With respect to the petition on 1st February 2021, the General Secretary of the NDC's questioning as witness ended in satisfaction.
Mr. Asiedu Nketsiah has asked me to ask you this question – Supreme Court Lawyer questions.
This was Dr. Kpessa’s answer:
As challenges came up with the summary letter, we thought it wise to make known this one, the petitioner, two – the very party he was the candidate to. We sort audience from the 1st respondent who told us, she has heard us. She asked to be given some minutes to get back to us.
On the second time, she instructed asked to go and elaborate to the petitioner and return.
After responding to this, the lawyer questioned him why he didn’t think of it as much to register this mode to CI-127.
To that, he answered:
Because, there was no space on the form to be indicated.
(Questions will be in bold)
Furthermore, he was asked: Did You mean this letter to be an official letter?
To the best of my knowledge, yes, he answered.
Next Question was: If you deem it as an official letter, where on your letter shows a prove of it being received at the Head Quarters at any other branch of the first respondent? Indicate for me.
There’s no indication but it is very essential to cognizant as the electoral commission building was encapsulated by heavy military and police presence not even talking about the public roads by the electoral commission.
The letter was brought in by the Deputy General Secretary of the party when we were on our way to have a consultation with the petitioner.
Hidden questions were raised as to his words said above of which he replied the questionnaires that, “My Lord, You were Not There”.
Next questioning read by lawyer: Tell how this knowledge was acquired?
To which he said, “This knowledge was acquired though interactions from those directly involved.
Marrieta Oppong Brew and other officials of the party.
Next: Coming to the letter, it was not received and neither was it sent by email.
To the best of my knowledge, he responded “No”.
Next: This letter was made by you and your domain to create a scene and hide your failings and it was never received by the first respondent. You did this as an agent to the petitioner in the stronghold. I further put it to you that you are not a truthful witness and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the release of the letter.
To all of this, he denied and said “No, and the petitioner is entitled to it.”
This are the hot and pressing questions that were thrown at Dr. Kpessa Whyte in the box from Asiedu Nketsia concerning a letter sent when there were challenges with the summary sheet.
What do you also have to say?
Content created and supplied by: Kaks_Gym (via Opera News )