Counsel for the EC, Justin Amenuvor
Lawyers for the first and second respondents in the ongoing presidential election petition have wrapped up their cross-examination of witnesses testifying in favour of the petitioner, former President John Dramani Mahama.
Mr Mahama is challenging the declaration of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as the winner of the December 7 presidential election.
The two legal teams at yesterday’s hearing told the apex court that their clients had decided not to adduce any evidence, and accordingly urged the court to decide the petition on its merit.
This was after the counsels for the two respondents had ended their cross-examination of the three witnesses who testified on behalf of the 2020 NDC presidential candidate.
Citing Order 36 (4) sub rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rule), C.I 47, the EC lawyer, Justin Amenuvor, argued that the rules allow the respondents to decide not to adduce any evidence.
“The case of the first respondent is that we do not wish to adduce any evidence. Our case is closed,” he argued.
Opposition
However, the lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, opposed the motion, arguing that the move by the first and second respondents is a deliberate attempt by the EC Chairperson, Jean Mensa, to avoid cross examination, which will expose the illegalities that characterised the December 7 elections.
He argued that so far as Mrs Mensa has put in a witness statement, and had indicated that she would testify, she had “elected” to give evidence, and by the rules of court, she must give the evidence.
It was also the submission of counsel that it was based on the indication by Mrs Mensa to give evidence that led the court to order the parties to file their witness statements.
In a sharp response, the bench asked Mr Tsikata whether the witnesses can be compelled to testify.
Caution
Meanwhile, the court has once again cautioned lawyers in the case on their public pronouncements regarding issues that emanate from court during hearing.
According to the court, some of the previous comments were prejudicial, as the attention of the bench had been drawn to it.
“Immediately after proceedings, counsel from both sides resort to granting interviews to the media, and at times some of them keep on twisting the facts which actually occurred in the court and seek to even prejudice whatever the court proceedings were. So lawyers who are engaged in it are to please have a look at Regulation 55 of L.I. 2423 (Legal Profession Conduct and Ethical Rules),” Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah said.
Reading Rule 55(C), the CJ quoted: “A lawyer shall not publish or cause to be published a material concerning current or potential proceedings or including proceedings for which the lawyer is engaged or seeks to be engaged in, which is inaccurate or has received comments…”
The Chief Justice specifically mentioned a former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Marietta Brew Appiah Opong, as an example during media interviews after hearing.
“Please, both sides are guilty of it, and especially my dear sister Marietta [Brew Appiah Opong]. At times, yes, you make statements even touching on the demeanour of witnesses, so, please, it is a passionate plea from the bench, lets respect the ethical rules,” he said.
He also mentioned lawyer Yaw Oppong from the second respondent’s side, who he said appeared in a media interview on Joy News’ Newsfile programme on Saturday, an act which he said breaches Rule 38 of the Legal Professional Conduct and Ethical Rules, 2020.
About The Author
