Pulse logo
Pulse Region

Ghanaians will lose faith in judicial system if Jean Mensa evades cross-examination - Nyaho-Tamakloe

<a href="https://www.pulse.com.gh/news/local/akufo-addos-dictatorship-tendencies-can-lead-to-anarchy-nyaho-tamakloe/sxqfxcn">Dr. Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe</a>, a founding member of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), has backed calls for EC Chair Jean Mensa to mount the witness box in the ongoing 2020 election petition.
Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe
Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe

According to him, Ghanaians are likely to lose faith in the judicial system if the EC Chair does not testify in court.

Dr. Nyaho-Tamakloe said although it’s not illegal for Jean Mensa to not mount the witness box, common sense demands that she testifies.

READ ALSO: Election Petition: Jean Mensa cannot run away from cross-examination – Tsatsu Tsikata

“If we are not careful, the people of this country will lose faith in the Judicial system and it’s serious,” he said, as quoted by Starrfm.com.gh.

“I’m not a judge and I have never been a student of the law but common sense should tell you that you should judge the mood of the people. 

“Afari Gyan with all his challenges went into the witness box and testified. What is happening in this country at the moment is frightening. We know what we’ve gone through and it’s like as a nation we’ve forgotten where we’re coming from.”

This comes after lawyer of the EC, Justin Amenuvor, informed the Supreme Court that he was 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,” he told the Supreme Court.

His request was, however, challenged by Tsatsu Tsikata, the lead counsel for the petitioner, John Mahama.

Mr. Tsikata argued that the EC Chair was deliberately trying to evade cross-examination.

According to him, the request by the counsel for the Respondent was not in line with Order 36 Rule 43 and CI 87 rule 3 (e) 5 as stated.

“It is our respectful submission that counsel for the first respondent that not have it opened to him to take the course that he just proposed to this court. Order 36 Rule 4(3) that he referred to, specifically says: ‘Where the defendant elects not to adduce evidence’. In this proceedings, the defendant has put in a witness statement,'" Tsikata argued.

“The election that they made to submit the witness statement to the court, is a clear a clear indication that they made an election to the contrary because My Lords, in these proceedings, at the point of case management, Your Lordships basically asked questions from all parties as regards witnesses being called and it is at the point of case management where such an election is notified to the court.

“At that point, they elected to submit a witness statement. Now, that witness statement is not yet in evidence; that is true, but this is referring to an election; the point of election came at the point of the case management and we are respectfully submitting that this witness cannot run away from cross-examination when they have elected,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will decide on the matter today, Tuesday, February 9, 2021.

Next Article