable basis for which these results should be overturned.

The gist of the NDC’s thesis is that the second defendant did not cross the constitutional threshold of 50% plus one to justify the statement in his favor.

Whether or not the petitioner won the election is irrelevant to the petitioner’s case. The fundamental question that the Court must answer after this trial is whether the second defendant obtained the required 50% plus one.

This question cannot be answered solely on the basis of the figures of the first defendant who, during the short duration of this trial, were widely discredited. How the Court decides to arrive at the answer to this question will be central to the fairness of this trial.

Unless my math is bad, I know there were three possible outcomes in the December 2020 election; either the second respondent won, the petitioner won, or none of them had the 50% plus one required.
Three different outcomes that were all possible after the election and each had its own consequences.

This is the case with the petitioner !!!

****

The author is the executive director of the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA), an anti-corruption and civil defense group.