Lawyers for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, who is the second respondent in former President John Dramani Mahama’s Presidential Election Petition, will today test the credibility of General Secretary of the NDC, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, at the Supreme Court.
The NDC General Secretary is currently in the witness box as one of two witnesses of the petitioner, Mr. Mahama, who is challenging the results of the 2020 Presidential Election as declared by the Electoral Commission, the first respondent, which he lost by over 500,000 votes.
The President’s lawyers led by Akoto Ampaw, are seeking to establish whether or not Mr. Asiedu Nketia, is credible enough for the court to rely on his evidence.
This was necessitated by certain responses given by the witness while under cross-examination by Justin Amenuvor, lead counsel for the EC, and when Akoto Ampaw took his turn to ask him questions, counsel asked the court to listen to tapes that he said contained the voice of the witness so the court could make its own decision on the credibility of the witness.
Results Declaration
Mr. Asiedu Nketia while under cross-examination by Mr. Amenuvor told the court on Friday, that petitioner (Mr. Mahama) was not in court to seek a declaration of another result but rather the petitioner was there to challenge the constitutionality of the manner in which the EC Chairperson handled the results of the presidential election.
Mr. Amenuvor had earlier confronted Mr. Asiedu Nketia with figures of 4,693 which the witness brought as evidence of ‘vote padding’ in a constituency that even if that figure was deducted from the 510,790 votes difference between the two leading candidates, Nana Akufo-Addo still won the election by 51.246 per cent.
The witness, however, refused to answer directly but rather stated that counsel was subtracting apples from mangoes, adding that the figure in his witness statement was just a sample and not the entire population of figures.
Give & Take
Counsel: “It is not true that the first respondent padded any votes as you alleged, I am putting it to you?”
Asiedu Nketia: “My lord, I decline to answer to that assertion.”
Counsel: “We are using the numbers that you have brought to the court and I am saying that the total of 4,693 is what you have put down there, is that correct?”
Asiedu Nketia: “I brought it as a sample. In my statement, I did indicate that this is from a sample of this particular constituency. I don’t understand sample to mean a total of the population.”
Counsel: “Now deduct the 4,693 from 510, 790, what do you get?
Asiedu Nketia: “With all due respect, I don’t see the point of the question.”
Counsel: “With the greatest respect, you are being rude to the court not me.”
Asiedu Nketia: “Come again (with your question).”
Counsel: “I am saying that deduct the 4,693 from 510, 790, what do you get?”
Asiedu Nketia: “I get 506, 097.”
Counsel: “I am suggesting that even if this (your number) as alleged which is denied, even if it is deducted from the total valid votes of the second respondent, he still has won by your own sheet by 51.246%, I am putting it to you?”
Asiedu Nketia: “My lord, I deny that because, you are subtracting apples from mangoes. This is a sample, if you take a sample from the population from another group, I don’t see where this calculation is coming from.”
Counsel: “I am suggesting to you that you have no evidence to support your allegations and that is why you have brought only what you have, I am putting it to you?”
Asiedu Nketia: “My Lord, we are not in court to declare another presidential result by us. We are in court to challenge the performance of a constitutional duty of the first respondent, and to see whether that duty has been discharged faithfully.”
Counsel: “If that is so, then I am suggesting to you that by your own showing, you are not in the right forum.”
Asiedu Nketia: “I decline that My Lord.”
2nd Respondent’s Lawyers
When he took his turn, Akoto Ampaw, lead counsel for the President, asked Mr. Asiedu Nketia whether he recalled that prior to the declaration of the presidential election result by the EC on December 2020, the NDC held series of press conferences, and he said ‘yes’.
And that at those press conferences the NDC announced to the whole world that Mr. Mahama had won the election based on the party’s collated results.
Mr. Asiedu Nketia, however, declined to answer the question, saying it was not contained in his witness statement.
Akoto Ampaw then asked the witness whether he was aware that Mr. Mahama had said that he won the election and that Ghanaians had voted for change?
Mr. Asiedu Nketia responded that he remembered Mr. Mahama saying that the results declared by the EC were not accurate.
The lawyer then put it to the witness that even he (Asiedu Nketia) himself had said that Mr. Mahama won the election.
But Mr. Asiedu Nketia denied it and told the court that what he said was that the NDC had won majority seats in Parliament and that was going to make things easier for Mr. Mahama.
The lawyer then asked “by that you meant the petitioner had won,” counsel pushed and the witness responded that “If I meant that, I would have said so.”
Tape Request
It was at this point that Akoto Ampaw sought leave of the court to play a video tape attached to the witness for the President’s witness statement which he said had captured Asiedu Nketia’s speech during the press conference by the NDC.
He told the court that the video when played would establish the credibility of the witness.
A seven member panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice, Anin Yeboah, in a short ruling held that since the video was not in evidence, it should be played first for the court to determine its admissibility, and subsequently adjourned the case to today for the tape to be played.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak