MAP Le Maroc parmi les 10 premiers pays qui ont réussi le défi de la vaccination contre la Covid-19 (OMS) AIP Côte d’Ivoire-AIP/ Législatives 2021: Des affiches des candidats déchirées à Bocanda AIP Côte d’Ivoire-AIP/ Législatives 2021: Adama Bictogo appelle à voter pour le candidat désigné par le RHDP à Aboisso sous-préfecture AIP Côte d’Ivoire-AIP/ 356 nouveaux cas de COVID-19 notifiés le 3 mars 2021 (Ministère) AIP Côte d’Ivoire-AIP/ Législatives 2021: Le préfet de Bocanda invite les candidats à œuvrer pour la paix pendant la campagne AIP Côte d’Ivoire-AIP/ Au total 2 000 ménages vulnérables bénéficient de kits alimentaires et sanitaires à Abidjan AIP Côte d’Ivoire-AIP/ Législatives 2021: Le candidat RHDP de Tagadi et Sorobango veut continuer de soutenir les actions de développement du Gouvernement AIP Côte d’Ivoire-AIP/ Législatives 2021: Le candidat du PDCI compte défendre les intérêts de la population de Bonon APS MACKY SALL ANNONCE 8 MILLIONS DE DOSES POUR LA VACCINATION DE 4 MILLIONS DE PERSONNES APS LE PRÉSIDENT SALL PRÔNE LA FINALISATION DE LA STRATÉGIE NATIONALE DE PROTECTION CIVILE

Our questions was for clarifications of the issues-Supreme Court


  2 Février      18        Justice (1059),

   

Accra, Feb. 2, GNA – The Supreme Court on Tuesday, Mr Tsatu Tsikata, counsel for the Petitioner in the Election 2020 Petition trial on Tuesday accused the Supreme Court of harassing Dr Michael Kpessa Whyte, the second witness of the Petitioner.

Justice Yaw Apau, a member of the panel wanted to find out from the second witness of the petitioner with the question to wit,”You did not help the course of the Petitioner by leaving the strong room of the EC”?

Mr Tsikata vehemently opposed the question to the second witness saying “the supreme court is harassing the witness.”

According to Mr Tiskata, Justice Apau who asked the question, was entitled to his opinion.

Justice Apau however asked Tsikata in what way was his questioning a harassment of the witness.

Justice Apau said that they only wanted to understand some issues hence the questions to the witness.

In furtherance of these more of the judges administered more questions to the witness as to why all the two agents of the Petitioner should leave the EC’s strong room.

The court further wanted to ascertain whether Dr Whyte had any training before taking up the job of being in the EC strong room, and whether they as agents were to take instructions from the EC Boss.

Dr Whyte under cross examination by Justine Amenuvor, counsel for the EC denied that because Mr Mahama was losing the 2020 election, he) and Roojo Mettle-Nunoo, both Petitioner Agents left the EC’s Strong room.

The second witness said that he and Mr Mettle-Nunoo left the EC strong room because the Chairperson of the EC had “asked” or “Instructed” them to do so.

The SC however drew the witness attention to the fact that there were some difference in the use the words “asked” and “instructed” Dr Whyte admitted in court that he did not personally talk to the EC Boss but obtained that information from Mr Mettle-Nunoo.

According to the witness they both left the EC strong room because they had some irregularities with some of the results from the regions.

“We never walked or melted away. When we complained about the irregularities, the EC Chairperson asked us to go and see the petitioner and discuss with him the way forward.

“We acted in good faith but we were deceived by the EC Boss when she instructed us to leave and as soon as we left, she went upstairs of the EC offices to announce the results of Election 2020,” he said.

Dr Whyte said he had no reason to lie to the court that the EC boss asked them to consult their flagbearer over the irregularities.

Additionally, the witness denied that they only concocted a story about the EC to the petitioner.

Witness told the court that as at the time he and Mr Mettle Nunoo were leaving the EC offices, the results at the Strong room was not close to the “declaration of the winner of the Elections.”

The witness admitted that on December 9, 2020 he granted an interview to an Accra based radio station in which he alleged there were 390,000 extra ballots from Ashanti Region.

Witness who said it was his first time in the EC’s strong room, said he recalled that during the interview he told a journalist that some pink sheets from the region had tallied with those in the EC strong room but others did not.

He admitted that Mr Mettle-Nunoo earlier signed some of the results tallied by the EC.

Witness admitted that although Mr Mettle-Nuoon signed for over 12 Regions, he “signed in error.”

Dr Whyte said while leaving the EC Strong room, they informed other stakeholders present and that they were leaving and would be returning to the strong room after a meeting with the Petitioner.

The witness said he personally left his car on the EC premises as well as computers and calculators in the strong room.

When asked why they did not call the Petitioner on Phone, the witness said his phone battery was dead.

“When we returned to the EC’s strong room, we found the place deserted,” the second witness told the Supreme Court.

Witness said they were not interested in the winner of Election 2020 but their interest was in the fact that the “results of the polls were true reflection of the will of the people.”

In a cross examination by Mr Akoto Ampaw, counsel for the second respondent (Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo), Dr Whyte said he was aware that the EC Chairperson had no power to instruct him and Mr Mettle-Nunoo.

The witness denied that he and Mr Mettle-Nunoo left the Strong room on their own volition.

Dr Whyte said the “weight” of the matter to be discussed with the Petitioner required that they both leave the strong room.

Court sitting has been adjourned to February 3 and Dr Whyte was discharged by the court after his cross examination ended.

The petitioner had filed two witness statements of Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia and Dr Whyte in the Election 2020 Petition trial.

Mr Mahama had proceeded to the Apex Court of the land challenging the validity of the winner of Election 2020. The Petitioner is also accusing the EC of vote padding.

Dans la même catégorie