Lead counsel for petitioner Mr. John Dramani Mahama, lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata has argued that the court would be posing a grave danger should they grant the request by Mrs. Jean Mensa, the Electoral Commissioner to escape cross-examination.
Arguing his case on the decision by the lawyer of the 1st respondent not to put the EC boss in the witness box, he said the office of the EC is a public office, and as such she cannot hide behind human rights and escape the cross-examination.
He argued that the petition is about the EC Chair’s own performance and what she said in her witness statement.
Lawyer Tsikata went in stating that the EC boss must be held accountable for her declaration because any move to allow her to escape the cross-examination would pose a grave danger to the republic.
He further argued that the witnesses for the petitioner raised several serious which the EC boss has to address including the form 13 used for the elections.
He said if the holder of the officer cannot be held accountable for her work, then we would be posing grave dangers and help her in being shielded from accountability.
“It is our respectful submission that by filing its witness statement the first respondent has clearly crossed the bridge as far as opening the witness up for cross-examination is concerned. That bridge has been crossed, the ship has already been sailed,” Tsatsu said in his argument to the bench.
For his part, the lawyer for the 2nd respondent Akoto Ampaw told the Supreme Court that the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to elect a witness to appear in the witness box.
“The petitioner cannot compel us to enter the witness box to adduce evidence.”
“The petitioner has adduced evidence and closed his case, we have taken the position that in our assessment they have not discharged the burden of proof and the burden of producing evidence and therefore, we will not give further evidence and the court will determine the case on the evidence before it.