Following the close of proceedings after the appearance of the petitioner’s third witness in court as part of the ongoing adjudication of the election petition in the Supreme Court of Ghana, and for the first time via Zoom – which involved the used of the internet to produce audiovisual projection of Mr. Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo (the said witness) from a distant location; the counsel of the petitioner declared the close of his case.
In view of the above, it means that the former President John Mahama – the petitioner in the case through his counsel Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata have provided and are satisfied with all that they have proven in court to prove the authenticity and merit of the reliefs sought in his petition by way of documentary evidence, witnesses, video footages; among others.
Now, the petitioner’s counsel’s only expectation to have the first respondent to the petition mount the witness box for questioning and cross examination seems to be in futility; for the reason that the counsels of both the first and second respondents have expressed satisfaction to the petitioner’s after appreciation the issues put forward by the counsel of the petitioner and have decided not to have their witnesses mount the witness box since they are of the conviction that the petitioner with all his charges and exhibits has not provoked the reaction of the respondents’ witnesses to call for questioning.
In his briefing to the press after proceedings today, Mr. Edudzi Tamakloe – a member of the petitioner’s legal team expressed his dissatisfaction at the stance of the counsels of the respondents for refusing to allow their witnesses to answer questions especially from the petitioner’s counsel and in extension the Justices of the Supreme Court.
He added that in the worst scenario where the court would rule in favor of the respondents to deny the petitioner’s counsel the avenue to have cross examining session especially with the first respondent it would in his opinion then set an unfortunate precedence from which future election matters of this kind would be resolved in the streets and in other avenues other than the Supreme Court.
Ignatius Agyeman Pambour – Enmoregh.com