Hearing commenced at exactly 9:30 am. The Petitioner’s 2nd witness, Dr. Kpessah Whyte was sworn into the witness box and his witness statement admitted as his evidence without objection.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY 1ST RESPONDENT’S LAWYER
Under cross-examination, the following admissions were made:
1. That the Ashanti regional summary sheet was duly signed by Brogya Gyamfi, the agent of the Petitioner there without any complaint.
2. That the results from Ashanti were duly certified at the national centre after confirmation with the regional representatives.
3. That as of the time he was testifying, none of the regional summary sheets contained any complaint by any agent of the petitioner even though a column was provided for that purpose.
4. That the witness never spoke to the EC Chair himself and the alleged instruction that he leaves the strong room together with Rojo Mettle Nunoo was communicated to him by Rojo Mettle Nunoo.
5. That even for the regions which Petitoner’s agents refused to sign, no reasons were assigned.
Counsel for the EC also put it to the witness that the alleged letter containing their grievances were in fact never delivered to the EC. He further put it to him that together with Rojo Mettle-Nunoo, they decided to leave the strong room by them selves when they realised the Petitioner had lost the elections. In concluding, Counsel put it to him that his abandonment of his post as an agent of the Petitioner led to the present ill-fated action and indeed that the witness was not a credible witness.
At some point in the cross-examination, Prof. Ashie Kotey JSC, sought to find out whether the witness was saying he was instructed by the EC to leave the strong room to consult or he was asked since the two words did not mean the same. The witness answered he was using the words interchangeably but the learned Justice cautioned that they can’t be used interchangeably because they meant differently.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY 2ND RESPONDENT’S WITNESS
The witness under cross-examination admitted the following:
1. That the EC Chair has no power to instruct the witness who is an agent of the Petitioner.
2. That in a public interview the witness alleged 390,000 votes had been padded in Ashanti Region but that allegation was not contained in the petition or his witness statement.
3. That either him or Rojo Mettle Nunoo could have left the strong room for the other to stay. He however stated the weight of the matters required both of them to go.
Counsel then concluded his cross-examination.
Questions from the Bench
As allowed by the rules of Court, the Bench sought to ask some questions to clarify matters.
Justice Marful-Sau caused to be shown a copy of the regional collation sheet and the witness admitted that indeed there was a column provided for agents who refused to sign to state the reasons for not signing.
Justice Marima Owusu also sought to find out whether there was any peculiar reason for which the witness and Rojo Mettle Nunoo as agents of the Petitioner, both had to leave the strong room at the same time when they knew they were there for a particular purpose.
Justice Yaw Appau quizzed the witness whether he was sent to the strong room to take instructions from the Chairperson of the EC to which he answered that was right.
He further sought to make the point that the the witness did not help the cause of the petitioner when he elected to take contrary instructions from the Chair of the 1st Respondent when he had specific instructions from the Petitioner, who was his principal.
Justice Marful -Sau finally asked the witness that since he says he never spoke to the Chair of the 1st Respondent in person, by what means was he instructed to leave the strong room by the EC and he said his colleague, Rogo Mettle Nunoo informed him.
The Court adjourned the matter to tomorrow, 3rd February, 2021 to enable Petitioner move his motion to inspect documents which was filed today. Respondents are to file their opposition by close of day.
By Lawyer Nana Boakye