The Supreme Court has described as “fanciful” the testimonies of Mr Rojo Mettle Nunoo and Dr, Kpessa Whyte who were witnesses of ex-President John Mahama in the 2020 Election petition hearing, saying the least said about their testimonies the better.
Former President John Dramani Mahama filed a petition at the Supreme Court to challenge the December 7, 2020, general elections presidential results declared by the Electoral Commission Chairperson Mrs. Jean Mensa.
The General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, Dr Michael Kpessa Whyte and Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo mounted the witness box at the Supreme Court as the witnesses for the petitioner.
But delivering judgment on the election petition on Thursday, March 4, 2021, the President of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Anin Yeboah stated that Dr Michael Kpessa Whyte and Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo’s testimonies did not help the case of the petitioner.
“PW2 and PW3 were agents who represented the petitioner at the National Collation Centre dubbed the Strong Room. Their testimonies were based mainly on what allegedly happened at the Strong Room during the final collation and the fact that they failed to sign the final form of the Presidential Election called form 13 because of disagreement they said they had with the Chairperson of the First Respondent and her staff in the strongroom. They recounted the fanciful tale of how the Chairperson refused to heed their complaint on some irregularities they noticed on some of the Collation forms from some of the region.
“We describe this evidence as fanciful because despite these alleged protest they went ahead to verify and certify 13 out of the 16 Election Regional Collation sheets. Their testimony included how the Chairperson of the First Respondent managed to trick them to leave the strongroom by sending them on an errand to confer with the petitioner during which period she declared the results of the Presidential election without their participation.
Chief Justice Anin Yeboah added “While the testimony of PW1(Asiedu Nketia) was emphatic that the petitioner is not in court to challenge or compare the figures or data presented by the First Respondent with any other figures, the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 were in respect of alleged irregularities in the figures or data on some of the Regional collation forms that they sighted in the strongroom but which they ultimately signed and certified. Notwithstanding these allegations of misunderstanding with staff of the First Respondent in the strongroom and the fact that they were absent during the declaration, they did not give any indication as to how these happenings and their absence affected the final results announced by the First Respondent. Having signed or certified these results witnesses particularly PW3 cannot turn round to talk of irregularities on the said forms. Their testimonies would have carried some weight if the purpose of the petition was to challenge entries made on the collation forms or summary sheets but that is not the case. Their testimonies were therefore of no relevance whatsoever to the issues set out for determination and we find them unworthy for consideration whatsoever in the settlement of the issue.”
He added: “In fact regarding the testimony of PW2 and PW3, if their evidence is to be believed then they have to blame themselves for abandoning their post at the National Collation centre at a time the verification and certification of the results were ongoing and PW3 had then verified and certified 13 results out of the 16.”