Sign in
Download Opera News App

Politics Policy




Africa politics

Election Petition: Why ‘star witness’ Asiedu Nketia’s cross-examination was used against the petitioner

John Dramani Mahama, the Presidential Candidate of the NDC in the 2020 political decision, got his Election Petition excused by the Supreme Court of Ghana for absence of legitimacy. 

In the two-hour judgment of the seven-part board conveyed by Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah last Thursday, March 4, the Justices recognized a few provisos in the appropriate responses of Johnson Asiedu Nketia, Principal Witness One, when the last was interviewed. 

The Chief Justice depicting Johnson Asiedu Nketia as the 'star observer's for the Petitioner, John Dramani Mahama expressed that the Petitioner was not in "Court to challenge the legitimacy of the figures or information introduced by the Chairperson of first Respondent that is the reason in his declaration, he didn't give any information to repudiate that of the first Respondent." 

He proceeded: "His statement was that the figures at first gathered by the Chairperson contained mistakes, which his gathering, the NDC brought up in a letter routed to the Chairperson on the ninth of December, 2020 preceding the assertion. Be that as it may, in affecting adjustments to some unacceptable figures or information, the first Respondent didn't welcome them for their support however singularly affected the said remedies, in spite of articles 23 and 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution." 

Equity Kwasi Anin-Yeboah at that point proceeded to peruse trades that represented the adjudicator's refusal to arrange a re-run between the applicant and the second respondent Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. 

John Asiedu Nketia, Dr Michael Kpessa-Whyte and Robert Joseph (Rojo) Mettle-Nunoo were introduced by the Petitioner as witnesses, yet the Supreme Court of Ghana, saw the declarations of Dr Kpessa-Whyte and Rojo Mettle-Nunoo as "whimsical stories". 

"Concerning the other two observers; for example PW 2 and 3, Dr Kpessa-Whyte and Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, the little said about their declarations comparative with the issues in question, the better," the Chief Justice read as a feature of the Judgment. 

"They related a whimsical story of how the Electoral Chairperson would not regard their grievances and a few inconsistencies they saw in a portion of the examination shapes that came from a portion of the districts. We portray this proof as whimsical in light of the fact that, regardless of these supposed fights, they went on to confirm and affirm 13 of the 16 political decision provincial examination sheets," Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah read. 

The following are extracts of the questioning between Akoto Ampaw (AA), counsel for second Respondent, and Johnson Asiedu Nketia (JAN), first Witness of the Petitioner on February 1, 2021. 

AA: I am saying that from the revelation in the video cut that we just saw, which truly is the premise of all your case - and you should realize what is in it - the all out number of legitimate votes that the subsequent respondent got is 6,730,413? 

JAN: That is right my rulers. 

AA: The all out number of votes that the solicitor acquired from the affirmation declaration of your display 'A' is 6, 214, 889. 

JAN: That is so my rulers. 

AA: And I am additionally putting it to you that in the event that you do an amount of these substantial votes… 

By court: You posed this inquiry about an hour prior more than or twice and it has been replied. 

AA: Can you mention to the court what is 6, 730, 413 as a level of 13,121,111? 

JAN: My rulers, it's 51,29453 forever. Along these lines, it very well may be gather together to 51.295% 

AA: So, 51.295% not really? 

JAN: Yes. 

AA: What about the candidate: his all out substantial votes are 6, 214, 889. What is this whole as a level of 13,121,111? 

JAN: It is 47.365569 ceaselessly. Along these lines, it tends to be gathered together to 47.366%. 

AA: So, you concede that from the Chairperson of first respondent's statement on December 9, the subsequent respondent passed over half boundary? 

JAN: From the revelation as declared. 

AA: From the figures that we just determined, these figures which were declared, in the event that you do them as a level of the real complete substantial votes, these are the rates you get for the candidate and the subsequent respondent. That is the thing I am putting to you? 

By court: Mr Ampaw, when you recover your inquiry, this is the thing that raises the trouble. Your past was, the subsequent respondent passed the half boundary. In recovering, you changed the subsequent part. So generously adhere to the inquiry. 

AA: I am saying that from the computation of the figures of applicant and second respondent, the subsequent respondent almost passed over half boundary? 

JAN: Well, if the figures are right, yes. 

AA: Again, you see that when you determined the rate for the second respondent you went to a figure of 51.295%. 

JAN: Yes, my rulers. 

The presumed that per the above trades there was no uncertainty the candidate's group acknowledged that the absolute substantial votes cast was 13,121,111 and not 13,434,547 as wrongly depicted by the Chairperson of the main respondent on December 9, 2020. 

It was the perspective on the board that the proof in court affirmed that the absolute substantial votes cast was 13, 121,111. 

It was now of the interrogation that the CJ expressed that there was no legitimate premise to fight that an alternate figure of 13, 334 574 was utilized as all out substantial votes in estimating the over half limit. 

The Chief Justice keeps perusing 

AA: So, you concede that it is totally off-base for anyone to utilize the absolute votes cast as a reason for deciding the level of votes got by various applicants? 

JAN: Yes 

AA: Anybody who does that can't be acknowledged anyplace in Ghana. 

JAN: Yes my master. 

AA: I am putting it to you that you utilized this mistaken figure as a reason for requiring your re-run? 

JAN: The inquiry once more, I need to get the inquiry again so I can reply. 

AA: You can't utilize that off-base figure as a reason for your case that there ought to be a rerun between the subsequent respondent and the applicant. 

JAN: Yes, my master. 

The board contained Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah (directing); Yaw Apau, JSC, Samuel K. Marful-Sau, JSC; Nene Amegathcher, JSC; Professor Ashie Kotey, JSC; Mariama Owusu (Ms.), JSC; and Gertrude Torkornoo (Mrs), JSC.

Content created and supplied by: Hellenasare7 (via Opera News )

Asiedu Nketia John Dramani Mahama Johnson Asiedu Nketia NDC Supreme Court of Ghana


Load app to read more comments