News
Dismiss Over 20 Parts Of Rojo’s Statement – Akoto Ampaw Prays Supreme Court
Lawyer for the 2nd Respondent in the ongoing election petition hearing, Mr. Akoto Ampaw has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss over 20 parts of the witness statement of Rojo Mettle Nunoo, the third witness of the petitioner.
This comes after Mr Ampaw severally objected to those parts in court.
Meanwhile lead counsel for the petitioner, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata also asked the courts to maintain all parts of the statement because they were important to their case.
Mr Joseph Nunoo had testified to the court that the EC Chiar, Mrs Jean Mensah had assured him that every concern he raised in the strongroom were genuine and would be attended to.
“My colleague, Dr Michael Kpessa-Whyte, and, I on many occasions pointed out errors in the figures and words on the sheets that were brought in which ultimately affected totals and assigned results. This sometimes led to EC officials making phone calls on the basis of which they sought to explain and correct some of the things we pointed out.
“I cannot tell to whom those phone calls were made. I cannot tell if the calls were to EC officials to some other people who were also involved in collation process. There was no transparent process in this regard.
“At a point, I went to the office of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission on 8th December 2020, I wanted to bring to her attention that what was going on in the strong room could not lead to a declaration of the results at the end of the day, as she had promised the country. She actually told me, in response, that the concerns I had raised were genuine and she would have them looked into.”
“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.”
