Supreme Court strikes out 7 points of Asiedu Nketia’s witness statement

After almost two hours of listening to legal exchanges, the Supreme Court has decided to accept some portions of the witness statement of the NDC General Secretary, Johnson Asiedu Nketia.

A seven-member panel presided over by the Chief Justice Anin Yeboah, in the same breath also struck out some portions of the same witness statement.

Paragraph 21, 32 and 33,  which questions the total valid votes declared by the EC Chairperson’s Jean Mensa, which saw the NPP presidential candidate Nana Akufo-Addo winning the 2020 polls, have been maintained, as it is a matter which has its pleadings in the matter before this court.

Paragraph 6, 7, 25, 26, 28, 30 and 37 has been struck out by the court on the basis that the witness (Johnson Asiedu Nketia) cannot testify to the facts of the said paragraphs.

The court held that the statement in the said paragraphs are not within the knowledge of the witness.

According to the apex court the paragraphs struck out would have been admissible if the petitioner himself (John Mahama) were to testify.

The said paragraphs have subsequently been expunged from Mr Asiedu Nketia’s witness statement.

The court’s decision comes after Counsel for the president, Akoto Ampaw, raised an objection to what he described as a scandalous statement.

Mr Ampaw took offence to some arguments captured in the witness statement of the NDC stalwart.

He pointed to paragraphs 6, 7, 21, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 37, allegations, he described as baseless against the Chairperson of Ghana’s Electoral body, Jean Mensa.

Portions of the paragraphs captured indicates that the EC Chairperson Jean Mensa, allowed herself to be biased by her prejudice in favour of 2nd Respondent (Nana Akufo-Addo), who appointed her in August 2018 and with whose wife the EC boss has a close relationship.

The statement also suggested that the EC boss at all material times in the conduct of her responsibilities, was bias by prejudice in favour of the 2nd Respondent and against the Petitioner, John Mahama.

“We are objecting to certain paragraphs in the witness statement of Johnson Asiedu Nketia on grounds that they are not based on the pleadings.

“They are duly prejudicial, scandalous and we pray that you strike it out as such,” he thus so prayed.

According to him, the legal team for the petitioner John Dramani Mahama, has not provided one shred of evidence to all the allegations quoted in the said paragraphs.

But the seven-member panel were not in haste to bury this one.

Mr Ampaw’s objection was greeted with an arrow of questions from each side of the panel.

The justices wondered how some of the paragraphs (32 and 33) could affect the validity of the respondent (President Nana Akufo-Addo).

The apex court advised Counsel for the President to resist going on this legal banter.

Mr Ampaw, again, insisted that the petitioners “cannot give a witness statement that is not in line with their pleadings”.

Counsel for the Electoral Commission, Justin Amenuvor associated himself with the submission of Mr Ampaw.

Second to raise eyebrows with the objection was Counsel for the Petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata

In response to paragraph 26, he said these allegations of bias are sufficiently referenced in the pleadings.

Jumping to Mr Asiedu Nketia defense, he said paragraphs quoted are all material in these circumstances.