The lead counsel for former President John Mahama in the ongoing election petition, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, has said that Electoral Commission Chair, Jean Mensa, cannot run away from cross-examination.
Mr Tsikata made the comment in court on Monday, 8 February 2021 while arguing against the decision by the first respondent’s lawyer, Mr Justin Amenuvor, that his side did not intend to call any witnesses in the matter.
Mr Akoto Ampaw, the lead counsel for President Nana Akufo-Addo also took a similar stance.
"My Lords, we do not intend to call any witness and my Lord, we do not intend to call any witness because in our view, they have not satisfied the burden of proof. So, we can’t be forced to call any witness", he told the court.
Should the court rule in favour of the respondents, it means Mrs Jean Mensa and Mr Peter Mac Manu, will not be mounting the dock for cross-examination.
Addressing the court after cross-examining Mr Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, the third of former President John Mahama, Mr Amenuvor, said: “My Lords, with respect, it’s our submission that in view of the [pieces of] evidence led by the witnesses of the petitioner, and our cross-examination so far, speaking for the first respondent, I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence before the court for this petition to be determine and, therefore, my Lords, it is the first respondent’s case that we do not wish to lead any further evidence and, therefore, we are praying that this matter proceeds under Order 36 Rule 4(3) and C.I.87 Rule 3(e)(5) and, we hereby, on that basis, close our case”.
Asked by the Bench what that meant for the first respondent’s witness statement, Mr Amenuvor said: “My Lord, under C.I.87 Rule 3(e)(5): ‘If a party who has served a witness statement does not call the witness to give evidence at the trial or put the witness statement in as hearsay evidence, any other party may put that witness statement in as hearsay evidence’. So, My Lords, we are saying we are not calling any further witnesses. If [any party] decides to treat our witness statement as hearsay evidence, well, that side can treat it as such but we are not leading any further evidence”.
However, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, counter-argued: “It is our respectful submission that counsel for the first respondent that not have it opened to him to take the course that he just proposed to this court. Order 36 Rule 4(3) that he referred to, specifically says: ‘Where the defendant elects not to adduce evidence’. In this proceedings, the defendant has put in a witness statement.”
“The election that they made to submit the witness statement to the court, is a clear a clear indication that they made an election to the contrary because My Lords, in these proceedings, at the point of case management, Your Lordships basically asked questions from all parties as regards witnesses being called and it is at the point of case management where such an election is notified to the court.
“At that point, they elected to submit a witness statement. Now, that witness statement is not yet in evidence; that is true, but this is referring to an election; the point of election came at the point of the case management and we are respectfully submitting that this witness cannot run away from cross-examination when they have elected”, he argued.
Chief Justice Anin Yeboah, however, asked Mr Tsikata to tone down on his choice of words, saying “evade” would have been a more appropriate word to use, to which Mr Mahama’s lawyer conceded.
Some of the Justices on the Bench also engaged Mr Tsikata with some questions about whether his arguments meant a witness must, by all means, mount the dock even against his or her wish.
Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, for instance wondered if it did not border on human rights.
"Mr Tsikata I want to understand something; are you suggesting that a witness can be compelled to give evidence? Mr Tsikata isn't compelling someone to testify a human rights questions? Nobody can compel a witness to testify".
The court adjourned the hearing to Tuesday, 9 February to hear arguments from both sides and make a ruling on that particular matter.
Source: classfmonline.com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Tsatsu Tsikata , please be reminded that it is law that is working and not the long English you speak. You can not force Jean into the witness box. Study modern law and not ancient one
You go to court with evidence and argue your case, you don't go to court to fish for evidence, this Tsatsu is overly hyped,and i think SC must by now have dismissed the petitioner's frivolous and vexatious claim.It completely waste of time.
Jane Mensah will appear in the witness box to allow Tsatsu throw his wings around like a vulture on and about nothing. Jane Mensah must be vigilant going forward and should do everything in her power to put measures in place to prevent the NDC planted EC officials from serving their pay masters. The NDC clearly planted people within the EC to work for them by messing up the system distortingredients figures just to enable NDC to continue to destabilise this country. Jane, the NDC guys are in the EC'S right under your nose, weed them out to safe yourself, your work and this country.
I agree with you all and infact Tsatsu has attitude and with that i doubt how he can win cases in court ! He couldn't convince the Judges not a single one with his attitude ! Very boring and irritating ! Case no at) nsuom ! BAM !!!!
Case no at) nsuom!!!!!
@Kabutey, nice summary. At this point, it is sadly admirable that Tsatsu still has a voice and attitude. The respondents are simply saying to you 'this matter is so ludicrous, we won't dignify you with a response'. For all who are in doubt, Tsikata has indeed failed woefully to prove that their case has any merit.
Mr Mahama went to court to prove that nobody got 50% plus one votes, after presenting three witnesses nothing was proven. I thought they were going to say "my lords based on the summation of the figures on the pink sheets EC gave to us we got a figure totally different from what the EC put out there" but even they themselves couldn't give figures as to what each candidate got. What else are you looking for?