-Lawyers of the second respondent have asked the Court to strike out 23 paragraphs from the witness' statement
-According to them, the paragraphs are either not based on the pleadings of the Petitioner, border on issues of authenticity, and have already been ruled on by the court
-After hours of arguments from the petitioner and the respondents’ team, the Court struck out only five paragraphs
Our manifesto: This is what YEN.com.gh believes in
The Supreme Court has struck out five paragraphs from the witness statements of Rojo Mettle-Nuoo.
The legal team of President Nana Akufo-Addo asked the Court to strike out 23 of the 32-paragraph statement of Rojo Mettle-Nunoo—paragraphs 4 (part), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 (part), 16, 17 (part), 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 25, and 26.
Mettle-Nunoo was one of the National Democratic Congress’ (NDC) representatives at the Electoral Commission (EC) strong room during the national collation of the 2020 presidential results.
Speaking to journalists in the post-trial interview, a spokesperson of Mahama’s legal team, Dr. Dominic Ayine said they were taken aback “when they sought to basically throw out the entire witness statement.”
He described the Court’s decision to strike out only five paragraphs from the witness statement as a “great victory.”
Touching on the impact the paragraphs that were struck out will have on the case, Ayine insisted that the other 28 gave detailed evidence concerning what happened in the strongroom, and that “ultimately if those are taken into account, the probative value of what our witness will say will rise up.”
Mettle-Nunoo said in his witness statement that he did not willingly sign the regional collation sheet for the Ashanti Region.
According to him, officials of the EC in the strongroom tricked him into signing the sheet.
He said in paragraph 11 of his witness statement in support of the former president’s case that he signed the sheet because he thought the party’s agent signed.
But, that was not the case.
Mettle Nunoo also corroborated claims by Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whytte that the EC chair deliberately instructed them to go and have an audience with Mahama to pave the way for the declaration of the results.
“And she did also indicate that the reason she was asking us to do so is for all the stakeholders including the NPP, Peace Council and others to be invited to ensure that we had a credible result before the announcement of the winner is made,” he said.
The lawyer for the Electoral Commission (EC), Justin Amenuvor, accused Kpessa-Whyte of lying when he said Jean Mensa deliberately sent them away from the strong room to declare the presidential results.
But in his response, Kpessa-Whyte rejected Amenuvor’s accusation, informing the Court that he had no reason to lie.
Enjoy reading our stories?