YOU VAMOOSED Because Mahama Lost – EC Lawyer To Witness

Lawyer for the Electoral Commission (EC) has challenged claims by one of former President John Mahama’s witnesses that he left the National Collation Centre (‘strong-room’) of the EC because he (witness) and his colleague were instructed by the EC boss to do so.

According to Justin Amenuvor, counsel for the EC, the real reason the witness, Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte, and his colleague, Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, aka Rojo, “vamoosed” from the EC’s strong-room was that they had realised Mr. Mahama had lost the election.

Witness Statement

Dr. Kpessa-Whyte, one of the two agents who represented the former President at the National Collation Centre, in his witness statement, filed as part of the petition by Mr. Mahama challenging the declaration of President Akufo-Addo as winner by the EC, indicated that he noticed “many material irregularities” during the entire process of the December 7 Presidential Election.

He stated that he and his colleague brought those irregularities to the attention of Mr. Mahama and the NDC on whose ticket Mr. Mahama stood as candidate.

No Endorsement

The lecturer stated that due to the alleged irregularities during the process, he and Rojo did not certify some of the results from some of the regions.

The witness indicated in his statement that the NDC subsequently wrote a letter to the Chairperson of the EC, Jean Adukwei Mensa, detailing those “many material anomalies in the collation of the votes in the strong-room.”

The witness further stated that after making their observations known to the EC Chairperson, she (Ms. Mensa) asked them to go and consult with Mr. Mahama, as she was holding on with the declaration until all their concerns and other concerns regarding the process were addressed.

Dr. Kpessa-Whyte added that immediately they left the strong-room and upon entering Mr. Mahama’s office, they heard the EC Chairperson announcing President Akufo-Addo as the President-elect on December 9, 2021 after the voting day on December 7, 2021.

He added that neither Mr. Mahama nor the NDC had received any feedback from the EC to the concerns they raised although its boss promised to do so.

Cross Examinations

The witness, while under cross examination from Mr. Amenuvor, counsel for the EC, was asked why he and his colleague left the strong-room of the EC on December 9, 2020 prior to the declaration of the results.

Mr. Kpessa-Whyte told the court that they left because they were instructed by the EC Chairperson to go and consult with Mr. Mahama on the issues they had raised about the process.

Heated Exchange

In the heat of the exchanges, Mr. Amenuvor told Dr. Kpessa-Whyte that “You are well aware that failure or refusal to sign and leaving the form blank was not an option.”

Dr. Kpessa-Whye responded, “My Lords, in the strong-room our understanding was that we were there to make sure that ultimately, whatever was declared as the outcome of the election reflected the will of the people.”

The Chief Justice, Kwasi Anin Yeboah, said “Dr. Kpessa-Whyte, please answer the question. Who doesn’t know that the strong-room is for you to go through whatever has been submitted.”

Tsatsu Objection

Lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, then stood up and replied to the bench that “My Lords, I believe he was in the process of answering.”

The Chief Justice said again that “The witness doesn’t have to be allowed to give a lecture before he answers the questions.”

No EC Instruction

Mr. Amenuvor, however, put it to the witness that the EC Chairperson never instructed them to leave the ‘strong-room’, adding that the real reason for which they left was that they 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 “vamoosed” from the strong-room when the form was being filled.

The witness denied this, 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.

The lawyer then confronted the witness about concerns raised on the results from some regions, and the fact that they did not certify four of them, and the witness admitted they did not certify them.

Ashanti Results

Mr. Amenuvor, however, put it to the witness that in spite of the concerns raised about the results from those regions, his colleague, Rojo, had certified the results from the Ashanti Region, which was one of the four in contention.

Dr. Kpessa-Whyte admitted that his colleague had certified the result from Ashanti Region, but told the court that although his colleague certified the results, he raised concerns that it was certified in error.

The lawyer then put it to the witness that the EC boss never instructed them to go and consult with Mr. Mahama that was why he did not have any evidence to corroborate his claim.

The witness refuted that assertion, and maintained that the EC boss had instructed them to go and consult with Mr. Mahama.

Mr. Amenuvor then asked the witness if he personally spoke with the EC boss on the issue but Dr. Kpessa-Whyte said he did not, even though he admitted Rojo did.

The lawyer then suggested that Dr. Kpessa-Whyte and his colleague had abandoned their duties in the EC strong-room that was why they later ‘concocted’ the claim of being instructed by the EC boss to go and consult with Mr. Mahama, but the witness insisted that was not the case.

He stated that if they had not concocted the story they would not have left their laptops behind.

Apau Questions

Justice Yaw Apau, a member of the panel sought clarifications from the witness, saying, “Will it be right to say that by taking contrary instructions from the chairperson of the first respondent, granted what you have said is true, you did not help the course of the petitioner who sent you there?”

Dr. Kpessa-Whyte stated that “My Lord, I don’t believe that is true. We were working in furtherance of making sure that the results that ultimately got announced by the first respondent reflected and represented the will of the people, and if she asking us to consult with the petitioner was part of how we would get there, we were happy to do it.”

Justice Apau said, “Then seriously speaking you did not take your training seriously. I want to be clear, you have gone to do a particular job, then instead of doing the particular job that sent you there, you take instructions from somebody and you leave your job. That is what I want to find, that you did not help the petitioner.”

Tsatsu Again

Mr. Tsikata raised an objection to the comment from the bench saying, “My Lords, His Lordship is entitled to his opinion about what the petitioner did. In terms of factual evidence about what he did and the reason adduced; in terms of what the petitioner did and why he did it, he has answered the question so I don’t think he can be harassed with these opinions.”

Justice Apau then replied that “I am not harassing the witness; it is not my duty to harass him. I know that he has been sent there by the petitioner to do the job for him; then somebody tells you to go to the petitioner and consult him; if the petitioner could do the work, he himself would have been there. That is what I would want to find out. How am I harassing him?”

Nana’s Lawyer

Akoto Ampaw, lead counsel for President Akufo-Addo, in a short cross examination suggested to the witness that his claim of over 390,000 votes being added to the results from the Ashanti Region was never included in Mr. Mahama’s petition but the witness said it was.

He then put to the witness that the EC Chairperson had no power to instruct him and his colleague to leave and Dr. Kpessa-Whyte said “that is so.”

The judges then asked the witness whether the two of them had to leave the strong-room to consult with Mr. Mahama when one of them could have stayed behind.

Dr. Kpessa-Whyte told the court that he and his colleague acted in good faith but were ‘deceived’ by the EC boss.

He was discharged after the lawyers had completed their cross-examinations.

Fresh Application

Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed an application asking the court to compel the EC to serve him with the originals of the constituencies and regional Presidential Collation Forms and summary sheets.

The application would be heard today.

BY Gibril Abdul Razak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: