The panel hearing the election petition has adjourned for 30 minutes to consider sending a judicial officer to the location of Rojo Mettle-Nunoo where he would be cross-examined examined.
The witness is to be cross-examined from his location due to his ill health.
At the last sitting on Wednesday, the court went into an in-camera hearing where the lawyers for the petitioner asked the court to consider an application to have a special arrangement for their third witness.
When the court resumed sitting today, lead counsel for President Akufo-Addo lawyer Akoto Ampaw asked whether there was a judicial officer present with the witness so that they are certain that nobody would be present and prompting him when questions are asked.
He told the court that this was important in the view.
He said ‘this is a fundamental issue he had raised and the court should consider it.”I submit that this is a major concern for the 2nds respondent. We want to be sure that the witness is not been prompted, given any assistance and that can only be done if there is an official at the location’.
His submission was supported by lead counsel for the petitioner (John Dramani Mahama), lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata who said it would take not more than 25 minutes for an officer to be present with the witness.
He said they are completely in agreement with the principle that a judicial officer should be present with the witness.
He said they have absolutely no problem with that.
”it should take perhaps not more than 25 minutes to have a judicial officer with the witness to lay the fears”.
The court after the submissions from the two sides asked whether it was safe and lawyer Tsikata said he was certain it was safe because there was a medical officer present.
In his 32 paragraph-witness statement Mr. Mettle-Nunoo stated that Mrs. Mensa, who doubles as the sole Returning Officer of the presidential election, “did not perform the duties she was supposed to perform in order to be able to declare a winner of the election as she attempted to do.”
“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. I do not think we, who were acting as agents of the Petitioner, should be seen as taking positions which many be contrary to what the Petitioner himself and had conveyed in a meeting that I was unaware of with a body such as the Peace Council which, I know has an important role in resolving disputes in connection with elections and calming tensions in the country. She indicated her own willingness to meet with the Petitioner.”