There were fireworks between the lawyer for the first respondent in the election petition and the third witness for the petitioner when he was being cross-examined on his witness statement.
The lawyer for the Electoral Commissioner Justin Amenuvor tried in discrediting the witness Rojo Mettle-Nunoo.
The lawyer described the witness as an untruthful witness who has peddled falsehood in his witness statement to deceive the court over his monumental failure as an agent for the petitioner.
The witness pointed out to the lawyer that he was been judgemental after he told him that his witness statement was an afterthought and after hearing the cross-examination of Kpessa Whyte.
The lawyer of the EC further described his statement as wobbly, and the witness in response said that was not the case because he gave a witness statement based on what he saw.
The lawyer further said the witness statement was a bad explanation to the bad job he did for the petitioner and the witness responded saying the lawyer was being judgemental.
”That is not correct. You are not the chief examiner to describe my witness statement”, as bad.
The cross-examination went to the extent where the lawyer pointed out to the witness that he was provided with tea and biscuits when he went to the office of the Commissioner Mrs Jean Mensa to seek an audience with her on his claims of errors they had seen on the face of the documents used for the declaration.
The lawyer for the EC then put it to the witness that he and his other colleague went to the petitioner to lie to him but the witness in responding flayed up and said: ”it is your client that you are representing that is being untruthful. She is supposed to declare credible results. It is your client who is being untruthful”.
It was at this point the judges asked the witness to be specific with his answers.
The witness insisted that he was truthful and his responses came because the EC lawyer was using inuendos.
Lawyer Amenuvor then asked the witness to recall in 2008 that he told NPP’s Kwabena Agyapong that he would have faced him squarely if he did not take his time.
The witness said it was correct because he told him that in the face because he [Agyapong] was trying to change the results.
Then the lawyer put it to him saying it was that same character he had displayed in the court.
In his response he said: ”I have a temperament for fairness, I have a temperament for that makes want to fight against injustice.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com
