Previous to any gathering for a situation will decide not to affirm, that gathering should be 200 percent sure that the adversary has a feeble case, a private legitimate professional, Martin Kpebu, has said.
His remark approach after Lawyer for the Electoral Commission (EC) Justin Amenuvor on Monday, February 8 moved to close his case in the continuous political decision appeal hearing after the interrogation of the third observer of the solicitor, Rojo Mettle Nunoo without Jean Mensa being questioned.
Mr Amenuvor told the court that given the proof of the solicitor's observers who were crossed inspected for the situation, they would prefer not to lead any additional proof.
"Given the proof of the solicitor's observers under interrogation up until now, of those observers, representing the first respondent, it is the first respondent's case that we don't wish to lead any additional proof and along these lines we are imploring that this matter continues under Oder 36 Rule 43 and CI 87 principle 3 (e) 5, we therefore and on that premise close our case."
Lead Counsel for the solicitor, Tsatsu Tsikata, nonetheless, protested the move by legal counselor for the first Respondent.
Hearing has been deferred to Tuesday, February 8 " for legitimate contention," on this matter the Chief Justice said.
Talking on this advancement on Joy News, Mr Kpebu communicated astonished at this choice.
He said "I was amazed on the grounds that I didn't realize she will utilize such an instrument in her tool compartment. In law that is allowed in any case yet before any gathering decides not to affirm then that gathering should be 200% certain that the instance of the rival would not stand firm.
"That is the genuine significance of Madam Jean Mensa's political decision not to affirm."
Content created and supplied by: chingylove (via Opera News )