Rojo Mettle-Nunoo
The Supreme Court (SC) did not hesitate in shredding the “fanciful” evidence of two witnesses called by former President John Dramani Mahama, who was challenging the re-election of President Akufo-Addo last year which was dismissed by the court for lacking merit.
The court after examining the evidence of the former President’s three witnesses held that it was only the evidence of Johnson Asiedu Nketia that was somehow relevant to the issues before the court, and added that as for the testimonies of the other two witnesses – Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte and Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, aka Rojo – the least said about them the better.
Dr. Kpessa-Whyte and Mr. Mettle-Nunoo, who represented Mr. Mahama at the National Collation Centre (Strong Room) of the Electoral Commission (EC), during their testimonies, sought to cast doubt about the collation processes and how it possibly affected the results.
They both claimed they noticed irregularities in the collation processes which they brought to the attention of the Chairperson of the EC, Mrs. Jean Adukwei Mensa.
What baffled many, however, was their respective testimony that they both left the National Collation Centre under the express instructions of the EC Chairperson to go and convey a message to Mr. Mahama about their supposed grievances before the results could be declared.
The witnesses, however, did not show any proof of their allegations neither did they indicate any of the agents of other political parties present in the Strong Room to corroborate their claims.
Despite claiming irregularities, they went ahead and certified 13 of the 16 Regional Collation Forms.
It was for this reason that the court, speaking through Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, in its judgment dismissing Mr. Mahama’s petition, held that their testimonies were irrelevant to the issues in contention and said they told fanciful tales.
Cross-Examination
The two witnesses had a hard time while under cross-examination by lawyers for the respondents (EC and President Akufo-Addo) who sought to punch holes into their allegations of proceedings in the Strong Room and the circumstances under which they claimed they left the collation centre.
It was during one of those cross-examinations that the famous quote about being offered tea without biscuit emanated, which became the source of funny memes during the trial.
Vamoosing
Justin Amenuvor, lawyer for the EC, during the cross-examination challenged claims by Dr. Kpessa-Whyte that he left the Strong Room of the EC because he and his colleague were instructed by the EC boss to do so.
According to him the real reason the witnesses “vamoosed” from the EC’s Strong Room was that they had realised Mr. Mahama had lost the election.
He also put it to the witness that the only reason he did not get to see the Declaration of the Presidential Results Form (Form 13) was because he left the Strong Room when the form was being filled.
The witness denied counsel’s assertion, stating that they had left because they were instructed by the EC Chairperson to go and consult Mr. Mahama on the concerns they had raised.
He added that at the time they left the Strong Room, the EC was not at the stage of filling the Form 13 and it was not clear at the time who was going to win the election.
He later admitted under cross-examination that at the time he left the Strong Room, the last of the 16 Regional Collation Forms had arrived and they had verified and certified 13 of them.
Failure
The responses of the witness under cross-examination led one of the judges to posit that the witnesses failed the former President and did not help his course when they left the Strong Room at the time the collation of results was ongoing.
Mahama’s Testimony
The court in its judgment indicated that the Mr. Mahama, who did not testify himself, was under no obligation to do so as long as he could prove his case through other witnesses by any other means.
The onus therefore fell on the three witnesses to advance the case of the petitioner through their witness statement and cross-examination.
“The failure of the petitioner to testify himself is therefore not fatal to his course as the law permits that. What is required from him by law is for him to call requisite witness or witnesses or put before the court sufficient material as evidence,” the court stated.
Fanciful Testimonies
The court then went ahead to hold that “Out of these three witnesses, the one whose testimony appeared to have some relevance to the issue at stake was Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nkteia, PW1. He was in fact the star witness of the petitioner. His testimony vividly explained the reason why the petitioner was in court. As for the other two witnesses, that is PW2 and 3, Dr. Kpessa-Whyte and Mr. Mettle-Nunoo, the little said about their testimonies relative to the issue at stake the better.”
“They recounted a fanciful tale of how the chairperson refused to heed their complaint on some irregularities they had noticed in some of the collation forms that came from some of the regions. We describe this evidence as fanciful because despite this alleged protest they went ahead to verify and certify 13 out of the 16 regional collation sheets. Their testimonies included an account of how the chairperson of the first respondent managed to trick them to leave the Strong Room by sending them on an errand to confer with the petitioner during which period she declared the result of the presidential election without their participation.”
Again, the court held that “Notwithstanding all these allegations of misunderstanding with staff of first respondent in the Strong Room and the fact that they were absent during the declaration, they did not give any indication as to how these happenings and their absence affected the final result announced by the first respondent. Having signed or certified these forms, the witnesses, particularly PW3, could not turn round to talk of irregularities in the said forms.”
“Their testimonies would have carried some little weight if the purpose of the petition was to challenge entries made on the collation forms or summary sheets but that was not the case. Their testimonies were therefore of no relevance or whatsoever to issues set down for determination and we find them unworthy for any consideration whatsoever in the settlement of the issues,” the court concluded.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak