<<Print>>

Former President John Mahama, petitioner in the ongoing election petition says it will seek review in the Supreme Court's ruling not to compel Jean Mensa to mount the witness box.

The Apex Court bringing an end to the issue which has generated a lot of views 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".

Lead Counsel for the Petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata in response to the ruling indicated that they will file for review of the court's decision.

Subpoena EC boss

Meanwhile, the petitioner has also sought permission to reopen its case and to file a Subpoena to have Madam Jean Mensa mount the witness box.

Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata during Thursday's hearing said, “we will now seek your Lordship’s permission to reopen our case in order to have a subpoena on the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission. My Lords, we know that we can issue a subpoena without leave but since we have closed our case on the assumption that she will be (in the witness box) . . . so we intend to file a formal motion.”

The Supreme Court has subsequently ordered all the parties to file their written closing addresses by 17th February 2021.

The case has been adjourned to 18th February 2021.





Background

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 duty.