[ad_1]
A member of John Mahama’s legal team, Dr. Dominic Ayine says that the electoral petition in the Supreme Court remains unscathed despite the Supreme Court’s decision to strike out about five paragraphs in the third witness statement submitted.
Dr. Dominic Ayine, who spoke to the media after the hearing on Friday, said: “For us, those five (paragraphs) do not materially harm the case we are trying to present by bringing Rogo Mettle-Nunoo as a witness. in this issue”.
Petitioner’s third witness, Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, was virtually unable to be questioned due to various objections raised by second respondent’s lead attorney, Akoto Ampaw, to the testimonial statement submitted by petitioner.
According to Akoto Ampaw, some 23 paragraphs of the witness statement sought to introduce issues of authenticity through the back door and issues that were not contained in the petition submitted by Mr. Mahama.
Consequently, he requested that the judicial panel strike out these paragraphs.
However, petitioner Tsatsu Tsikata’s lead attorney said that the witness statement refers to the second respondent’s allegations and presents transparency issues.
The court at the end of the process ruled that paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 of the witness statement were deleted because they were not contained in the petition and did not appear during cross-examination.
But in response to the matter, Dr. Ayine described the ruling as a victory for the petitioner.
“This is the case, we only have 5 of the 23 [paragraphs] get hit, ”he said.
He noted that if the objections raised by Akoto Ampaw had been considered, “it would have meant that we would basically have an empty witness statement that would not support our case.”
“If you see Akoto Ampaw standing up, he listed 23 out of 32 paragraphs to cross out. If you take them, that leaves only paragraphs 1 to 3, those are just introductory paragraphs of who the witness is, ”he added.
Although Dr. Ayine was satisfied with the court’s ruling, he insisted that the omitted paragraphs give details of what happened in the strong room that sought to demonstrate that the 2020 elections were not “fluid and transparent” as promoted by the EC.
“Paragraph six of the witness statement was intended to say that the system you call seamless, in fact, was not.
“And we believe that ultimately, if they are taken into account, the probative value of our testimony will increase,” he said.
