All fingers remain crossed as the Supreme Court is expected to give a ruling on Thursday as to whether or not the chairperson of the EC which happens to be the first respondent and has filed a witness statement should be cross-examined by the petitioner’s lawyers concerning the statement.
ADVERTISEMENT
Jesus Christ refused to answer Pontius Pilate; don’t force Jean Mensa to testify - Maurice Ampaw
Private legal Practitioner Lawyer Maurice Ampaw has resorted to the Holy Bible to justify why he believes the Electoral Commission chairperson Jean Mensa should not be forced to mount the witness box to testify in the ongoing 2020 election petition hearing.
Lawyer Maurice Ampaw calls for Yaa Pono’s arrest for "advising" students to smoke when they can't study
ADVERTISEMENT
Former President John Dramani Mahama has petitioned the apex court challenging the declaration of the December 7 last year’s election. He argues that none of the candidates including himself that took part in the election got the constitutionally required 50%+1 votes, so the declaration of President Nana Akufo-Addo should be nullified.
On Monday, February 8, 2021, the petitioner’s legal team closed its case after the respondents’ lawyers had cross-examined the former’s three witnesses.
The respondents’ lawyers then indicated to the court that they did not intend to call any witnesses, urging the court to proceed with the evidence before it.
ADVERTISEMENT
They relied on Order 36 (4) sub-rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rule), C. I 47, which they argued allowed them to decide not to adduce any evidence.
According to them, having cross-examined the petitioner’s witnesses and considered the witness statements filed before the court, as well as the reliefs being sought by the entirety of the petition, they did not think the petitioners have made any groundbreaking case which warrants them calling any witnesses.
However, Tsatsu Tsikata, the petitioner’s lead counsel insisted that the first respondent’s chairperson had already “elected” to testify, so it was too late to change her mind.
Mr. Tsikata argued that by the constitutional duty imposed on the Electoral Commissioner as a public servant, she is required to render an account to Ghanaians as to how she executed that duty of declaring who duly won the 2020 presidential election.
ADVERTISEMENT
He further argued that by the witness statement of the first respondent which its chairperson signed and, in several affidavits filed to the court in response to the petitioner’s refused application to serve interrogatories on her among others, she had indicated that she would be available to provide the answers being sought during cross-examination when she mounts the witness box.
Even before the Supreme Court makes a pronouncement on the debate, some lawyers have been sharing their views.
Speaking in an interview with NEAT FM’s morning show ‘Ghana Montie’, Maurice Ampaw, cited a biblical example of how Jesus Christ refused to answer questions at the palace of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate to buttress his view.
“This is not the first time a respondent can decide not to answer questions. You can remain silent even at the edge of death. Jesus Christ did the same. In front of Pontius Pilate when asked if he is the Messiah, he remained silent,” he said, arguing “The case of the first respondent is that we do not wish to adduce any evidence. Our case is closed.”
JOIN OUR PULSE COMMUNITY!
ADVERTISEMENT
Eyewitness? Submit your stories now via social or:
Email: eyewitness@pulse.com.gh