The Supreme Court has adjourned the 2020 election petition hearing to February 1, 2021.
Johnson Aeidu Nketia, first witness to the petitioner, John Mahama, in his statements had earlier accused the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Jean Mensa of biases on the biases that she had a familial relationship with the first lady, Rebecca Akufo-Addo.
At the witness box during today’s hearing however, 10 paragraphs of Mr. Nketia’s witness statement were objected to by Lawyer for the second respondent, Akoto Ampaw.
Akoto Ampaw argued that the statements by Mahama’s witness in these paragraphs (6, 7, 21, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33 and 37), were scandalous, prejudicial, and not relevant on the pleadings of John Mahama’s Petition document.
Addressing the 7-member panel of Judges presided over by Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, Mr Ampaw said, “My Lord, we raise objections to certain paragraphs in the [witness] statement. They are not relevant nor based on the pleadings of their [Petitioners] petition, tends to unduly prejudice the party and are scandalous.”
“Our next objection relates to paragraph 26 from the sentence that reads, the chairperson of the first respondent allowed herself to be biased in favour of the second respondents…This sentence should be expunged. These are very serious allegations that have no pleadings.”
“The next part we take objection to relates to paragraph 28. No facts have been pleaded to that effect, prejudicial and should be struck out accordingly.”
“We are also objecting to the whole of paragraph 30. It seeks to suggest that the whole exercise was organised by the first respondent with the object of suggesting that the collation and aggregation of votes were introduced without any good reason. He is talking about a piece of legislation. It’s not in their pleadings and unduly scandalous.”
“We also object to paragraph 32. This was not pleaded by the petitioner. It relates to 275 summary sheet results. Nowhere in the petition has there been any reference to any 275 summary sheet and the petitioner had all the opportunity to do so if he wanted to rely on this evidence. He failed to do so and trying to introduce it through the back door. We pray that it should be struck out.”
“We again object to paragraph 33, which is a consequence of paragraph 32. In similar function, it should also be struck out,” Mr. Akoto Ampaw added.
Source:A1 Radioonline.com|101.1MHZ|Ghana
