Election Petition: Summaries of proceedings Feb 8

The Supreme Court’s hearing in the presidential election petition filed by John Dramani Mahama on the 30th of December 2020 is ongoing.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

The Supreme Court’s hearing in the presidential election petition filed by John Dramani Mahama on the 30th of December 2020 is ongoing.

Cross-examination of the Petitioners third witness, Robert Mettle-Nunoo ended Monday.

This write up seeks to summarize activities of the proceedings for Monday 8th February 2021.

• Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, a lawyer for the Petitioner requests the Court to play a video interview of Mr Mac Manu, Campaigner Manager of the 2ND Respondent conducted on Metro Television.

The Court played the video after which Mr Justin Amenuvor, the 1st Respondent’s lawyer commenced and completed his cross-examination of Robert Mettle- Nunoo.

Rojo, as the witness is affectionately called testified that he complained about some of the results coming from the regions but admitted that he signed 13 out of the 16 regions that had been sent to the EC’s Collation Centre, known as the strong room.

He denied knowledge of what Mr Victor Adawudu, the petitioner’s representative in parts of the Ashanti region had said in the media regarding the authenticity of the results from Ashanti Region.

Mr Mettle Nunoo confirmed that the Regional Summary Sheets had a column for reasons for refusal to sign, and admitted that except for Western North, which he signed, none of the Regional Summary Sheets had any reasons for refusal to sign.

He admitted that the Petitioner was in Court to review the performance of the EC in applying the rules of the elections.

He denied that he failed the Petitioner in representing him at the EC’s strong room.

The former Deputy Minister of Health testified that he left the EC strong room to the Petitioner’s residence around 3 pm to 4 pm and that at the time he was leaving, 3 regions were outstanding but Northern Region had come around 3:47 pm and he had seen it. He stated that at Inter-Party Advisory Committee each political party was accredited to have 4 candidates in the EC strong room with 2 present at all times. He stated further he did not leave on his own will or volition but was sent by the EC with a message for the Petitioner.

• Mr Akoto Ampaw, a lawyer for the 2nd Respondent commenced and completed his cross-examination of the witness. He denied that it was because of calls from civil society, religious leaders and observer missions that compelled the Petitioner to go to Court, and that the Petitioner went to Court on his own volition.

He admitted that he played an important role in the preparation of the Petition but he did not know whether he would be called as a witness in the case.

He also admitted that he heard some of the proceedings because he was interested in it. He testified that the information he was giving to the Petitioner related to anomalies in the collation of the results from the regions.

He confirmed that he had a functioning iPhone with him at the EC strong room and that was the phone he called the EC with. He admitted that he had failed to show how the alleged lack of transparency affected the outcome of the elections.

• The Court had some questions for him. In response to the Court’s questions, he testified that he had signed 13 of the 16 Regional Summary Sheets before going to see the Petitioner. The Court then discharged him. 

• Mr Tsikata informed the Court that the Petitioner had ended its case.

On his part, Mr Amenuvor informed the Court that because of the evidence before the Court and the cross-examination that had taken place, the EC did not wish to lead any evidence, and accordingly, the EC would not be calling any witnesses and closed the EC’s case.

Mr Tsikata objected, arguing that the EC elected to adduce evidence and that they elected to do so at the case management stage and notified the Court accordingly. Mr Ampaw also informed the Court that the President did not intend to call any witnesses because the Petitioner had not proved its case. The Court then asked counsel to return tomorrow to address it on the matter.

• The Court then adjourned the Petition to Tuesday, 9 February 2021 to hear arguments from counsel for all the parties.