The Supreme Court Monday, February 1, permitted the showing of a video in which the NDC purportedly held various news conferences where some officials including the Petitioner, John Mahama and his first witness, Johnson Asiedu Nketia allegedly made claims to winning the presidential election.
At the sitting of the court last Friday, Counsel for President Akufo-Addo, Akoto Ampaw prayed the court to allow him to play a video attached to their witness statement to buttress his case that the Petitioner and some leading members of the NDC created the impression that John Mahama had won the presidential election, but the EC was trying to turn it in favour of President Akufo-Addo.
The viewing of the video was also to establish the credibility or otherwise of Mr Asiedu Nketsiah who denied making any such allegations.
Lead Counsel for the Petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata objected to the admission of the said video arguing that it is an exhibit attached to the witness statement of President Akufo-Addo and cannot, therefore, be tendered in evidence through the Petitioner’s witness.
He submitted that the exhibit in question was not coming from the custody of the witness and its authenticity could not be established.
In response, Mr Ampaw said the objection is misconceived. He said the witness had already identified the evidence and admitted to it before the court and that authenticates it.
After series of arguments, the court ordered that the video be played for the witness to identify it. After the video was played, Mr Akoto Ampaw suggested to Mr Asiedu Nketia that some comments he allegedly made in the said video implied that Mr Mahama had won the presidential election.
Mr Asiedu Nketsiah admitted every word related to him but rejected the comment made by Mr Ampaw.
According to him, what he implied was an expectation that Mr Mahama would win the election because the NDC had won majority seats in Parliament and everything pointed to his victory.
Moving on, Mr Akoto Ampaw inquired from Mr Asiedu Nketia if he would want a video on the declaration of the presidential results attached to his witness statement to be played in court to which he replied in the affirmative.
Mr Tsikata quickly intervened opposing it saying it is the Petitioner’s document and they decide when it should be played. He also submitted that the said video had not been tendered in evidence yet. Mr Akoto Ampaw argued that the objection had no basis. The court granted permission for the video to be played in court
It was the case of Mr Akoto Ampaw that the results as declared by the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission without the figures from Techiman South did not in any way affect votes obtained by President Akufo-Addo.
He put it to the witness that if the whole valid votes of Techiman were added to that of Mr Mahama, President Akufo-Addo would have still crossed the threshold to be declared the winner. Mr Asiedu Nketsiah however replied that the inconsistencies in the data are the issue.
Mr Akoto Ampaw cross-examined the witness on a letter the NDC wrote to the EC Chairperson making claims that results collated and signed by parties in the Ashanti and Eastern regions were not what was transmitted to the Commission.
Mr Asiedu Nketsiah replied that the results from Ashanti did not reflect the aggregate collation from their pink sheets. Mr Akoto Ampaw then inquired from the witness why the Petitioner made no reference to the allegations made about the Ashanti region. To this, Mr Asiedu Nketsiah responded that they referred to alleged cooked figures and provided just a sample to demonstrate a fact.
But Mr Akoto Ampaw insisted that the complaints in Ashanti were so minute that they did not have any consequence in the declaration. The witness however disagreed and stood by the petitioner’s claim that votes were padded in favour of President Akufo-Addo.
Mr Akoto Ampaw ended his cross-examination of the witness by submitting that the petition showed no reasonable cause of action and no case worthy of the court’s hearing. The bench also quizzed Mr Asiedu Nketia on who generated the data on a pen drive attached to his witness statement.
This was because Mr Asiedu Nketia earlier told the court that he had no prior knowledge of its content. The court asked Mr Asiedu Nketia the total valid votes obtained by Mr Mahama per their own calculations. Mr Asiedu Nketsiah however could not answer.
Mr Tsatsu Tsikata took his turn to re-examine the witness. He sought further clarification on what he meant by the phrase “data was inconsistent”. This was opposed by Mr Akoto Ampaw who explained that there was no ambiguity in the expression.
The court then allowed the witness to respond to the question. Mr Asiedu Nketia has since been discharged for the next witness. Hearing continues Tuesday, February 2.
