Rojo Mettle-Nunoo to appear before the court after the Petitioner files his witness statement
The legal team of the Petitioner, John Dramani Mahama have filed a witness statement from one of the National Democratic Congress’ (NDC) agents at Electoral Commission (EC) headquarters, Robert Joseph Mettle Nunoo, who is expected to testify as his third witness in the ongoing election petition.
Mr Mettle-Nunoo has become critical in the petition after the second witness, Dr Michael Kpessa-Whyte, during his cross-examination, said the former minister was instructed by the Chairperson of the EC, Jean Mensa, to go and consult with Mr Mahama over some grievances.
This led to them being absent from the National Collation Centre when the election results were declared.
He is also set to be cross-examined by counsels of the EC and President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the Second Respondent, having filed the witness statement today, Thursday, February 4, 2021, in support of the Petitioner.
Mr Mettle-Nunoo together with Dr Kpessa-Whyte were agents for the Petitioner on Election Day and were responsible for review and certification of the presidential election results in accordance with regulations spelt out in CI 127.
In his witness statement chronicling some of the major events that occurred in the Strong Room, he categorically stated that Mrs Mensa, who doubles as the sole Returning Officer of the presidential election, “did not perform the duties she was supposed to perform in order to be able to declare a winner of the election as she attempted to do.”
Touching on the key yet controversial issue of how Chairperson of the electoral management body directed them [representatives of the NDC] to consult their flagbearer on some outstanding matters, Mr Mettle-Nunoo narrated through his witness statement that;
“Mrs Jean Mensa informed me that there had been a meeting held earlier in the day between the Petitioner and the Peace Council, something I was unaware of at the time. After I further drew her attention to some of the issues that were coming up in the interactions in the strong room, she said very directly that we should go and speak with the Petitioner. Having regard to her earlier reference to the meeting between the Peace Council and the Petitioner, which she had obviously been briefed about, I took seriously what she said. I do not think we, who were acting as agents of the Petitioner, should be seen as taking positions which many be contrary to what the Petitioner himself and had conveyed in a meeting that I was unaware of with a body such as the Peace Council which, I know has an important role in resolving disputes in connection with elections and calming tensions in the country. She indicated her own willingness to meet with the Petitioner.”
He maintained that he had no reason not to trust the EC, thus left the EC headquarters with his colleague, Dr Kpessa-Whyte, adding that it was surprising to note later that the EC Chair about declaring the results while they were away upon her orders.
“Yet my colleague and I realised with shock, on our reaching the residence of the Petitioner that the EC Chairperson was in the process of announcing results. Attempts I made to reach the Chairperson of the EC by telephone for clarification proved futile as she had turned off her phones,” he stressed.