The Supreme Court has set Thursday, February 11, 2021, to rule on the decision by the respondents; Nana Akufo-Addo and the Electoral Commission, not to present any witnesses in the ongoing election petition hearing.
The court after three hours of legal arguments between lawyers for the respondents, Justin Amenuvor and Akoto Ampaw as well as Tsatsu Tsikata for the petition, adjourned to Thursday to deliver a ruling on the matter.
Justine Amenuvor, representing the Electoral Commission (EC) earlier said: “it is our case that we would not wish to lead any further evidence, and therefore we are praying that this matter proceeds under order 36 rule 43 and C.I. 87 rule 3 (5) and we hereby on that basis, close our case.”
He argued that his side has the right not to present a witness and cannot be compelled to do so in the ongoing election petition case.
He said the petitioner should be excited at their decision if they have a good case.
Meanwhile, Tsatsu Tsikata said in the interest of justice, the EC Chairperson, Madam Jean Mensa need to be cross-examined.
“What is being put before you now is not only an affront to justice but is not in accordance with the rules of this court, and we respectfully submit that it must not be countenanced by this court,” Mr. Mahama’s lawyer said at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 9, 2021.
Mrs. Mensa has already filed a witness statement where she denies allegations of malfeasance outlined in Mr. Mahama’s petition.
Mr. Tsikata argued that Mrs. Mensa’s witness statement was one of the issues the petition was meant to address and necessitated cross-examination.
One of the issues outlined by the Supreme Court for determination is whether or not the declaration of the presidential election results by EC was in violation of Article 63 (3) of the 1992 Constitution.
Mr. Tsikata has also been trying to convince the justices that Mrs. Mensa’s witness statement can be considered as evidence.
“By filing its witness statement, the [EC] has clearly crossed the bridge as far as opening up the witness [Jean Mensa] for cross-examining is concerned.”
When asked by the court bench if Mrs. Mensa was entitled to change her mind, Mr. Tsikata said that matter “should be openly put to this court and the court may have the power to disallow this change.”