[ad_1]
President Akufo-Addo’s spokesman says it is within his client’s right to remain silent in the case of an ongoing electoral petition.
This follows a decision by the attorneys for the 1st and 2nd Respondent not to summon any witnesses to present evidence in the matter to the higher court.
Yesterday, the attorneys for the two defendants cited Order 38, rule 3 (e), sub-rule 1 and 5 of CI 47 as amended by CI 87 as the basis for their decision to close their case and not call a witness.
Further defending the position after Tuesday’s proceedings, Nana Adjoa Adobea Asante indicated that just as the petitioner, John Mahama has the right to be heard, President Akufo-Addo has the right not to speak.
In their view, Mr. Mahama and his lawyers should be pleased with this decision by the first and second defendants, because it works in their favor assuming that they have actually presented a strong case in court.
“It is a proven principle of law that the right to be heard exists, but the right not to speak is inherent. The petitioner exercised his right to be heard and they spoke. But we have decided as a second defendant not to exercise this right.
“And indeed, a petitioner who has full confidence in his case should be happy. Probably drinking champagne or tea because we have decided not to provide any evidence, ”he said.
Mrs. Asante, therefore, questioned why the petitioner’s legal advisers are unhappy with this decision taken by the first and second defendants.
In her opinion, the course of action of the legal representatives of the Electoral Commission and of President Akufo-Addo “is the masterstroke and has disrupted the petitioner’s camp.”
“It is, therefore, curious that the petitioner on whom the burden of proof falls wants the Electoral Commissioner to set up the witness stand, so that he can use the EC to prove his case. You haven’t heard of this. “
“We are in the heart of the Court and we hope that on Thursday the Court will rule in our favor,” he said.
Meanwhile, the petitioner’s lawyer has argued that the witnesses of the first and second defendants, in particular, the president of the EC, Jean Mensa, are obliged to take the stand.
According to them, the EC should be responsible for clarifying the anomalies highlighted by the petitioner.
