Election Petition: Mahama demands court to halt the case

Supreme Court strikes out 5 paragraphs of Rojo Mettle-Nunoo’s statement

Supreme Court strikes out 5 paragraphs of Rojo Mettle-Nunoo’s statement

Supreme Court strikes out 5 paragraphs of Rojo Mettle-Nunoo’s statement

The Supreme Court has in an unanimous decision struck out five portions of a witness statement filed by the National Democratic Congress‘ (NDC’s) Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo in support of John Mahama’s election petition.

This leaves some 27 paragraphs out of the total 32 submitted by the witness.

READ ALSO: Supreme Court takes out 7 portions of NDC’s first witness statement

Lead Counsel for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Mr Akoto Ampaw raised objections to 23 paragraphs while insisting that the claims contained in those portions of the witness statement were not contained in the petition filed by Mr Mahama, adding that some were mere opinions and allegations.

The paragraphs he disputed were 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 25, and 26.

Again, Mr Ampaw argued that the petitioner through his witness was trying to sneak through the back door, the issues of authenticity and a request for some documents which have already been dealt with by the apex court.

This stance received backing from the lead counsel for the Electoral Commission (EC), Justin Amenuvor.

READ MORE: Akoto Ampaw expresses concern about Rojo Mettle-Nunoo testifying outside the court

However, disputing these objections, the lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata argued that new facts and demands are not being added as purported by counsels for the first and second Respondents.

According to him, all the statements made by the witness were to prove his credibility and fell in line with the pleadings in the election petition presented by Mr Mahama to the Supreme Court.

Again, Mr Tsikata insisted that the witness is speaking on systems like transparency and fairness that the first Respondent said had been implemented for the 2020 Presidential elections which have since been questioned by the petitioner.

But the court in a similar ruling given when it set aside seven portions from Mr Asiedu Nketia’s statement insisted that the claims in those portions were not contained in the petition and did not come up during cross-examination.

Source: www.spotonnews.net

Written by Joyceline Natally Cudjoe

An Entertainment Columnist, Content Writer, Blogger, Novelist, Poet, and a Publicist. For business or story tip off, contact me on +233 24 646 6866 or email: [email protected]

What do you think?