The Supreme Court in its unanimous judgment that affirmed Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as a validly elected President described the testimonies of two of the petitioners witnesses, Dr Michael Kpessa-Whyte and Mr Robert Joseph Rojo Mettle-Nunoo as “fanciful tales.”
The petitioner, former President John Dramani Mahama who challenged the results of the 2020 presidential election and was calling for re-run presented three witnesses to support his case.
Out of the three, the Supreme Court apart from the General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr John Asiedu Nketia whose testimony was related to the issues which were before the court, those of Kpessa-Whyte and Mettle-Nunoo were not related to the issues which were before the court.
Rather, they only confirmed that they did not do the work which was expected of them as representatives of the presidential candidate at the strongroom of the Electoral Commission.
The Supreme Court therefore disregarded the evidence by Dr Kpessa-Whyte and Mr Mettle-Nunoo as irrelevant.
During the hearing of the case, the Supreme Court had questioned why Dr Michael Kpessa Whyte and Rojo Mettle Nunoo, who were the only two agents for the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress, Mr John Dramani Mahama in the 2020 election had to leave the Electoral Commission’s (EC) strong room whilst collation was still ongoing.
The bench asked why only one person [agent of the petitioner] did not leave but the two of them left with the explanation of going to confer with the petitioner, Mr John Dramani Mahama when they claimed to have detected some discrepancies in the figures.
“So if there was concern for you to leave, and in a heightened [atmosphere], you know in circumstances like that, will the two of you go? Because you see, you were there for a purpose, for the petitioner, his eyes, body, everything was you. You were going to confer with the petitioner, what were you expecting him to say, because you were the ones receiving the regional results. So if you had to go and confer with the petitioner, wasn’t it enough for one of you to go, so that one stay around and see what is
|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.|