Continuation of Cross-Examination of Johnson Asiedu Nketiah
Hearing commenced at exactly 9: 30am. After Parties and Counsel were announced, the Court technician proceeded to play in open Court videos submitted by the 2nd Respondent.
In the videos, Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, Former Prez. Mahama, Peter Boamah Otukonor and Sammy Gyamfi were seen at various press conferences claiming the NDC had won both the Presidential and Parliamentary elections. In the case of Otukonor, he specifically quoted figures alleged to be votes garnered by the Petitioner and encouraged their supporters to celebrate and also demanded 2nd Respondent to concede immediately.
When Confronted with the video, Johnson Asiedu Nketiah stated under oath that where any other national officer’s statement contradicted his, his statement was to be taken since he was the CEO of the Party. He also claimed that he never said Petitioner had won though he called the Petitioner President in some parts of the video.
During cross-examination by Akoto Ampaw Esq., Counsel for 2nd Respondent, Asiedu Nketiah made several admissions, key among them were that,
1. The petitioner did not challenge any result at the polling station in his petition
2. That the Petitioner had not produced any independent document to support their claim the figures from the EC were not a reflection of the election
3. The Petitioner had polling agents in all the polling stations and these agents had the carbon copies of results.
4. The total valid votes was what is used to reckon the percentages of who had obtained 50 +1 and the use of total votes cast for that purpose is impermissible in any election anywhere.
5. That they were were not in Court to retabulate results from polling stations as NPP had done in 2013.
6. Admitted the actual votes in Techiman were known at the time of the petition.
Counsel for Petitioner as part of his cross-examination, led Asiedu Nketiah to calculate the total valid votes cast from the announcement by the EC and what various candidates obtained as well as express same in percentages. He further led the witness to do same with the figures contained in the press release of 10th December, 2020.
In all of the conclusions, 2nd Respondent still crossed the 50+1 threshold contrary to the assertion of Petitioner.
Counsel for 2nd Respondent also led Asiedu Nketiah to add the total registered voters in Techiman South to Petitioner’s votes and subsequently the actual votes recorded and express them as percentages and still 2nd Respondent crossed the 50+1 threshold.
Counsel for 2nd Respondent put it to the witness that while the Petitioner contended in his petition that there were 32 padded constituencies, Asiedu Nketiah in his witness statement included only 26 and the outstanding 6 had been removed because NDC realised it was unfavourable to their case. Matters got to its height, when Asiedu Nketiah denied knowledge of a pen drive attached to his testimony(witness statement) claiming he had never seen it. The said pen drive contained files indicating that some votes were allegedly padded in favour of Petitioner which undermines their case that the 1st Respondent (EC) padded in favour of 2nd Respondent.
Here again, Counsel for 2nd Respondent led Asiedu Nketiah to deduct the alleged vote padding of 4963 from all the figures available as the total valid votes and 2nd Respondent still crossed the 50+1 which made him validly declared.
Counsel for 2nd Respondent also took the witness through the letter he claims he wrote to EC to suspend declaring results because they had identified issues with results in Ashanti and put it to him that the allegations in the letter did not feature in either the petition or the witness statement of Asiedu Nketiah to which the agreed.
Counsel for 2nd Respondent again took the witness through the calculation on the EC’s summary sheet and the NDC’s own calculation yet in all the instances, 2nd Respondent still crossed the 50+1
In concluding his cross-examination, Counsel for 2nd Respondent put it to the witness that whatever scenario or figure which surfaced in the 2020 election, still puts petitioner over 50+1 and therefore the Petitioner has no basis to challenge the results especially when they had not put up any contrary figures.
Counsel for Petitioner sought to re-examine Asiedu Nketiah on some questions but lawyer for the EC(1st Respondent objected and same was abandoned.
As allowed by the rules of Court, the Bench, particularly Appau JSC sought to ask Asiedu Nketiah a few questions.
He asked who generated the data on the pen drive which Asiedu Nketiah has denied knowledge of and he responded the Election directorate is Responsible for that.
He proceeded to ask the total valid votes cast, the votes obtained by Petitioner and 2nd Respondent in the 2020 election per the calculation the NDC and Asiedu Nketiah answered that he doesn’t know.
Case was adjourned to 2nd February, 2021 at 9: 30am for the next witness.
~Lawyer Henry Nana Boakye Nana B


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here