The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday unanimously ruled that they cannot compel the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Jean Mensa, and Peter Mac Manu, the witness for 2nd Respondent, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to mount the witness box.
Lawyer for the Electoral Commission (EC), Justin Amenuvor on Monday, February 8 told the SC that it will not put its witness, Jean Mensa in the witness box.
This was after the petitioner told the court it has closed its case.
“Given the evidence of the petitioner’s witnesses under cross-examination so far, of those witnesses, speaking for the 1st respondent, it is the 1st respondent’s case that we do not wish to lead any further evidence and therefore we are praying that this matter proceeds under Order 36 Rule 43 and CI 87 rule 3 (e) 5, we hereby and on that basis close our case,” lawyer Amenuvor stated.
Lead counsel for the second respondent, Akoto Ampaw also indicated that he will not put his witness Peter Mac Manu in the witness box and that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner.
But lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, objected to the move by the lawyer for the 1st Respondent.
According to him, the EC boss has a constitutional duty to give accounts of what she has done in the conduct of her responsibility.
However, the Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah reading out their decision said: “…simply put, we are not convinced and will not yield to the invitation being extended to us by counsel of the petitioner to order the respondents to enter the witness box to be cross-examined accordingly we hereby overrule the objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner against the decision of the respondents declining to adduce evidence in this petition".
Read the full ruling below
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. |
@Paa Osei. My brother, yes oh the court out of courtesy is entertaining the petitioner. The court should have determined the preliminary objection by the respondents first. That this is not an election petition case so to say. But I think politically, they decided to allow the proceedings to continue setting up the five issues for determination. The most important one is whether by the data available no one had 50%+1 vote. Now what is the definition of data? How is the data preserved.? Is verbal (,speech) considered as data.? The petitioner should have answered these questions before deciding to continue. For me what the court will do is to add up.all the 16 regional collation sheets to arrive at the answer. Remember Rojo signed 13 of these before "running" away. The other 3 he failed to sign were of no consequence as the law states non signing does not stop the EC from declaring the results. My take please
It is clear as crystal to signify directly that the petitioner has lost the case. The rest is court ettiquet which the good learned Judges are exercising so much as to say, if somebody is telling you a ridiculous story or all that may have the earmarks of being a big lie, do not for your best interest give him a suspicious look as much as to say I Know you are lying to me. So what the good Suprem court is entertaining now, is purely based on the courtesy of the court. It is really, a pitty that Mr. Tsikata , otherwise, an astute lawyer, would stake his reputation on such a case.