Live | Day 11 | Election Petition Hearing

now what's the message my mother was misled by your calling me you know please turn your camera on everything is on i'm putting it to you that the matter you said you were going to inform the petitioner in respect of was a matter that you could have discussed with him on the phone especially at the critical time of coalition at the national coalition center i'm putting it to you is it a statement or a question i'm putting it to you that is not correct i'm furthermore putting it to you that you had a working phone with you at the time the question again i'm putting it to you that you had a functioning phone with you at the time you are leaving the national coalition center [Music] a functioning mobile phone yes i had an iphone that was functioning yes and indeed it was the same phone that you alleged you use in an attempt to reach your eche at various times yes in some instances i got here and at other times her phone was off now i'm putting it to you that no way in your witness statement do you demonstrate with numbers how your alleged errors in the figures impacted in any material way the final outcome of the 2020 presidential elections my lord is not a matter of figures it's not a matter of figures being put in my witness statements it has more to do with a trend of anomalies several and we were seeking a forum for a proper presentation of those issues we were seeking a forum for the presentation of those issues respectfully why can he not give an example because i'm referring to his witness statement he's cross-examining the witness is saying i want to give an example to explain my answer why is that disallowed you can go ahead with your examples my lord for example there is still region two family sheets that were presented the total number of valid votes as recorded on those two sheets was the same was the same but in one of them nanado had much higher figures being attributed to him the petitioners votes were reduced and similarly all the other presidential candidates also had their figures reduced but the totals of that second summary it was the same that was the specific fraud that was a specific manipulation that was a specific anomalies that were referring to how is it possible that the same regional office can submit two separate results on the face of it the total total vote costs the same but then the vote attributed to each of the candidates was taken and in one of them our content was not present to sign or to vet or verify and then you are tendering both of them which attempt is original and which of them is the genuine result which of them in another instance in another instance you have a full constituency the results not recorded and yet the summary sheets have been submitted by the ec regional representative of the retaining officer and if i sign that in error and i come back and tell you that i have observed that that is an error why can you not address it because the original summary must have hundred percent of all the constraints result as tabulated and not that you have one omitted it cannot be stand as a survey so so and in the same instance of examples in the same instance of examples i observed several of those summary sheets having errors in figures and words which affected the summary of the doctor several of them so my point here is that you have not given this court the details of the figure has to affect the outcome of the elections that's the point i'm making i'm putting it to you all right my lord the question have you not given me and i can't hear the question properly i'm saying putting it to you that you have not presented to this court the details of the figures that have a material effect on the overall outcome of the 2020 presidential elections that's what i'm putting to you and it's on the pilot of the record my lords i have alluded to i have alluded to anomalies that if tabulated would add up to the figures i have raised a raise in my statement of 32 points that in specific anomalies that i noted this was the case how it is that that has no research figures i may not have given you specific figures but i've given you instances in ashanti in eastern region in eastern region where these things have been seen and not it's a reference to this mathematical infractions the candidates the candidates you represent the candidates represent their benefited benefited hugely from these anomalies that i'm referring to benefited and that resulted in the the blood result that was declared the whole cross your cross is unleashes and i put it to you i put it to you i put it to you i'm wondering whether that's all that lawyers do in the courtroom to put it to you and put it to your footing because there is cross-examination yes what i'm expecting is witness control yes my lord and because there's no witness control that's why the witness is going on a tangent and i don't know how many more i put it to use you have um the record of his evidence is before the court if i put it from these anomalies that i'm referring to benefited and that resulted in the the result that was declared see i don't know the whole cross your cross is unleashes and i put it to you i put it to your putty to you now i'm wondering whether that's all that lawyers do in the courtroom do i put it to you and put it to your acquaintance because there is cross-examination yes what i'm expecting is witness control yes my lord and because there's no witness control that's why the witness is going on a tangent and i don't know how many more i put it to use you have um before we close this the record of his evidence is before the court if i put it to was whether respectfully the council cannot give evidence council cannot give evidence what happened in the second sheet that's evidence it cannot be allowed as a queen see mr the first witness of the petitioner appeared before this court and admitted to the correctness of the second sabbath for eastern religion that is not an accurate account of that first witnesses cross-examination any case i am saying that you should take a look at the two summary sheets from eastern which summary should i refer to the eastern region summary sheets you must refer to a specific time of transmission because that would tell me which one she from the eastern region the lawyer is asking a very simple question he says look at the two submissions from eastern region you look at it and maybe the question will follow you don't go off like we are going you you will not even finish today the way you want to over elaborate on some of these simple matters he said just look at the two summary sheets from history region then you leave him to follow up with this question that is all if it is not before you very well fit it before you there you are [Music] very well my lord now you will notice that in the first summary sheet which you signed you have as the total valid votes one million one hundred and ninety six thousand seven hundred fifty one as a total valid rules that is not what i have in front of me the total valid votes here is 1 million 236 940. so just just pay attention you see on the second but last column you'll see one million 196 96751 i am not sure i am saying what you are talking about i'm talking about the second but last column of the columns and that's summary sheet my lord i cannot see the specific reference to which you are well i cannot say i think it will help all of us if we know exactly what document is being referred to because i think we we really yes as we may see where we are going to are attached to mr sage witnesses he may not have yes 8 56 a.m 3 i'm sorry it's 8 56 p.m on the 8th of december this is the reference to our serial kit's witness statement and in reference to in reference to our witness statement that uh to the extent that it relates to eastern region i do not see the 8 something p.m yes but i'm saying apparently he has a different one because he's quoting from a document which he says showed up at eight something that's what he said [Music] maybe you can show us the 8 p.m one so that we see and see whether it fits with anything that we have my lord that's the first document eastern region both were signed by the regional coalition officer faith and my jacket is that what you have yes there is the one with the blue stamp that's the 9 31 yeah 9 39 we don't have an earlier one we have a later one which is 6 40 p.m the eighth on it is the date yes eight twelve twenty twenty is a date yes it is 6 40 a.m 40 p.m something different from what we are speaking to no man we do not now our point is if one were to add yes my lord if i were to add all the all the figures attributed to the different candidates on the one with the blue mark yes it does not have your signature you arrive [Music] at 1 million 236 four hundred and forty 940 sorry is that correct my lord because there is an error of addition don't go through them oh my lord that is correct yes you will get one million two hundred and thirty six thousand nine hundred and forty very well now if you take the summary sheet that you signed and you do the addition of the the actual figures you will see that it is less 40 thousand one hundred and eighty nine of the one million two hundred and thirty six thousand nine hundred and forty in other words if you add all the figures the votes that the candidates obtain you will get a total which is less of 1 236 thousand nine hundred i think you're overloading your question you should break it down okay so so i'm putting it to you that if you add all the figures on the sheets that you signed you get a total of 1 million 196 751 that's the actual return you get my lord if i may if i may go ahead if you look at the totals without looking at the attributed figures to each candidate you'll be making a business that you get please when when you you respond to it then you can give your commentary that is correct that is correct can i go on now with the explanation hold on hold on hold on so on on on the 9 30 on the night at 9 00 a.m thicker you'll find that they gave to nana ado 752 061 and on another on another sheet he gets 729 146 but the total the total number of votes passed is the same the total number of votes as in the two documents in contention are the same so just take your time so i'm saying that for vodka the same yes hold on i'm saying that the the difference between the one million one hundred and ninety six thousand seven hundred and fifty one and the one million two hundred and thirty six thousand nine hundred and forty is forty 40 189 that's the difference that is the case yes and that figure of votes [Music] is exactly the total valley fruits well did this with the uh mr aside yes so what are you trying to do now get something different although um that's why i put it to him that this was as i said in katya actually admitted that there was an error very well it was he who attached these documents yes to his witness statement you have transforming him on it he has admitted the difference mr matununu has not attached any setting to his witness statement why do you care i mean him on somebody else's document well i'm not the referred to it in his response that's why so you see i'm suggesting to you that nowhere in your witness statement do you show how your alleged lack of transparency and consultation had an impact on the final outcome of the elections we have not shown it hello that is correct but i made an aversion that there were anomalies that they were serious anomalies for the witness no re-examination some few questions from the bench good mr rodrigo you have admitted in this court that you left at a point in time to go and see the petitioner is also that is correct my lord you have also admitted that you signed most of the summer shifts the original machines 13 of them out of 16. that is correct so now did you sign these summary sheets before you went you left to see the petitioner yes i did sign i did sign the thirteen problem to see the petitioner okay thank you can the witness get discharged lordships my god pw3 is discharged i see witness most grateful that is the end of our case okay record the case for the petitioner is closed yes yes i'm in the wrong uh with respect um without submission that you view of the evidence led by the witnesses of the petitioner enough causes of nation so far speaking for the first respondents arm of the view that there is sufficient evidence before the court for this petition to be determined and their formulas true yes you know what i was saying that giving the evidence of the petitioners witnesses and cross-examination so far and of course examination so far of those witnesses my lord speaking for speaking for the first respondent yes my lord it is the first respondents case that we do not wish to lead any further evidence and therefore we are praying that this matter proceeds under order 36 rule 4 3 and ci 87 rule 3e5 and we hereby on that basis close our keys that is so that is so mr maneuver yes what then happens to your witness statement well my lord under c.i you finally witnessed it yes my lord and the witness statement is supposed to be subjected it it's going to stand as your evidence in chief yes and therefore it's supposed to be subjected to cross-examination 87 rule 3 e5 where if a party who has served a witness statement does not call the witness to give evidence at a trial or put a witness statement in our crc evidence any other party may put that witness statement in our csa evidence so my laws we are saying that we are not calling any further witness if the court decides to treat our witness statement of csa evidence well the court is entitled to but we are not releasing any further evidence you're not calling evidence the rules say the court can treat it as yes it's any party no the party a party not of course sorry the other side can treat it as such thank you respectfully we need to understand the nature of what is being put forward clearly it is our submission they are giving the evidence from the petitioner to the petitioners witnesses and the queer examination so far speaking for the first respondents we do not wish to lead any evidence we submit that we are not calling any evidence and close our peace then he refers to [Music] [Music] yes with your camp permission from erie where the defendant elect of ci47 i lost allows where the defendant elects not to abuse evidence then whether or not the defendant has in the course of course a donation of a witness for the plaintiff or otherwise put in a document the plaintiff may after the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff has been given close the plaintiff's case and the defendant may then state the key for the defendant respectfully that's my law ci 87 on what will happen to the witness statement if you choose not to enter the box my loss rule 3 that sub 3 e sub 5. it is a respectful submission that council for the first respondent does not have it open to him to take the cause that he just proposed to this court order 36 rule 4 3 that it refers to specifically says where the defendant elects not to address evidence in these proceedings the defendant has put in a witness statement so my my lord i'm sorry yet evidence it's just a statement my lord my lord what this probation says where they elect not to adduce evidence and what i'm saying is that the election that they made to submit the witness statement to the court is a clear indication that they made an election to the country because my lord my lords in these proceedings at the point of case management your lordships basically ask questions from all the parties as regards witnesses being called and it is at the point of case management where such an election is notified to the court at that point they're elected they elected to submit a witness statement now that witness statement is not yet in evidence that is true but this is referring to an election the point of election came at the point of the case management and we are respectfully submitting that this witness cannot run away from cross-examination when they have elected when they have elected that is the point they have elected they have elected to at the london police oh my lord maybe you can't read him but run away my lord i will totally adopt your lotion yes please please let you have the opportunity to yes yes assuming we were not dealing with witness statements i'm sorry assuming we were not dealing with witness statements and we were given aura viva evidence when would you say that a party has been elected not to give evidence assuming we are not using goodness statements at the case management state if the party has the case money and other case management saying the party may have me no otherwise the case management stage is meaningless no no no no if a party is called upon to testify and then he tells the court i do not intend to testify that is one will say that the party is is he's not willing to abuse evidence because respectfully that is not the situation under the rules as amended to provide for case management is proceedings at trial so we have moved into trial stage under 36 deals with proceedings at trial i appreciate that and the point i'm making is that order 36 is premised on where the defendant elects not to address evidence so my laws what i'm saying respectfully is that in the context of ci 47 obviously precedes ci 87 and in the context of ci 87 and the provisions for case management the case management context is a context in which for the purpose of a child the judge asks the parties how they are going to proceed that's that's what i understand case my your losses i've had many occasions to point out the significance of the case management process and my respectful submission is that it is in that case management process where one the party gives an indication to the court that i intend to call these witnesses now if the party gives that indication then respectfully the party has made an election to adduce evidence and my laws that is the basis on which the court made orders at the sale of case management as to when witness statements should be put in the court made orders on the basis of the election that they had some no executives a point of correction the orders for witness statements is made at the application for direction stage and not at the case management they're all displayed on the other thirty two yeah the application for the russian state but that is the situation here is different from the pure high court situation because in this case at the case management stage in this situation we did not have a dire application for directions my lord we did not have that that's i believe that's common ground between us so in this case we move to the case management stage and in the case management stage the court makes orders on the basis of representations that are made to the court by the parties and respectfully the representation that was made to the court at that stage is that we are going to call a witness and we will provide a witness statement on behalf of that witness that's the clear indication that they gave otherwise the court would not have made an order submit your witness statement by such and such a date that is very clear my lord i i i wish to come in this etiquette now are you saying that if you decide to call five or six witnesses and you put in five or six witness statements you cannot at any point in time tell the court that though you have put in six witness statements we are not going to call all the six can't you say that my loss you can say that yes by those you can say that but that is not what is dealt with in order 36 three which is what they're coming up you see and that the normal uh civil procedure if the prosecution closes its case and that may be the plaintiffs that's what i'm using prosecution in the civil sense for the plaintiffs my lord with the greatest respect yes let's just stick to what we're familiar with if you say prosecution in the civil war okay so if the plaintiff crosses his case and the defendant realizes that the case the plaintiff has made has no substance or does not establish the release he is claiming and there will be no need for him to testify you know he can tell the court that he will not testify and then he will be put to his election whether if the court rules in respect of his application he will still testify or he will not testify that is the procedure the greatness is but that is not the procedure under our rules with the greatest respect that procedure may apply under the english civil procedure rules but it does not apply under our rules and with a great respect if i'm wrong in that i would stand to the corrector which rule under our rules has that provision it is a settled practice so are you saying that the party cannot say that i will not testify judge the case according to the evidence you have my lord my lord because you cannot compare anybody to testify my lord with the greatest respect my lord my lord my lord my lord my lord hold on god please i wish to take it a step at a time if your lordship is referring to a submission of no case at the end of testimony if that's what your lordship is adverting to my respectful submission is that one under english common law it is in fact not available in a trial which is not before the jury under common law the authorities are clear that that process that your lawsuit that just described is not available and i i am prepared to cite some authorities in the common law which makes that clear including a well-known case of alexander and rayson but mello before coming to that i just wish to clarify that the common law position is very clear where there is a jury when there is a jury it is opened under the common law when the jury it is open for whether the whether is a jury it is open for the plaintiff to say indeed that i don't want the matter to go before the jury i'm ending at the point of the child just but the common laws position that has been clearly stated in the english code of appeal is that where there is only a judge and not a jury that procedure is unacceptable and there's a very clear reason given for it in the authorities which i'll come to but my lord i want to say that i want to understand something are you suggesting that a party can be compelled to to give evidence well that is not what i'm suggesting i'm just suggesting that order 36 rule 3 applies in terms of the precondition that is put there in terms of the precondition it says where the defendant elects not to address evidence then whether or not the defender and i'm saying respectfully that in this case the first respondent elected to give evidence and notify the court as such the first defendant elected to give evidence notified the cause outside and on that basis the court made an order for a witness statement to be from sachikata you are weathered at case management stage nobody knows the evidence that the others be it is after case management orders that the testimony is coming these are not it is clear i mean i mean that's a matter of chronological necessity because i mean that is a chronological necessity a case management happens before witnesses are called to testify so there can't be any doubts about that i'm referring to the fact that under order 36 3 which counsel for the first defendant is seeking to come under and my laws this is also different from the submission of no case under the common law excuse me other 36 four troubles two and three together he said subject to services the plaintiff shall begin by opening the plaintiff's case then two whether the final elects not to do a three for the defender unless not to abuse evidence it presupposes that the plaintiff has finished his case that is my understanding understand my law respectfully that cannot respect me that cannot be because because my lord all that 36 4 3 and and respectfully as i said those rules predated ci 87 on case management ci 87 introduces case management on the basis of which your lawsuits are proceeded and given orders and respectfully i'm submitting that under the terms of ci 47 order 36 rule 3 where the defendant elects not to abuse evidence is a precondition for that and in this case the defendant the case management stage represented that they would induce evidence and therefore that precondition does not exist and the defendant made those representations to the court and to the yes to the court in a manner which led your lordships to determine may i seek clarification yes my lord the are you suggesting that under the case management regime a defendant who indicates to the court before evidence is taken that i will call one or two witnesses in this matter then after the plaintiff has given evidence the defendant says i don't think i need to call any evidence determine the matter on the basis of what the plaintiff has wrought cannot do so yes well i'm saying that they cannot do so where the court on the basis of their representation has ordered witness statements to be submitted because when he does that where he does that he has elected other than what is provided for in order 3643 where the where he makes that election at the case management stage and the court has made an order appropriately mr secretary the other tactics is reform it's only regulating order of speeches other that is reformed yes that was not regulating only regulating the order of stitches i that's all that the rule is seeking to do but attract yes but my lord how can how can the how can the law state that a party compel a party to give evidence by homies no my lord my love respectfully my lord respectfully if you say that the order of speeches yes is all that yes other speeches my lord that's a head note and your lordship knows very well that the head notes does not settle the interpretation of the provisions i mean bernard mona's case is a classic instance where the head note was shown to be completely different and in fact if we were only dealing with order of speeches if we were only dealing with other speeches then my little friend is completely out of court because if that provision is only to do with order of speeches then he cannot on the basis of that be asking your lordships to do or be telling the court what he told the court if it's just order of speeches then it will be interpreted as such so it cannot be just order of speeches these proceedings are i'm sorry 36 this would proceedings attract yes but all order 36-4 as his lordship pointed out when it is in this order of speeches that's what your logic pointed out to me and i agree it says all those speeches and i'm saying that the head note cannot limit the terms of that order respectfully because in fact if you're if you're my lord if your position where where where were to be accepted respectfully then you should throw him out of course completely because we are not yet at the point of order of speeches we are not yet at that point so if all that 36 rule 4 3 is dealing with its order of speeches then it what all he said is irrelevant because we're not here that order of speeches but the real the reality of the matter is that that head note cannot limit the terms of order 36 through three i believe that mr chicken compelling someone to testify a human rights question awesome i'm sorry and my lord this is this is mean territory i mean i have to think i have to give considerable thought in fact i have to give considerable thought to what you're saying that you're not okay i'm sitting here i'm reviewing this whole thing yeah i mean nobody could can compel a party to testify my lord that's a very basic rule what my my my lady as i said i mean your ladyship has been part of a part of a ruling in this court we said the the the right to vote is part of the directive principle please may i have your attention yes i had none of us and at least those on the bench none of us anticipated this step that exactly so please come both of you come and address us on this point tomorrow then you will give a ruling on it and then proceed with my lords my lords i was actually going to make a similar submission because okay my it is my respectful submission that for an application of this nature under order 19 it should be made in terms of a motion paper and a supporting affidavit so that we can respond appropriately because my lord that application that is being made please do please say we do all respect please there's nothing factual about this application yes let's let's take it even if he comes tomorrow to raise this legal issue you have the opportunity to reply so please just prepare very well and that was tomorrow very well yes please say we want to know your position you have also found a witness status my lord you do not intend to call any witness okay and and my lord let me complete other honor we do not intend to cause any witness because in our view we have not satisfied the burden of proof please don't be forced to call anywhere please we don't want to let the ancestor please what we want you to do is to prepare come and address this on it tomorrow then we will give a reason ruling on it and proceed accordingly thank you very much please you will rise for the day i know please be seated you see that please please attention of the bench has been drawn to before that immediately after proceedings counsel from both sides resulted granting interviews to the media and at times some of them keep on twisting the facts which actually occurred in the court and seek to even prejudice the prejudice whatever the court proceedings were so lawyers who are engaged in it uh to please have a look at sorry regulation 55 fli 2423 yes that is the legal profession etiquette conduct and ethical rules please if i may 55 south sea so a lawyer cannot publish of course to be publishing material concerning current or potential procedures including proceedings for which the lawyers engage or seek to be engaged which is inaccurate or has received comment or necessary description then c is calculated or is likely to a material degree to diminish or be prejudicial to the public confidence in the administration of justice please i think both sides have been guilty of it and especially uh my my my dear sister uh marita at times yes you made statement even touching on the demeanor of witnesses so please it's a personal plea from there from the bench let's respect the ethical rules yes yes mr upon two you were also guilty of it because you were at the news file and we think that since you have been announced in this case it is unacceptable yes mr menu your name appears on this a li yes yes please yes yes as a member of the general legal counsel so please let's take out yes yes but my lord speaking for myself i have never no no no no i'm drawing your attention to it your name appears yes order in court please order my court this petition is hereby agenda tuesday the 9th of february 2021 at 9 30 a.m for legal arguments it's okay you got together you don't need a rig no you don't need it you don't need it [Music] oh oh right [Music] [Music] uh [Music] then [Music] so [Music] [Music] [Applause] so [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] um [Music] [Music] um [Music] [Music] do [Music] so [Music] [Music] [Music] do [Music] [Music] so let me talk about that okay with different numbers on it and yet the same value votes and in court we saw that apparently there was a third one lacking somewhere with a different time line we also saw that for example if you read his witness statement great accra was also an issue greater accra the numbers on the sheet did not add up and interestingly if you read a witness statement you see that what was published or the summary that was published on the website or by the ec was different from what was actually given to the agents in the coalition room the other thing that came up was the fact that this was the national coalition center where the returning of saigen mensah was supposed to be in control we heard from their cross examination that for a period of three hours the agent of the petitioner was trying to get his problems or the issues that he had seen across to her without any success we also saw the fact that they state that if you have signed the sheets even if they are glaring problems on the sheets nobody is going to do anything about it this should give us all cause for concern but even more importantly is the fact that roger metal nunu reiterated under cross-examination that it was the ec chair who asked him to convey message information whatever you describe it to the petitioner and if you read the witness statement you realize that it was about a potential stakeholder meeting to discuss the concerns they had raised and of course as soon as they left the ec and his chair gene menta made arrangements to declare the results now all these are issues of concern now you ask us you probably would ask how does this relate to the the release if you have several collection seats for one reason which one was used for the declaration i don't know if you have sheets with different words in num numbers and words and numbers in figures which are different which one was used for the declaration or for adding collating or for adding up the numbers the only person who can tell us this is the easy chair who's the returning officer [Music] and that leads me to the second issue that rules today they claim that they are not going to or they stated there's not even a claim they stated clearly that they are not going to call any witnesses even though they have submitted witness statements now i don't know whether it's evading running away whatever but the avoiding or running away or evading the cross-examination of mr shikata we should remember that this is the easy which has a constitutional duty to the people they have an obligation to account to us for our stewardship and they say they are not going to take the witness stand well tomorrow we'll see how our lordships will rule on this and the issue was raised whether it's a human rights issue i don't know this is the ec chair a body created by the constitution which has an obligation to account to us they are obliged they have a duty to respond to our questions they cannot if they cannot hide under human rights to say they are not going to respond to us so i respectfully disagree with her leadership when she said it is a human rights issue it is not a human rights issue they obliged to respond to us thank you very much for this i'd like to find out you have closed your case today um you've closed your case today having called three witnesses and mr michael mr white um haven't listened to them give evidence um would you say that your case is still tight you intended to call some more you advertised for five and when you asked the court for an application to look at documents within the ec you are shot down you now have three would you say that you have a stronger case still won't i say that i couldn't hear you your case is still strong yes i think we still do because there is the issue of the declaration which is why we are important where we stated clearly that even on the face of their own documents nobody got 50 plus of the votes of the valid votes and in addition to that as of now the ec itself has come up with different figures there are ever-changing figures which one is the valid votes which is supposed to be used for the declaration they haven't answered that question yes uh council um you have filed a petition making the point that no one got more than fifty percent of the vote cast each time your witnesses have been cross-examined you've told us that you are satisfied with what has transpired as should it not be in your interest that you've closed your case and the respondents you are seeking relief against are saying that look we don't intend to lead any evidence to show the contrary that people had more than 50 of the votes cast i mean should that not be good news for you actually let me say it's of concern to us and that is why we are going to oppose the application tomorrow maybe closely linked to that or following up on that is a question of the relevance of that particular cross-examination to your case the lead counsel for the electoral commission had made in his submission that indeed they are satisfied with what you have brought to court and they think that the court can go ahead and make a determination without the benefits of the testimony and cross-examination of the returning officer how crucial is this cross-examination to your case of all if we did not have a case then they should not have filed any answer then they should not have submitted any witness statement to the court each of the parties have submitted witness statements but my major concern is with the ec that is accountable to all of us the ec cannot say that it will not respond to questions raised by a petitioner by a candidate one question that runs through the cross examination is with all the three witnesses you presented is do you have figures that shows that the second respondent did not get the figures i mean the percentage that he had that was one of the questions that ran through i want to find out you realize that i mean no figures have been provided by the witnesses and then the petitioner do you think with this the court will grant your relief because the question that went through was do you have figures that showed that the second respondent did not get the percentage that he had first of all please go back to our release go back to the declaration go back to the different figures that have been churned out by the ec i keep answering this question i've already answered it that by the declaration by the different figures that have been churned out by the ec after the declaration it is obvious and it is clear that no candidate got 50 or more of the of the books as to whether um what was the question i mean with regard to africa that's irrelevant to the case we've come with the east declaration itself i have a question um how compulsory must gene mensa cross-examination be for your case to succeed in other words is the success or otherwise of your case hinged solely on her cross-examination and if that fails based on what the bench will rule tomorrow would you then determine that you have a lost case because you're unable to i couldn't cross-examine if the bench rules tomorrow that she should not be cross-examined would that throw your case out of the window automatically well first of all we'll take it from there we are going to argue whether or not the ec and the second respondent should take the witness box our view is that they have an answer there they have submitted witness statements and they ought to be cross-examined on those matters stated there because that is what they are using to challenge our case yeah but we need so my question is your argument has been put forth in the courtroom now the determination we made by the bench tomorrow is the success or otherwise of your case hinged solely on this cross-examination that's a question you note that when you go to court your case is not just based on your pleadings and your evidence there is also an answer and in this case there's also a witness statement and we think that it is important for us as petitioners to be able to cross-examine the easy in particular on the matters that she a petition so [Music] [Music] [Applause] foreign don't come and do no no no no no no enemies no sure let me know if you are ready and then we can proceed you're good good afternoon to you all and thank you for joining us today hasn't been as long as i think the last time we were in court today two major things happened in the wells of the supreme court first is the formal announcement by council for the petitioner that my lords we have closed our case and you notice that the court by court admitted that they have formally closed their case i'll speak about what that means and what it means for the next step prior to that you saw the petitioner put in the books his third witness who i believe many people were hoping will help adduce evidence that will advance the petitioner's course it is not for nothing that anytime we come before you we go over the issues that the court is seeking to determine because sometimes you may hear they are in court you are they are in court but the issues may get missing so please permit me uh when i repeat the issues what the court is seeking to answer the court on the 20th of january 2021 after listening to the petition and the answers and reading the memorandum of issues set down the following issues for the determination of the petition all of the conversation you hear going back and forth is about these issues and the practitioner is being required to bring witnesses to reduce evidence to settle these issues issue number two because the first is an issue of law that the court will determine issue number two you're expecting that one witnesses mount the box they will provide evidence to the effect that based on the data contained in the declaration by the first respondent of the second respondent as president-elect nobody got 50 percent you are expecting that when a witness mounts the box the witness will provide evidence to the effect that the second respondent if you include or exclude tachiman south did not cross the constitutionally mandated threshold of 50 plus one you would expect that when a witness mounts the box that witness is addressing evidence essentially that will prove that the declaration of the first respondent on the 9th of december was in violation of article 63 or at least you expect that what the petitioner has listed as eros in the petition this witness will provide evidence that shows that these errors and these alleged vote padding affects the outcome of the presidential election 2020. so far we have seen the practitioner put three witnesses in the box and we are of the view that the court will do a good job in determining whether or not these witnesses have provided any evidence that supports the petition and these issues that the court is seeking to determine now it is upon the completion of this and note that the petitioner advertised five witnesses and ended up calling three it is upon the completion of that that the petitioner has now announced to the court that this is all that the case is about and you heard mr chikata say my lords case is closed and his lawsuit the chief justice say by court the petitioner's case is closed if we were in a criminal trial what will happen now is that the court will have to determine whether or not a substantive case has been made in which case the defendant or the the the defense may now raise an argument that maybe no case has even been made so i don't even need to bother uh raising a defense in the first place in a civil process there are similar remedies what you noticed happened which is the second matter i'll speak about is counsel for the first practitioner announced to the court that the evidence counsel for the first respondent i beg your pardon announced to the court that the evidence that the petitioner has provided is enough and the cross-examination that has taken place is enough and that the first respondent does not intend to call witnesses to address evidence any further evidence before the court and council on the side of the second respondent has advertised same because by now whatever evidence that the practitioner has put before the court once the case is closed it is believed that they have brought all their evidence and they have made such a strong case and so it should actually be to the disadvantage of the respondents if they say that they don't even intend to call witnesses to adduce evidence but you notice that the practitioners are not too happy about it they want literally to compel the respondents to bring in witnesses um to i don't know i'd use some evidence that may help the petitioner in his course the court has agend as you head to tomorrow morning and will listen to the legal argument on both sides we are very very happy very happy extremely happy that the petitioner has come to the end of his case and has addressed all the evidence that he has evidence which is supposed to prove that nobody got fifty percent that whether or not you are tachy man south uh the winner will change that article 63 has been breached this is all the evidence that they have which they have made available and we'll hear what the court says tomorrow as they proceed to deal with the matter yes sir okay thank you very much and you have said um teen times that you intend bringing at least mr macmillan to testify i know you're not responsible for the first petitioners witness they have said categorically that does not present her to justify but why has the narrative changed at least we know that mr macmillan was going to be in the witness box thank you very much i want you to go back and play the tips of our press briefings here the narrative has not changed we have always insisted that the owners of proof lies on the petitioner sections 14 17 of the evidence act are very clear he who alleges must prove you have told your supporters across the country that you won and that they should get on the streets people died people got injured people got involved in infractions with the police and got arrested because you told them you won when you came to court you abandoned that and said nobody won and the court has invited you to prove we have always maintained that we are waiting for their witnesses who will use evidence to prove that at least their second argument that nobody want is true and we have always maintained that chairman mcmenu is ready on standby that when they prove this and it becomes necessary for us to go into the box and prove that what they are saying is not true because they would have made a preliminary case who do so you have seen their three witnesses the court has seen them the whole country has been watching we've all been waiting with better breath to see the evidence that nobody want to see the evidence that when you add or you don't add teaching and sound the results will change substantially to mean who crossed the 50 threshold to see the evidence that article 63 and on our side we are not convinced that any such evidence has been put and that is why we have announced to the court that we don't intend to call any fresh witnesses or any witnesses because on our side the view and the belief is that that case has not been made so the narrative has not changed the whole country has been waiting all the nbc supporters i'm sure have been glued to their tv waiting to see their officials prove that nobody got 50 or that at least the first argument holds true now they have announced the court that they have finished their case and i'm sure many people are surprised now the second part of your question about uh why chairman mcmahon will not be taking the um witness box a party advertises to the court how many witnesses he chooses to call or its intention that it may call x or y or z and as you heard the bench in exchanges with the lawyers there are questions about when that election takes place which i think questions will be addressed yesterday but isn't it interesting that mr muhammad himself the practitioner did not mount the witness box and we are not arguing about why he's not in the witness box why is he not taking the stand why is he not taking the witness box can anybody force him to take the witness box the petitioner himself even to court he has been here twice and other representatives come on his behalf can anybody force mr muhammad to take the witness box can anybody force the other two witnesses of the ndc that by force they should get into the box so if you're asking about chairman mcmanus or the announcement that we will not be putting anybody in the box as i've mentioned it is because our lawyers are of the view that that that basic threshold has not been met they have not addressed any i don't know if you have seen evidence that shows that nobody won the election or that 63 this is what they told the country this is what they told the court subsequently when they came and allowed us of the view that hasn't happened that is why nobody will be bothering to take the stand and tomorrow they will advance legal arguments to that effect but if your question is about why he isn't taking the stand maybe we should ask why mr muhammad is not taking the witness box as well and why they are not bringing the other two yes sir council if it happens that tomorrow we don't know the justices agree on the other side that they witness the easy championship stand in the box are you going to call mr mcmahon eventually the calling of mr mcmahon is very different from the um the the the east poster mr mcmahon is representative or is a witness for the second respondent we have the view that the petitioner has not crossed that threshold and that's why we have announced to the court that we will not be calling mr mcmanu to bother to even give any evidence because no substantial case has been made that is the opinion of our lawyers now should that ec change its mind or should the bench decide that the ec should go in an answer it has nothing to do with um our side we have made a case the court will make a determination on whether or not we we should be forced to put a witness in the box one way of the view and the evidence i think as has been seen by many is in question about whether or not they have made a case as they had advertised earlier yes sir all right sir and i believe that this is uh in the interest of organians and irrespective of the fact that this is between the petitioner and the electoral commission and nanakulfadu ghanians are also expecting an answer from from us and so i'm asking that why don't the second and first respondent allow ec to step into the books so that he will clarify some notions made in some heads of some people yeah i think that's a very good question last time you raised a similar question i made the point that this is a court of law not the court of public opinion this is with the greatest of respect this is not the public accounts committee of parliament that the ec must give us some answers this is not budget hearing of parliament that the ec must come and justify its budget you have come to court with a specific petition and the owners of proof is on you to show to the court that this is the basic case and therefore somebody has a question to answer why you have not met that threshold you cannot resort to what i keep telling you are propaganda answers that when you lose the legal but today you sought to propaganda questions and answers that you know it's in the interest of all ghanaians and so why the easy no and let me also make a distinction in the 2013 election petition the electoral commission mounted the witness box why because the petitioner came to court with results of about 11 000 polling stations pink sheets to vaccine and to make an argument that when you deal with the lack of signatures the multiple um serial numbers etc which are all infractions and you strike them out you have to call a proper declaration of the results that anandam kakufadu is the winner of this election he came with evidence and made a case you have been here and you have heard the bench labor asking the practitioner over and over again where are the numbers where are the numbers where are the numbers and time and time again they make the point that is not even relevant to their petition and that they are not here looking for new numbers or anything or a new declaration but they are here to question the conduct of the ecc the two cases are very different one came to court with pink sheets and evidence and the petitioner in 2013 mounted the witness box dr alhaji mahmoud baumian who was one of the practitioners mounted the witness box to advance his case made the case and therefore the ec had to get in the box to respond you have been here have you seen their pink sheets have you seen their uh regionals have you heard them answer their questions when the bench puts the question that what are the numbers so the two cases are different and it's not uh you know that is in the public interest or is in the public interest this is a court of law not a court of public opinion yes sir it is true that the petitioner has not been able to give out any figure that showed that the respondent did not win the election but the argument they are making is the consistent change of figures by this first respondent is the reason why they are in court and you think they have no case the court has said that as the last issue the last issue to determine whether or not these so-called eros materially change the result of the election it's one of the issues that the court is going to determine and that is why at every material moment you hear for example um the vulnerable akutan power and today you heard him as that same question of rojo that i want to suggest to you that is your thousand seven hundred or so that you are talking about is not material enough to affect the outcome of the result you heard that question and you heard his answer he was being invasive but you heard his answer the point is that the so-called errors or the phrase that they like to put out the propaganda phrase they put out the ever-changing results the ever-changing results like how they put it even if you admit that those are substantial errors the question is does it change who won the election if somebody beats you by five hundred thousand votes and you come and you say i saw thousand seven hundred which i described as vote padding the court wants to determine whether or not it is substantial enough to change the results and that is why at every point in time we keep asking them to provide the court with those numbers that we show substantially that it can change and you hear them over and over again declines so to do i think that for the millions of nbc supporters who are watching across the country they will also be asking questions because now there's a clear difference between what the petitioner and his colleagues told them on the night of the election and what they are saying in court and some of the admissions they are making in court for example you heard mr rojimer sununu admit that for almost three hours he had left the strong room and was at the reception of the commissioner and admitted that he was having tea but then you know argued that there were no biscuits involved these things may sound that's funny but the supporters of the nbc down there across the country will be asking themselves that so while they were out there having been misled that they had won the election this is what their seniors were doing at the premises of the electoral commission this is what they told the public and now when you come here you have to make some admissions so the jury would i mean the bench will make a determination at the end of the day colleagues have any other questions let me use the podium to my colleagues to translate into foreign [Music] foreign deputy director at the communications foreign

Channel: Woezor TV

Views: 24,021

Rating: 4.5395684 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: grA491qPVcY

Length: 112min 30sec (6750 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 08 2021