Election 2020 petition: Supreme Court expunges five paragraphs from Rojo Mettle-Nunoo’s witness statement

Out of 23 paragraphs in Rojo Mettle-Nunoo’s witness statement objected to by Akufo-Addo’s lawyers, the Supreme Court has upheld complaints about five

Wilberforce Asare February 5, 2021

5,211

The Supreme Court has expunged five out of the 32-paragraph witness statement made by Joseph Robert Mettle-Nunoo, the third witness of the petitioner (John Dramani Mahama) in the Election 2020 petition.

At the start of the 11th hearing since the petition was filed at the Supreme Court on 30 December 2020, the lead lawyer for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, led Mettle-Nunoo to present his witness statement in evidence before the court.

This paved the way for lawyers of the first and second respondents to cross-examine the witness. However, before cross-examination could start, the lead counsel for the second respondent, Akoto Ampaw, raised issues with 23 paragraphs of the witness statement of the petitioner’s third witness.

He argued that the said paragraphs were not in the pleadings of the petitioner and that his witness could not be seen introducing the claims he had made in his witness statement before the court.

Portions of witness statement in contention

The paragraphs identified by the second respondent for the purposes of praying the court to strike out sections to which it objected were 23 in total.

These are: parts of paragraph four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, parts of paragraph 15, 16, parts of paragraph 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31.

Petitioner’s argument

The lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, opposed the submissions by the lawyers for the respondents.

He argued in part that the witness statement of the petitioner’s third witness is in answer to the pleadings by the first respondent in its answer to the petition.

For that matter, he said, the claim that the witness statement was not pleaded by the petitioner himself was totally immaterial to the validity of Mettle-Nunoo’s witness statement.

Court ruling

The Supreme Court panel of seven, presided over by Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah, which also included Justices Yaw Appau, Samuel Marful-Sau, Nene Amegatcher Kotey, Mariama Owusu and Gertrude Torkornoo, struck out five paragraphs of the 23 where the second respondent sought amendments.

In its ruling, the court said that paragraphs four, five, six, seven and 18 of Mettle-Nunoo’s witness statement did not have any foundation in the petitioner’s pleadings and could not remain in the witness statement.

The court added that the remaining 18 paragraphs the second respondent challenged ought to remain because they were pleaded by the petitioner.

Struck out

The five paragraphs struck out of Mettle-Nunoo’s witness statement were:

Paragraph 4

“It is my understanding also that the specific role of the Chairperson of the EC as the sole Returning Officer is provided for in the Constitution and in the same Regulations. Prior to her so-called declaration on 9 December 2020, the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission did not perform the duties she was supposed to perform in order to be able to declare a winner of the election as she attempted to do. In the entire period after the election on 7th December 2020 she made a couple of very brief visits to the strong room.”

Paragraph 5

“The EC had a video documentary person recording events in the strong room and I have no doubt that, if that documentary is available in its authentic version, it will confirm what I am saying in this witness statement about things that occurred in the strong room.”

Paragraph 6

“Dedicated fax machines, printers and computers were provided for the strong room that were to receive faxes from fax machines at the regional collation centres in full view of agents of candidates and, then, projected on an overhead projector in the strong room, as the results were received. EC officials manned the fax machines. On 9th December 2021, for many hours, the fax machines in the strong room were not working. One could see the frustration on the faces of many of the dedicated fax machine EC personnel. The fax transmission was also slow.”

Paragraph 7

“Instead of that prearranged transmission system for the regional collation sheets to be transmitted to the head office of the Electoral Commission, what happened part of the time was that one of the deputy directors of the EC, Dr Sereboe Quaicoe, would, from time to time, bring into the strong room what was claimed to be a regional collation sheet. How he got that sheet was not disclosed.”

Paragraph 18

“In respect of the Northern Region, we observed two regional results summary sheets were brought into the National Collation Centre strong room. One was without signatures of the agents for the candidates and the second has no signature of the NDC agent for the region, but had signatures for NPP, GUM, CPP and PPP. Only by getting the originals of these documents can there be clarity on exactly which is the genuine form from the region.”