Election Petition Hearing Day 7: Asiedu Nketia's cross-examination in court (1-2-21)

[Music] now now [Music] you you notice that at the tail end on that exhibit you you find [Music] the summation of the total figures of votes that each candidate obtained and you also indicate what from your population each candidate obtained on the side that is a difference of five six eight yeah yes my lord that's true now so [Music] let's look at let's look at the total valid votes obtained by the second respondent on that spreadsheet or summary sheets it is six million seven hundred and seventy six thousand and 65. my lord is i see sister says here 66 sorry black alright yes and the total number of valid votes obtained by the first the petitioner is 6 million 265 2276 yes correct and 6 million 265 276 yes yes and from your from the east calculation based on the easiest total valid votes of 30 million 218 thousand six hundred [Music] that is the ndc the last corner is the end this is votes the easiest calculation of total valid votes is the column one two three four five from the right that is the easiest calculation yes and the number the figure there my lord is 13 million 218 six hundred and thirty-three yes yes now you'll find that from the easiest calculation 6 million 700 [Music] and 76 and 66 yields a percentage of 51 point two six one all right i will declare it oh excuse me i didn't understand the question what i'm saying that if you look it's your it's your exhibit yeah and i'm saying that from that exhibit the total valid votes passed overall according to the issue is 13 218 633 that's the document that's what you have 13 million 218 633 yes yes and this is different from what was announced and what was corrected and what was subsequently corrected please hold on so i'm saying that six million seven hundred and seventy six and sixty six which is the total valid votes obtained by the second respondent a percentage of the overall total valid votes of 30 million 200 and 8 000 six hundred and two hundred and eighteen thousand six hundred and thirteen thirty three sorry is fifty one point two six one percent that's correct yes now you claim you did your own calculations of those figures and by your own calculations you claim that the second respondent obtain a percentage of 51.263 of the total value broadcast that's your calculation you see it at the last column at the bottom the very last column yes so 51.264 six two six three five two six three six seven five nine okay so i'm putting it to you that whether it is the easiest calculation or your calculation definitely second respondent cross the threshold so we are going by the data supplied by easy yes but the data is internally inconsistent now now let's now come through your exhibit your exhibit see the concept it was now let's come to your exhibits your exhibit d now your svd is your famous letter yes of course to the chairperson of first respondent where you claim that that the results which were correlated and signed by all the parties were not the ones transmitted from the region to the electoral commission's offices in accra and your second allegation was that ashanti to the second respondent yes this letter to us address to the first respondent now you you set two complaints complaint a and complaint b complain a is that in the eastern region the results in the presidential elections which were collated and signed by all the parties were not the ones that were transmitted from the region to the east offices in accra and the second point b relates to ashanti region say ashanti regime provides fundamental problems that require investigation we have found out that almost across the board the aggregates on the summary sheet do not reflect the individual results on the pink sheets further the results collated and declared for the region do not re reflect the aggregate results on the pinches in our custody now it is a fact that you wrote this letter on 9th december and i believe 2020 is that also yes 9th december 2020. and i understand from your position that you wrote this letter before the declaration was made yes my lord so listen i'm putting it to you that your petition your petitioner's petition shows no reasonable cause of action and i'm putting it to you further that you are not the petitioner is not entitled to any of the release that he seeks and you have located worthy of hearing before this court my lord i am that yes yes yes please say there will be a question from the bank i i want to be very clear on some issues genre i i know that when you purchase a pen drive it is empty and the data on any pendrive is generated by someone so the pen drive that you attached to the hard copy and exhibited as xbf who generated or placed the data on it because when you as you said you don't know what was on it who generated the data on the pendrive honestly i hadn't seen the pen drive and its contents till today and out relying on the hard copies the evidence is gathered by our relations directorate and the legal directorate so they gave it to you and you exhibited it as part of your evidence as part of the petition he did not exhibit any many questions that statement so i want to find out who generated it so if your election generated it and gave it to you and you exhibited it without seeing it look i read all the hard copies of the document because of the term pressure i was discovering a distance today okay so that's why i dedicated that i want to be very clear on these issues too very very important to me now in all the figures that were mentioned as a valid word cast and all those things you were saying if the figures were correct if the figures were correct and that there were inconsistencies in the figures i want to ask you now in your own calculation what were the total valuables cast in the presidential elections on serving december 2020 in your own calculations [Music] my lord those calculations are reserved for a meeting for us to reconcile the figures because the first respondent herself keeps changing the figures and so it says excuse me help the court you see when you started giving evidence you said you had all the representatives across the 275 consequences you said you put agents as a to use yes and they were to i mean correct the figures you said it then he's asking you that probably from that what figure did you get you you my lord i haven't brought that figure to god okay then from your own calculations how much what were the valuables cast in favor of the petitioner to your knowledge my lord when we discovered these discrepancies it was difficult to even know yourself you don't know you just answered you don't know i don't have them here okay then the last one what figures from your own calculations did the second respondent get as the total values cast in his favor my lord i don't have those figures here thank you you have referred on a number of occasions to data being internally inconsistent can you explain what you mean by that the data on the basis of which you have been cross-examined you have kept saying the data was internally inconsistent my laws there's no ambiguity in that statement we nothing has been said here that suggests that there's no understanding of that statement the statement is clear in its stance so he cannot be asking him that question under re-examination my lord i believe the purpose of re-examination is to clarify matters that came up in the context of the cross-examination so when the witness keeps saying that data is internally inconsistent i believe that there is a need to explain my lord my understanding of data that is internally inconsistent it's where figures are given and a total is given which is different from the sum of the figures as we had on the [Music] medical recent sheet for eastern region first is given and a total is also given and when you add the two tasks you add the data raw data it doesn't agree with the total as given then the data is inconsistent and i cited and citing an example of the eastern region coalition my lord it was said in court here we tended two different documents one excuse me you want to elicit an answer to a very simple question for him to explain inconsistency in data but going back to easy reading and looking flipping through the exhibits yes are you looking for fresh evidence he wanted just a simple answer for you to tell the court yes what is yes what is that my meaning is that when there is beta we've got it thank you and there is a uh a claim thank you for this and when you actually are it is different from what the total is clicked then that data is internally inconsistent in connection with the cross examination of council for the first council for the first respondent he drew your attention to something from ayen suanu and he related that to the calculations that he had asked you to make now how does the ien swan i lost object to this well i hope also for first respondent referred to ayen suano in connection with the documents that he cross-examined you on yes my question simply is what is the relevance of i can you explain the relevance of my influence this is fresh evidence uh [Music] yes thank you my lord you didn't tell us your other name you you did not tell us your other name you are less who begins to get ranking you didn't tell us your layers it begins with the rank in the army nine alive yes we begin with the rank in the army or you don't want us to take judicial notice of that i thought that is a apple prefix this question with that because you come from his hometown of mosquito your request thank you very much [Music] the case sorry the petition is adjourned to tomorrow at 9 30 a.m for the next witness all right it's been another contest between mr khufudo's lead lawyer akutoampau and mr mohammed's first witness johnson assyrian ketiah in this cross-examination questions was a fatal inconsistency exposed was the witness credibility exposed oh did aku tuan pal test the petitioner's case and prove it was wrong unreliable unattainable well the law it is said is in the bosom of the judge we will wait for the seven member panels decision but it's been a very long day very long hours it appears in all we've done close to about five hours could you we have indeed and i've got to say for the last two hours fresh the most fascinating moments for me was when the the judges took a moment to ask a few questions and i think it started to let us see perhaps how the court will be viewing uh the outcomes of of all of these exchanges in order to make their ruling their judgments at the end and i think one thing is clear they want to know what you are bringing to court for them to judge they want to know what evidence you are bringing to court to make your case and i noticed they were stressing on specific details they wanted to know what what are the ndc's own figures what is what are they what are they calling the outcome or the correct outcome if they are identifying incorrect ones what is the correct one i could see that to be perhaps what the court was seeking to clarify in the end the witness had to say that he didn't have those details with him and i don't know what that means i don't know whether that's in any way affects the how the court will look upon the case that the petitioner is bringing the fact that the petitioner is not himself um testifying has again demonstrated its significance because there are a number of things that in mr kotompau's cross-examination he sought to clarify which appeared to be something that the petitioner would have to address even though this witness is one that is testifying on behalf of the petitioner it was quite clear that there were certain things that the petitioner the witness considered the petitioner a better person to address so once again the fact that the petitioner himself is not the one on the stand has has proved to be significant interesting and we will see how it affects the final outcome all right so today's procedure has ended at least in the courtroom but as we have learned today what happens outside the court especially where lawyers involved in the case are concerned is also crucial so who will address the media on behalf of the second respondents as we've heard and also seen frank davis the man who usually does it was cautioned the court said it was uncomfortable with his utterances and that it breaches the rules of the legal profession who will your money be on it's going to be addressing the media i wonder well i mean there are a number of people who could do that people who are not on record as uh you know advocates for the second petitioner even kojo pong kruma who is a spokesperson for government uh often attends court i've seen him there a number of times i wonder whether he will be interested in taking up that role of communicating to the to the press on behalf of the team well on behalf of uh you know the side of the second petitioner but yes i think the court has made it quite clear that they've been paying attention to what's happening outside their courtroom and uh they take a view of what what uh what lawyers are seeing when they leave could it also be that they were probably watching news file because that issue was you know came up strongly that was dennis uh jamal who was on the show who actually did say that perhaps the court you know should caution lawyers on the case yeah that there were also some words to those lawyers who are not necessarily part of this case in the courts so justice aninya boa on behalf of the courts made a passionate appeal that if you are a lawyer and you're not actively participating put down your ropes and grants the interview and in addressing the media one should not be in groups with the wig on fascinating fascinating uh and again i mean i've always i've always wondered about these rooms and wigs and you know but uh it's a tradition that's uh particularly justice in india as the chief justice respects and reveres certainly wants to keep in place uh so so yes you can understand why they would uh they would take a view on that i personally i mean i wish all right yeah and kojo you are right uh uh could you point chroma is addressing the media on behalf of the second result ah they were listed in so let us know when you're ready you are all right um so good afternoon i'm very sure you have followed the proceedings um in the wealth of the supreme court uh from morning till afternoon we are of the view that it's been a good day in court and that today the big word is exposed exposed you'll notice that council on our side spent a lot of time exposing the inconsistencies and sometimes even outright falsehoods that have been put out by the petitioner and the witness who was in the witness box today so when you juxtapose the earlier claims of we won now to what they are saying in the witness box about they don't know who won when he juxtaposed that to some of the tips we played about claims of 51 percent on their side now to claim that they did not even bring numbers to court if you juxtapose that between their petition that talks about vote padding of a certain number and now a claim that is only samples of that number one of the first things that council on our side sought to do today was to expose the inconsistencies and sometimes outright falsehoods that have been peddled by the petitioner and um the witness who was in the witness box today our council also spent a lot of time exposing the bad faith and prejudice with which the petitioner and his team have approached the work of the electoral commission and the chair of the electoral commission have been issued and that's why you saw them take time to set out right from her appointment from registration etc and the belief on our side that this is just a culmination of the various attempts to undermine an otherwise very good job that has been done also exposed through very vigorous cross-examination is a claim that was being made that nobody actually won this election and that's why you saw the venerable accoutrement over and over again now raise the numbers and ask the witness to do the computation and if you fry it you bake it you turn it upside down you cook it it is still 51 plus for the second respondent and about 47 for the practitioner and you saw him do the math and admit himself uh on the or in the witness box when he was under oath what we also found interesting were the attempts to shield the witness by his council to an extent that even materials that they had tended in there was an attempt to ensure that he was not questioned on it even at re-examination attempt to reduce fresh evidence but i think you saw how the court handled it the very final exposure we saw today an exposure on the lack of candor you heard the three questions that the bench asked but for all that you have said when you finished your coalition what were your results when you finished your coalition what were the results are the petitioner got when you finished your coalition what were the results that the second respondent got and it was i i believe would be very surprising to the millions of ndc supporters across the country who were egged on by the same team that they had numbers to prove they had won now here in court when the bench asks those questions they say that they did not come to court with any of those numbers they are not still able to put any numbers before the court despite all that they had said so for us in summary where of the view way of the view that it's been a good day in court you saw the lack of candor when on the soft copy on the pen drive they had made notes that they observed what they call padding both for the mpp and the ndc yet they had claimed that there was a deliberate attempt to steal this election for the mpp and now in their witness statement they sought to delete those ones out and then when it was put to um our very good friend the general he now said he he was not responsible for the pen drive etc so that exposure of the lack of canada is also one of the things that our council sought to do in conclusion for us today our view is that if your case is bad even the most skillful general will be exposed at cross-examination and that's what we believe has happened today if you have questions we'll take them now and then we'll wrap up your site sought to turn that in exhibit through the petitioner's witness they were opposed to it why did you want to do that when you have not asked the league of the court first well so that would be a technical legal matter the substance of it however is that what we wanted to show was still in the video that had been submitted and so you saw our council find an opportunity to now cause the witness to do that calculation and express it as a percentage and no matter how you do it it still comes back to that same point the second respondent 51 plus and the petition about 47 any other questions well we thank you we'll do a quick translation entry and we look forward to tomorrow's engagement in court and that's kojioponkarma he's actually one of the designated spokespersons on this case for the second respondent nanada danka ekufudo uh in all he says exposes the word for them uh today out of today's hearing good day in courts uh uh kojiang singh that's uh what kojioponkroma says and he actually settles on those three questions uh that justice in india put to the witness today in your own calculation what was the total valid vote cast what figures did mr muhammad get what figures did mr kuffar i do get and we know the answer to that he says he didn't carry the figures and who compiled the data on the pen drive another question that um was not answered by the witness or the well the witness did answer uh said that he hasn't had the opportunity to go through the contents of the pen drive so so yeah i mean what else would you expect of course today it's been brief it has um i think um perhaps that might also be more of um the style of the the person who spoke on behalf of the team uh because your point does tend to prefer to get straight to the point um and um his predecessor was a bit more of a storyteller you know a bit more of a someone who would elaborate on on issues also maybe perhaps tolerate a lot more questions perhaps perhaps i think today that me it did appear that he called for questions it didn't seem as if there were any forthcoming because he did say are there any questions and but then that was a wrap very quickly after that where i suspect that the ec chairs the ec's lawyer will be next to speak but i think in focusing on the questions that the judge asked another thing that it does is that it it kind of it moves the commentary away from us versus them to well this is what the court is after you know and i suppose in a certain way that's also good strategy wise for the second respondents team because what it means is that it's it's not even it's not even us saying this we're not we are not asking you to believe our interpretation of what happened we're saying look at what the court was asking for look at what the court was saying you know in terms of communication strategy i can see how that is a uh perhaps a an effective way of going about things whether it will work or not that's to be seen but one thing is for sure in this first salvo of questions from the court we get a taste of what they are looking for whether the the petitioner will satisfy these things time will tell absolutely well we wait to see here from the side of the petitioner uh who'll be addressing the press as well will take you there uh when they get ready but our election petition update is brought to you in association with petra soul clean fuel in full quantity is always a delightful experience also dbs roofing we truly are your roof experts core make sure the immune booster for your general well-being so after several years of intensive research dbs industries limited brings you roofing sheets to help complete your dream house in style experience the amazing touch of coloring plus roofing sheets in 26 years which means coloring plus roofing sheets always stay clean and beautiful for you and there's more they're giving you a whopping 20 years warranty against fading and peeling a dbs industries limited in accra on the spintex road in the dbs building near papaya you can call the hot lines zero two four eight zero eight four four four four four that's zero two four zero eight four four four four four or zero five four three two eight six six three seven or visit the other factories in kumasi tamale and takra devious industries limited we truly are your roof experts now due to hard times we've become value hunters but are we hunting for value the right way remember your engine is more fallable than just cheap fuel the smart hunt for holistic value holistic value is when you have quality fuel at the right quantity and at a fair price at petrosaur we save clean fuel in full quantity at a fair price and that is holistic value so come to us petros or clean field in full quantity uh so finally cojo general mosquito is done with the cross-examination yeah uh how has it been i mean it's been more than a day because he started on friday and then today i suspect that following the the pedantic painstaking gruelling cross-examination of um lawyer akuto ampang today general mosquito as he identified himself to the judges in that light moment at the end um he's got he's going to be quite relieved to be able to stretch his legs you know get himself a drink of water or whatever it is that he'll need to calm himself at this point because that was intense that was intense i mean especially compared to uh you know yes friday's cross-examination which he seemed to be very relaxed during he seemed to be more in control of that than uh than two days where mr ampau insisted on resting control from him we're going to go back to the court now marietta brew appeal speaking he has said undermines our case indeed everything he said goes to point points to the fact that we're entitled to the declarations that we are seeking but several interesting things stood out today let me start with the video the video that they sought to show to try and dent the credibility of the general secretary didn't happen as they thought it would in the end his credibility rather soared if you watch the video and i'm sure you all watched it it is clear from the video that he never said at any point in time that the petitioner had won the elections in fact what he did were projections and rightly so he stated that based on the 141 parliamentary seats that we had won the projection was that we would win the presidential slot as well those were projections he made and so they were unable to show from the video that the general said what it is they were trying to prove so of course they flocked in that regard the other thing that came out clearly was that there were ever-changing figures from the general testimony now from their own cross-examination they describe these ever-changing figures as manifestly erroneous we had the ninth december figures of 13 million and thirty four five seven four ten december thirteen thousand one hundred ninety thirteen million one hundred nineteen four hundred and sixty then in their paragraph 24 of their answer that's the first respondent answer she talks about 13 million 121 111 yet again today there were corrections made and we saw that from their cross-examination on tichiman south on the face of that their own exhibit it showed 97 two hundred and twenty seven but when they did the tally or the collation it was ninety nine thousand four hundred and thirty six so when we make the point that based on their own declaration that's the issues own declarations they are errors we are right and it has been proven by the cross-examination that they conducted that we do not know what the figures are based on her own declaration nobody got more than 50 and the declaration i'm talking about is the ninth of december declaration also important is the issue of padding they cross-examined the general on the issue of padding and you can sense from the cross-examination that they admit that there was padding what they tried to portray was that on a pen drive there was an indication that there was also padding in favor of the ndc now if they admit that there was padding then obviously we are dealing with a very flawed election that is the point and they admit it it's a clear admission of a flawed election and he also made a point that what we attached in terms of padding were only samples only samples so you can't take a sample and deduct it from a hole or an absolute number and get any results because that sample is simply what it is a sample in the end there were also questions from the bench about our own figures but i think we need to make it clear and it's been made clear over and over again we are here challenging the ec on its own figures its own figures what are those figures there's the 9th of december there's the 10th of december so-called correction and there's also the figure in their paragraph 24 and then today we realized that even in some of the constituencies and they gave us they themselves brought out the example touching themselves they are arrows so if you ask us what are our own figures how are we going to get our own figures based on all these flawed sheets and different figures and so we stand by what we are saying that based on her own declaration got more than 50 percent so today we are happy with the cross-examination of the general we are happy with the results and we think that our case was made clearly in the court today so if there are any questions yes sisters yes the interest in the alternative figures as the petitioner would have or should have brought to court maybe it's not a matter of interest to only the bench a lot of us journalists followed the election cleanly and we know that on all sides the npp the ndc the cpp each political party had called it a coalition center or a tabulation center italy whatever the name was but each political party was able to follow in the reports from their representatives at the polling stations tabulate the figures and at the end was able to tell whether or not they were leading they were behind whatever the case may have been is it the case that based on the tabulation that the ndc did of the election results it is not possible for the petitioner to tell us some figures which probably directly contradict the figures that the ec chairperson announced on the 9th of december i mean that's a good question but having regard to the case we have even brought to the court i don't even think it's necessary they themselves have different contradicting figures why do you need another one for from from us they are different contradicting figures and that is the point we are making that the ec themselves what are the figures yeah any other arcade on the on the point about the alleged vote pardon i just wanted to find out because we are generally saying sample sample i mean what is the full range of this vote pardon that the petitioners team uh protected and if indeed you detected that full range should you rather not be making the case that those votes be announced and the other one relates to uh general's point about the first time he's seen the contents of a pendrive if you could clarify that point okay i think let me start with the issue of the pen drive the information on the pen drive was printed for the general it was printed for him so he saw the hard copy he didn't actually see the pen drive you know and from what i could see on the screen they were actually reading from the names of the folders of the folders which he would not have he would have the printed document because of interest to him was the information on the the the doc in the documents and not the names of the folders so that is how we it is explained that way it's not to say he didn't know what was in the folders but what they read was based on the names on of the folders i hope that is clear to you and the other question was the vote pattern that's that's not fundamental because you you kept saying sample sample and the sample came to 4 000 in terms of general witness statement and about 5 000 in terms of the petitioner statement the full range that you discovered in the analysis how many votes are we looking at and why are you not making a request with evidence to have those votes announced instead of relying on the declaration of december 9. well that is the choice that we made that we will challenge the declaration of december 9th that is the choice that we made we bought samples to show how flawed the election was but our choice was to challenge the the very declaration of december 9th okay we can do [Music] so both sides are happy kojo we've heard from marietta there and they both have one yes well i mean they can't both be right but uh but it's fascinating to see the perspective that marietta advances on behalf of the petitioner okay so she thinks that the videos that were shown in court actually went to confirm the witnesses credibility now i can see where she's making that conclusion from because the main thing that the witness was accused of was of making a declaration that their candidate won that the petitioner won and then coming to court and claiming that nobody won that is what mr power had sought to you know uh uh if you like discredit with the videos and watching the videos from beginning to end there was no instance where mr sidhun ketiah himself declared that this person won there was a part that mr ampas sought to translate to mean that the petitioner insisted that that's not what he meant and that he was just making a a projection but it's fascinating because there were some very clear statements that the petitioner has won made by others like um the deputy um i believe his deputy peters and the question then comes as mr general mosquito himself says he's the ceo of the party so the question will have to be considered by the court does the ceo take responsibility for the statements made by other officers i mean if a deputy minister makes a statement and the minister doesn't correct it can he later in court distance himself from that statement and then finally uh the npp um sorry the uh the second respondent referred to the pen drive in court marietta says this means the second petitioner is admitting that there was padding the general said that the information they've provided the evidence they provided is just a sample so the question is will the court rule on just a sample and determine that there was more or not i mean if you bring evidence that um mama be killed two people will i then decide that it means that the eight other dead people were also killed by mamavi and we'll see how the supreme court deals with these things absolutely well thanks for using our hashtag election petition we're grateful to petra soul dbs roofing and co-op mixture for bringing us the election update join us tomorrow at 9 30 when the court sits as it continues with its cross examination i am mama viewers been here with kuja yang sing gifty and appiah comes up with polls but first here except of mr sierun katya's testimony today the thrust of all these statements in the various clips is that president mohamed had won the 2020 presidential election my lord these statements according to the videos were made at different times some of them were made after declaration some before declaration and so on so it is difficult to put all sides together and say that at this point this was what was said no i'm putting it to you that these statements were made before declaration my lord my viewing of the video indicates that some of the statements were made after declaration even better and um so you admit that some of the statements saying that the petitioner had won the elections were made after the declaration also from what not so from what i have watched here with everybody here i can see that this is not a video of one event these are videos picked and piece together and some of them relate to a time period before declaration and others relate to a time period after declaration now it is no secret that interspersed between these press conferences the ndc under your direction had organized several demonstrations in aqua stating that the patriciana had won the election and warning the first respondent not to celebrate the will of the people my lord the ndc had organized several demonstrations with three main objectives one please of innocent place voters are pulling stations by security officers and nothing seemed to be happening that was one of the purposes of the of the press conference the other purpose of the press conference please i have not asked you the purpose so answer my question please and don't be taking inspiration don't be taking instructions from you know lies on this side please please let's observe please please my lord i know what i'm talking about to them than you we have not witnessed anything please please please please yes please answer my question and don you had your opportunity to write your witness statement so now you answer the questions you understand grace i'm asking the question again and i answer according to my ability and what i consider to be the answer to the question i'm saying that interspersed between these press conferences yes the ndc organized a series of demonstrations object of which was true thing is loaded you see it is a double barracks organize and download demonstrations is that so yes we did and one of the clear objectives of these demonstrations was that the petitioner had won the elections and the issue should not celebrate the will of the people the objective that relates to the presidential elections was that the results has declared or flawed and the commission itself has accepted that there is also a flood and that's why they kept changing the figures so you admit that you said that the results were flawed yes who in your view won the results the elections my lord who we are not interested in winning or losing a flawed election very well we want the election we want to be witness of an election that is credible now it is also true that notwithstanding all these statements that your party yourself and the petitioner had made that the petitioner had won the election when you eventually filed your petition there was nothing in the petition about the petition having won the elections my lord i have educated earlier now please answer my question please i'm about to answer the question unless you are not ready to listen to the answer i've asked you that before you filed the petition yes yes yes there was nothing in it to the effect that the petitioner had won the election

Channel: JoyNews

Views: 8,749

Rating: 4.265306 out of 5

Keywords: Ghana Political Issues, Ghana Politics, Matters Arising in Ghana, NPP, CPP, PPP, National Budget, Chieftaincy, Ghanaian lawyers, Economy, Constitution, Election, campaign, YouTube, joy News, Latest News, The Pulse, election Petition

Id: AL-__9v06LA

Length: 61min 10sec (3670 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 01 2021