The case took an unforeseen twist on Monday when lawyers for the first respondent informed the Supreme Court that they were no longer interested in presenting a witness in the case.
“It is our case that we would not wish to lead any further evidence, and therefore we are praying that this matter proceeds under order 36 rule 43 and C.I. 87 rule 3 (5) and we hereby on that basis, close our case,” lawyer for the EC, Justin Amenuvor, said.
His position was backed by lawyers for President Nana Akufo-Addo, who equally opted out of presenting any witnesses.
READ ALSO: We have the option to subpoena Jean Mensa to testify – Tsatsu Tsikata
However, the lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, challenged this position and argued that the EC Chair was deliberately trying to evade cross-examination.
What has ensued in the last three days, as the nation awaits on the Supreme Court to decide on the matter, has been more of divided opinions from the public.
For a country that welcomes free speech, there’s been room for arguments and counterarguments on whether or not Jean Mensa should mount the witness box. There are merits on both sides of the divide but the truth is that this is a court case and it doesn’t necessarily have to follow logic.
Jean Mensa has clearly lacked the trust of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) since she was appointed EC Chair and this is public knowledge. That is why it isn’t too surprising that the presidential candidate of the NDC, John Mahama, has proceeded to court to challenge the outcome of the 2020 polls.
In court, you either win or lose but this should not be the case in this particular legal dispute, especially for the first respondent, Jean Mensa. This is a woman who has been maligned and her credibility questioned by the opposition party before, during and after the elections.
She, therefore, has the chance to put this to bed in court. Her lawyers may be able to get the petitioner’s case dismissed without her mounting the witness box but it will be in her own interest to testify.
That way, she can personally clear all the doubts in the minds of a section of the public and mainly supporters of the NDC, some of who believe the election was rigged as the NDC has claimed.
It is obvious that the lawyers for the petitioner are desperate to have Jean Mensa in the witness box for a merciless grilling but she can turn this in her favour. Some allegations have already been made against her by the witnesses presented by the petitioner and she needs to defend herself on that. She herself and Ghanaians deserves that opportunity.
This is her chance to respond personally to these allegations and provide her own evidence to dispute them. It is worthy to note that is it not mandatory for the EC Chair to testify in court, as her lawyers have already argued.
But in Jean Mensa’s– and the national – interest, it’d only be fair that she testifies in court so that Ghanaians can watch her display how on top of issues she is. This is even more important because there are some questions that only the EC Chair holds the answers to.
In truth, she could win the case against the petitioner without even mounting the witness box. But what is the essence of winning if you leave some questions lingering without answers or fail to convince the watching public?