According to, the suspect identified as Simon Awini Ayamga is an Emergency Nursing student of the university.

He was allegedly commenting on a post in a WhatsApp group called POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE when he issued the threat that has led to his arrest.

In his opinion, the Supreme Court does not deserve to exist and should be burnt if Jean Mensa fails to mount the witness box to be cross-examined by the petitioner’s lead counsel Tsatsu Tsikata.

“Then we will burn down that place call the Supreme Court…They dare not say Jean Mensah should not enter the witness box,” Simon Awini Ayamga is quoted as having written.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, February 11, 2021, the Supreme Court has ruled that the chairperson of the EC which happens to be the first respondent and has filed a witness statement in defence to the petition cannot be forced to testify and be cross-examined by the petitioner’s lawyers.

READ ALSO: People simply refuse to accept that this goalkeeper was born in 1995 as his club claims

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.

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.

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.