Mahama's third witness testifies via zoom

The Supreme Court has given clearance to Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, the third witness for the petitioner in the election petition case, John Dramani Mahama, to give his testimony via online video conferencing platform, Zoom.

The witness was unable to make it to court due to medical reasons.

The court however agreed for him to testify from his location but directed that a judicial officer must be with him.

Few minutes after the case was called, Akoto Ampaw, lead counsel for President Nana Akufo-Addo raised concerns about the absence of a judicial officer to monitor the witness to ensure that there is no other person in the room feeding him with information during cross examination.

Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for Mr. Mahama in response told the court that that provision can still be made as it will not take more than 30 minutes for an officer of the Judicial Service to be sent there.

The court subsequently stood the case down for the officer to be transported to where the witness is

Mr. Mahama filed Robert Joseph Mettle Nunoo‘s statement on Thursday, February 2021 a day after the court allowed the counsels of the 1st and 2nd respondents to cross-examine, Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte.

In his 32 paragraph-witness statement chronicling some of the major events that occurred in the Strong Room, he categorically stated that Mrs. Mensa, who doubles as the sole Returning Officer of the presidential election, “did not perform the duties she was supposed to perform in order to be able to declare a winner of the election as she attempted to do.”

Touching on the key yet controversial issue of how the Chairperson of the electoral management body directed them [representatives of the NDC] to consult their flagbearer on some outstanding matters, Mr. Mettle-Nunoo narrated:

“Mrs. Jean Mensa informed me that there had been a meeting held earlier in the day between the Petitioner and the Peace Council, something I was unaware of at the time. After I further drew her attention to some of the issues that were coming up in the interactions in the strong room, she said very directly that we should go and speak with the Petitioner. Having regard to her earlier reference to the meeting between the Peace Council and the Petitioner, which she had obviously been briefed about, I took seriously what she said.  I do not think we, who were acting as agents of the Petitioner, should be seen as taking positions which many be contrary to what the Petitioner himself and had conveyed in a meeting that I was unaware of with a body such as the Peace Council which, I know has an important role in resolving disputes in connection with elections and calming tensions in the country. She indicated her own willingness to meet with the Petitioner.”

He maintained, he had no reason not to trust the EC and took her word and left the EC headquarters with his colleague [Dr. Kpessa-Whyte] adding that it was surprising to note later that the EC Chair declared the results while they were away upon her orders.

“Yet my colleague and I realised with shock, on our reaching the residence of the Petitioner that the EC Chairperson was in the process of announcing results. Attempts I made to reach the Chairperson of the EC by telephone for clarification proved futile as she had turned off her phones”, extracts of the witness statement further pointed.