Election Petition: Supreme Court allows Mahama’s witness, Rojo Mettle-Nunoo to testify via Zoom

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

This was made known in court today, February 5, 2021, after his lawyers indicated that due to his health condition, he will not be able to be physically present in court.

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

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 a 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.