Why is Mettle-Nunoo not in the witness box, Oppong Nkrumah asks

Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, a spokesperson for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo in the 2020 presidential election petition trial has questioned why Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo was not used as a witness by the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama.

He said Mettle-Nunoo should have mounted the witness box, take the oath and tell the court that he spoke with Jean Mensa, the chairperson of the Electoral Commission, and was instructed to leave the EC strong room.

Earlier, Michael Kpessa-Whyte, the second witness of the petitioner, former President John Dramani Mahama, in a cross-examination told the Supreme Court that Jean Mensa instructed him and Mettle-Nunoo to convey a message to the petitioner and then declared the results in their absence.

Oppong Nkrumah said lawyers for the respondents believe that “if Mettle-Nunoo had mounted the witness box, the court would have caught him for perjury because he could not take an oath and tell an untruth”.

According to Oppong Nkrumah “, this is the reason why the petitioner has resorted to using Dr. Kpessa-Whyte, who now admits that he never spoke to the chairperson and yet she was a subject to an instruction, but the one who heard the instruction was available and alive, but refuses to mount the witness box”.

The issues

He said three key issues have been settled in their opinion which was the fallacy that was initially expressed and amplified through Dr. Kpessa-Whyte that the chairperson of the EC instructed them.

“We are beginning to see clearly that, that fallacy at best is something that could not stand cross-examination,” he said.

He said it was not just the interchange of words like instruction, but what “we want the media to take particular notice of are that there is nowhere in the witness statement that instruction was used but rather it was “asked,” that was used”.

He said now in the witness box and under oath, the witness seeks to amend that and to escalate the claim that they were instructed and that was why Akoto Ampaw, the lead counsel for President Nana Akufo-Addo (Second Respondent) did not take too much time in his cross-examination.

He said they were clear in their minds that the fallacy has been settled and the court would take juridical notice, and that it could not even be true that the Chairperson of the EC would instruct a representative of a Candidate and they would obey.

He said they think that it was becoming very clear that these matters were settled and connected to the Principal issue; ‘did anyone get more than 50 percent, was the declaration in breach of Article 63 (3), these key questions would now be answered’.

Oppong Nkrumah said another matter that sought attention was FORM 13, there was a claim suggests that the document that was shown to the witness was done through the backdoor and was not FORM 13.

The spokesperson said the claim that the witness has been harassed by the Bench (Judges) was a tactic being used by the lawyers for the petitioner to poison the minds of Ghanaian against the Bench because they could begin to see through the questions and answers that they were giving gaps in their case.

“The Bench has the right to ask questions for clarity and we believe that when our witnesses get to the box, they will also be asked questions and there is nothing wrong with that,” he added.

Meanwhile, lawyers of the petitioner have filed a motion at the Supreme Court seeking an order to inspect documents from the Electoral Commission.

The motion on notice was moved Tuesday, concerns some original documents regarding presidential results collation forms.

The six point-motion is asking for the originals of all constituency presidential election results collation forms and summary sheets of all constituencies in Ghana.