NDC Secretary Asiedu Nketia at the Supreme Court
Johnson Asiedu Nketia, the first witness for the petitioner in the ongoing presidential election petition, yesterday denied contents of parts of his witness statement filed at the Supreme Court.
The NDC General Secretary, as part of his witness statement, had attached a pen drive. However, when he was questioned in court about the content of the pen drive, he denied knowledge of it, saying he had never seen it.
The said pen drive contained files suggesting that some votes were allegedly padded in favour of the petitioner, which undermines his case that the 1st respondent (EC) padded votes in favour of 2nd respondent.
Cross examination
This came up during the cross examination of Mr Asiedu Nketia by the lead counsel for the second respondent, Akoto Ampaw.
The cross-examination of Mr Asiedu Nketiah continued yesterday following its adjournment last Friday. The seven-member panel last Friday adjourned the case to make room for contents of another tape presented to court by counsel for the second respondent to be played.
In the videos, Mr Asiedu Nketiah, the petitioner (former President John Mahama), NDC Deputy General Secretary, Peter Boamah Otukonor, and the party’s National Communications Officer, Sammy Gyamfi, were seen at various press conferences claiming the NDC had won both the presidential and parliamentary elections.
In the case of Mr Otukonor, he specifically quoted figures alleged to be votes garnered by the petitioner and encouraged NDC supporters to celebrate while demanding from the second respondent to immediately concede defeat.
When confronted with the video, the witness stated that where any other NDC national officer’s statement contradicted his, his was to be taken because he is CEO of the party. He also claimed that he never said the petitioner had won the election, even though he called the petitioner President in some parts of the video.
Admissions
Meanwhile, Mr Akoto Ampaw, during the cross examination, elicited several admissions from Mr Asiedu Nketia.
Some of the admissions include the fact that the petitioner did not challenge any result at the polling station in his petition; the petitioner had not produced any independent document to support his claim that the figures from the EC were not a reflection of the outcome of the election; the petitioner had polling agents in all the polling stations; and these agents had the carbon copies of results.
Other concessions included the fact that the total valid votes were what was used to reckon the percentages of who had obtained 50 +1; the use of total votes cast for that purpose is impermissible in any election anywhere; they are not in court to re-tabulate results from polling stations as NPP had done in 2013; and that the actual votes in Techiman were known at the time of the petition.
Mr Asiedu Nketiah was also made to calculate the total valid votes cast from the announcement by the first respondent (EC), and what the various candidates obtained as well as express same in percentages. He was also made to do same with the figures contained in the press release of December 10, 2020.
In all of the calculations, the second respondent still crossed the 50+1 threshold, contrary to the assertion of the petitioner.
Vote padding
Counsel for the second respondent put it to the witness that while the petitioner contended in his petition that there were 32 padded constituencies, Asiedu Nketia in his witness statement included only 26 and the outstanding six had been removed because the petitioner realised it was unfavourable to his case.
Counsel for the 2nd respondent led Asiedu Nketia to deduct the alleged vote padding of 4963 from all the figures available as the total valid votes, and 2nd respondent still crossed the 50%+1 mark, which made him validly declared.
Mr Akoto Ampaw also took the witness through the letter he claimed to have written to the EC to suspend declaring results because they had identified issues with results in the Ashanti Region. He put it to him that the allegations in the letter did not feature in either the petition or the witness statement, to which he agreed.
He again took the witness through the calculation on the EC’s summary sheet and the NDC’s own calculation, and it all the instances, the 2nd respondent still crossed the 50%+1 mark.
In concluding his cross-examination, Mr Akoto Ampaw put it to the witness that whatever scenario or figure which surfaced in the 2020 election still puts President Nana Akufo-Addo over the 50%+1 threshold, and therefore the petitioner has no basis to challenge the results, especially when he had not put up any contrary figures.
Re-examination
The lead counsel for petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, later sought to re-examine Mr Asiedu Nketia on some questions, a move which was objected to by counsel for the first respondent, Mr Justin Amenuvor. The objection was sustained by the court.
Following some questions from the Justices, the case was adjourned to today, February 2, 2021. The petitioner’s second witness is expected to mount the witness box.
About The Author
