The 2020 Presidential Election Petition will see the appearance of no further witness if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents submission of no case to answer.
That will mean the First Respondent and Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Jean Adukwei Mensah, together with Peter Mac Manu, first witness for the Second Respondent, President Akufo-Addo won’t be seen in the witness box for cross-examination.
Lead counsel for the first Respondent, Lawyer Justin Amenuvor had told the Apex court that he didn’t wish to put their witness up for cross-examination.
He premised his argument on Order 36 (4) sub rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rule ), C.I 47, which he argued allowed the respondent to decide not to adduce any evidence.
To him, the Petitioner has not made any substantive arguments to prove their case which will compel them to open their defence.
He premised his argument on Order 36 (4) sub rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rule ), C.I 47, which he argued allowed the respondent to decide not to adduce any evidence.
To him, the Petitioner has not made any substantive arguments to prove their case which will compel them to open their defence.
Lawyer Akoto-Ampaw also made a similar argument adding that the Petitioner has not satisfied the burden of proof substantially.
Lead Counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata raised a counter-argument saying once the First Respondent has filed a witness statement as "mandated by the court during case management", they consider that as evidence, thus the latter has to be cross-examined on what has been submitted.
The SC will give its ruling on the matter after written and oral legal submissions by all the parties tomorrow, Tuesday, 9th February.
Source: Peacefmonline.com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Featured Video
MARIETTA BREW APPIAN-OPPONG LIED AGAIN IN HER BRIEFINGS AFTER SC HEARING. SHE CLAIMED TO DISAGREED THAT HER LADYSHIP AT THE SUPREME COURT "SAID IT WAS A HUMAN RIGHT ISSUE, " IF JEAN MENSAH IS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY. THIS IS FALSE. HER LADYSHIP AT THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT SAY BUT ASKED TSATSU THAT " IS IT COMPELLING SOMEONE TO TESTIFY A HUMAN RIGHT ISSUE?" OUR LADYSHIP ONLY ASKED TSIKATA A QUESTION WHICH HE RESPONDED "MY LORD, I HAVE TO GIVE A CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO IT" OUR LADYSHIP WAS NOT ESTABLISHING ANY STATEMENT OF CLAIM, BUT WAS ONLY INQUIRING, AND TSATUSU SINCERELY RESPONDED HE HAD NOT THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. MARRIETA IS THEREFORE LYING. IN THE SAMW BRIEFING LAWYER TAMAKLO INSULTED EC WHICH MUST NOT BE OVERLOOK BUT BE REPRIMANDED. HECHOSE TO BASE HIS ARGUEMENT ON INSULT ND NO ON LAW. HE STATED THAT EC IS STUBBORN (DW33) EVEN IF THE LAW DOES NOT BIND HER, JUST LIKE IT DID NOT BIND MAHAMA.
The so called astute lawyer Tsikata has been swerved, suuliya. The respondents are saying, my Lord, judge the case based on what the petitioner has presented. We are too clever to allow our clients to help the petitioner. The 20000 questions prepared by Tsikata will remain in his brief case till thy kings come. No pink sheets, no collating sheets, “no nothing” and you want respondents to help you out. Calling witnesses no be by force. Hehehehe! I laugh enter Mary’s ***barred word***.
Case closed!!! Bam! We choose not take advantage of fielding any witnesses my lords! We are happy so far for you to rule on the matter on the strenght of the evidences and witnesses of the petitioner, yet still the petitioner is crying. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Tsatsu did not see this coming!!! The case is yaamutu (dead). Infact it was dead on arrival. Look at the lies of Rojo Mettle Nunoo, the childish story of Kpesah Whyte and the illogical argument of Asiedu Nketiah and you will understand that Mahama had no case at all in the first place.
When you choses to lie under oath to maneuver your way, it doesn't make you anything but ***barred word*** and ***barred word***. People like Rojo has at least an integrity to protect. Your children and grandchildren will come and watch this tape and the question here is;- is this the kind of legacy you want to leave with your posterity? I would rather chose to protect my integrity than washing it down the drain to protect an already sunked ship. You only read it in the news about your party taking EC to court over New voter register!! Really?