Exclusive: Lawyers for Jean Mensa will not want their client cross-examined

Exclusive: Lawyers for Jean Mensa will not want their client cross-examined

Lawyers for the Electoral Commission, the First Respondent in the ongoing 2020 Election Petition are telling the court they intend not to call any witness.

Lead counsel for the Electoral Commission, Justin Amenuvor said they do not want to adduce evidence in the present dispute over the winner of the December 7, 2020, Presidential poll.

Citing Order 36 rule 4(3) of Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) 87, Mr Amenuvor said he will not lead any evidence despite submitting a witness statement.

The rule reads: “where the defendant elects not to adduce evidence, then, whether or not the defendant has in the course of cross-examination of a witness for the plaintiff or otherwise put in a document, the plaintiff may, after the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff has been given, close the plaintiff’s case and the defendant may then state the case of the defendant.”

Lawyers for the Petitioner, John Dramani Mahama who was the 2020 Presidential Candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) had been looking forward to cross-examining the Electoral Commissioner, Jean Mensa Adukwei.

But it appears this might not be the case.

Order 36 rule 4(3) applies when the respondent knows there is no substance to the case made by the plaintiff.

After the Petitioner’s Third Witness, Robert Joseph Mettle Nunoo was cross-examined, Mr Amenuvor said there is no substance to the case made by Mr Mahama.

However, Mr Mahama’s lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata has opposed the submission by Mr Amenuvor arguing a respondent could not do that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *