Ghana election hearing: Court strikes out Tsatsu’s application

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an application filed by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata and co- respondents seeking to cross examine six witnesses of the petitioners who came by affidavits.

The respondents in their motion have sought to cross-examine the six witnesses who they claim made allegations of irregularities to the effect that some polling stations in their constituencies were annulled due to over-voting.

The six witnesses are Freda Prempeh, Kwabena Twum Nuamah, Eugene Sackey, Peter Wule, Abdulai Hamid and Fuseini Sophiano.

Justice William Atuguba, the Presiding judge giving the ruling said the court has enough evidence to make a firm decision and would not need extra information from the said witnesses to make a determination of the case.

He says the court does not need “all those things” because it would lead to a protraction of the case.

Mr Tsatsu Tsikata Lead Counsel for the third respondent in moving the motion quoted portions of Constitutional Instrument (CI) 74, which states that a person who had sworn an affidavit may be cross examined and re-examined as necessary.

He argued that what the respondents are seeking to do is to cross examine those witnesses for their truthfulness to be determined by the court.

He said the rules of court make it clear the process of the trial quoting Section 62 (2) of the Evidence Decree to back his argument.

Mr Tsikata said “the truth of the matters to which these witnesses have testified to are important bases for which they must be brought before the court”.

“Why would a party who has proffered evidence to the court be so eager to protect them from examination?” he asked.

He said each of the individuals the respondents are seeking to cross examine claim to have a background knowledge to what they have deposed to.

Mr Tsikata said in the case of Abdulai Hamid, he is the Presiding Officer and there is no better person to call to answer questions on what happened in his polling station.

He argued that the court would be well served if people who claim to have personal knowledge of the facts to which they have deposed to are cross examined.

He described as strange the decision by the petitioners to kick against the cross examination of the witnesses, adding that their claim that similar testimonies have been given to the second respondent cannot be good enough basis.

Mr Tony Lithur, Counsel for President John Dramani Mahama and Mr James Quarshie-Idun, Counsel for the Electoral Commission (EC) associated themselves to the position of Mr Tsikata.

Mr Quarshie-Idun said the EC have not admitted or confirmed any of the acts deposed to in the affidavits filed by the petitioners.

Mr Philip Addison, Counsel for the petitioners said they are opposed to the application because so far as it concerns Kwabena Twum Nuamah, Freda Prempeh, Eugene Sackey and Peter Wule.

He however said that they are not opposed to the cross examination of Abdulai Hamid and Fuseini Sophiano.

Mr Addison said the court on April 2, made an order for an expeditious trial quoting CI 74 to back his argument.

He said the matters deposed to by the witnesses are no longer in controversy before the court, except that of Abdulai and Fuseini.

Mr Addison said the second respondents swore affidavits to corroborate the incidents that happened in the polling stations to which the four witnesses have deposed to in their affidavits.

Mr Addison said Mr Amadu Sulley, a staff of the EC who deposed to the affidavits in paragraph 28 and 31 filed on 16 April attempted to strike out the allegations made by the witnesses who they are now trying to cross examine.

He said the attempts to strike out the allegations were refused by the court for good reasons.

He said the first and third respondents were silent on the specific matter of the affidavits filed by those witnesses until the day the motion was filed.

Justice Atuguba, Presiding Judge at that juncture said the court would rise indefinitely to consider the arguments for the motion before giving its ruling.

So after the break the court gave its ruling by refusing the three applications filed by the respondents to be allowed to cross-examine the six witnesses who came by affidavits.

Source: GNA