[ad_1]
General news for Wednesday, February 3, 2021
Source: GNA
2021-02-03
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Designated Minister of Information
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, spokesperson for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo in the 2020 Presidential Election Petition trial on Tuesday questioned the reasons why the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama, did not use Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo as witness as witness.
He said that Mr. Mettle-Nunoo should have taken the witness stand, took the oath, and told the court that he spoke with Ms. Jean Mensa, the chair of the Election Commission and was ordered to leave the strong room of the EC .
Earlier, Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte, the petitioner’s second witness, former President John Dramani Mahama, in a cross-examination told the Supreme Court that Ms. Mensa ordered him and Mettle-Nunoo to convey a message to the petitioner and then declared the results in his absence.
Mr. Nkrumah said that the Respondent’s lawyers believe that “if Mettle-Nunoo had set up 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 has turned to Dr. Kpessa-Whyte, who now admits that she never spoke to the president and yet she was subject to an instruction, but the one who heard the instruction was available and alive, but refuses to mount the stage.
He said that in his opinion three key issues have been resolved, which were the fallacy that was initially expressed and amplified through Dr. Kpessa-Whyte that the EC President instructed them.
“We are beginning to see clearly that, at best, that fallacy is something that does not stand up to cross-examination,” he said.
He said that it was not only the exchange of words as an instruction, but that “we want the media to pay special attention that there is nowhere in the witness statement that instruction has been used, but that it was” requested “that it be use”.
He said that now on the witness stand and under oath, the witness seeks to amend that and escalate the claim that they were instructed and that is why the main lawyer, Mr. Akoto Ampaw of President Nana Akufo-Addo (second defendant) it didn’t take too long to cross-examine.
He said that they were clear that the fallacy had been resolved and that the court would take legal note, and that it could not even be true that the EC President would instruct a representative of a Candidate and they would obey.
He said that they think it was becoming very clear that these issues were resolved and connected to the Main theme; “If someone got more than 50 percent, it was the declaration in contravention of Article 63 (3), these key questions would now be answered.”
Nkrumah said another issue that drew attention was FORM 13, there was a claim to suggest that the document shown to the witness was made through the back door and was not FORM 13.
The spokesperson said that the claim that the witness has been harassed by the court (judges) was a tactic the lawyers were using to get the petitioner to poison the minds of Ghanaians against the court, because they could start to see through the questions and answers that were giving gaps in your case.
“The Bench has the right to ask questions for clarity and we believe that when our witnesses come to the stand they will also ask questions and there is nothing wrong with that,” he added.
Meanwhile, the petitioner’s attorneys have filed a motion in the Supreme Court requesting an order to inspect documents from the Electoral Commission.
The motion on the notice was expected to move Tuesday, with respect to some original documents on 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.
