Former President John Dramani Mahama, yesterday, closed his case at the Supreme Court where he is challenging the results of the 2020 Presidential Election declared by the Electoral Commission (EC) on December 9, last year.
The former President, who claims, among others, that no candidate in the presidential election got the more than 50 per cent of the valid votes cast, closed his case after the cross-examination of his third and final witness, Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, aka Rojo, ended.
Courtroom Drama
His cross-examination at a point was a source of drama in the courtroom as he told the court that he was only given tea with no biscuit while he waited to have audience with the Chairperson of the EC.
Rojo, who was one of the two agents of Mr. Mahama at the EC National Collation Centre (Strongroom), had indicated in his witness statement that during the process of the collation, he had gone to the Secretariat of the EC to see the EC boss, Jean Adukwei Mensa, about certain anomalies in some of the results that were coming from the regions.
Cross-examining the witness on that portion of the witness statement, Justin Amenuvor, counsel for the EC, sought to clarify how long it took him to wait for the EC Chairperson and whether he was offered tea and biscuit while he waited for her.
Tea Questions
Amenuvor: Tell the court how long you were in the secretariat for?
Rojo: Oh, it was a considerable length of time, because the commissioner was not there.
Amenuvor: And you had left the Strongroom, not so?
Rojo: That is correct.
Amenuvor: And even while there, you were offered tea and biscuit, not so?
Rojo: I was offered tea, I wasn’t offered any biscuit.
The lawyer’s question about the tea and biscuit got the court laughing and before the laughter died down, Rojo further stoke it with his response, throwing everyone present into even more laughter, including some of the judges.
The Deputy Registrar of the court, at the point, had to make sure order was restored in the courtroom and repeatedly said, “Order! Order! Order in court please!” before the laughter ceased.
Failing Mahama
Mr. Amenuvor then turned his attention to the claim by the witness that he left the EC Strongroom to go and consult with Mr. Mahama at the instance of the EC Chairperson about the challenges he claimed to have identified in some results that were coming from the regions.
According to the lawyer, Rojo ‘lied’ to Mr. Mahama and the supporters of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in order to hide his failure as an agent of the party and its presidential candidate in the Strongroom.
“You see, your witness statement and the evidence that you have given is a bad explanation for the bad job that you did for the petitioner,” Mr. Amenuvor fired.
The witness denied counsel’s assertion, stating that the lawyer was being judgemental.
“In order to hide your shortcomings, you went to the petitioner and to your party faithful and fed them untruths,” the lawyer further put it to witness, but the witness denied that and said that was not correct.
Wobbly Testimony
Again, Mr. Amenuvor challenged the witness’ accounts about happenings in the EC Strongroom, which he described as an untruth and an afterthought to make up for lapses in evidence and cross-examination of the petitioner’s previous two witnesses, Johnson Asiedu Nketia and Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte, and the witness disagreed with the counsel.
Amenuvor: I further put it to you that you couched them after you heard the wobbly testimony of the first and second witnesses of the petitioner, I am further putting it to you.
Rojo: That is not correct. I am giving testimony of my own performance as a team member representing the flag bearer.
Certification In Error
Turning his attention to the 16 regional summary sheets that were transmitted to the Strongroom from the regions, Mr. Amenuvor asked the witness to tell the court the summary sheets he had indicated he “signed in error” and those that he said he signed because he did not want to put spokes in the EC’s wheel.
The witness initially tried to explain himself but the lawyer insisted that once he had the regional summary sheet, he should go through one after the other and answer the question.
Rojo said he certified 13 out of the 16, and named them as Upper West, Ahafo, Central, Volta, Western North, Eastern, Oti, Western, North East, Bono, Upper East, and Savana regions.
He told the court that he signed some of these regional sheets although they had serious issues and others being certified without the full complement of the constituency results.
On the regions that he did not sign, they included Northern, Greater Accra and Bono East because he had issues with how they came to the Strongroom.
Impact of Errors
Akoto Ampaw, lead counsel for President Nana Akufo-Addo, when he took his turn to cross-examine the witness, asked him to demonstrate with figures how the anomalies he said he identified in some of the summary sheets affected the outcome of the December 7, 2020 election.
But the witness told the court that it was not about figures but about seeking a platform to address the anomalies they identified during the process.
The lawyer then put it to the witness that there was nowhere in his witness statement where he indicated that the alleged anomalies impacted the outcome of the election.
Rojo agreed with the counsel’s assertion but said he had stated that there were anomalies.
Irrelevant Commentaries
At a point, the second respondent’s counsel appeared to ‘clash’ with the witness when he said Rojo was running commentary instead of answering direct questions.
“Mr. Mettle-Nunoo, let me advise you that, you are before the Supreme Court and when I put a question to you, the court expects you to answer the question and not to set your own question and run around with it. So please, listen carefully to my questions and answer it,” Mr. Ampaw fired, adding, “My Lords may I ask that when he goes on a merry-go-round on his own, those portions should be struck out. They are not an answer to my question.”
The witness replied that “If I answer a question with an initial statement and I need to throw more light on that answer, am I not permitted to do so?” to which Mr. Ampaw said “you are not permitted to run irrelevant commentaries.”
No Defence Witnesses
The respondents after cross examining Rojo indicated to the court that they did not intend to call any witnesses to testify in their respective case.
Mr. Amenuvor, after Mr. Mahama had closed his case told the court that based on the evidence and cross examination of the petitioner’s three witnesses, the EC did not wish to lead any further evidence and hereby closed its case.
Mr. Ampaw also told the court that they do not wish to call any witnesses in the matter.
Tsatsu Angry
The position of the respondents did not go down well with Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for Mr. Mahama, who said the respondents could not at this time waive their right to call witnesses, as they should have done that during the case management stage.
“It is our respectful submission that counsel for the first respondent does not have it opened to him to take the course that he just proposed to this court. The election that they made to submit the witness statement to the court, is 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 regarded witnesses being called, and it was at the point of case management where such an election was 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 the 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,” Mr. Tsikata argued.
Judges Query
Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, 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,” she said.
The court adjourned the hearing so that the parties would go and prepare legal arguments and come back for the court to rule on the issue today.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak