Asiedu Nketia was asked questions meant for petitioner – Dr Anyine explains ‘I am not the petitioner’ statement
A member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC)’ legal team, has defended the party’s General Secretary, Johnson Asiedu Nketia’s saying ‘I am not the petitioner’ when he took the witness box in the ongoing election petition hearing on Friday.
Dr Dominic Anyine’s defence comes after, a member of President Akufo-Addo’s legal team, Frank Davies said Mr Nketia’s attitude in the witness stand was “largely evasive” by answering every question posed, with, “I do not speak for the petitioner.”
Read More:
But speaking on Joy FM’s NewsFile Saturday, Dr Anyine said the witness’ statement has been misconstrued.
According to him, the legal counsel of the 1st and 2nd respondents were constantly asking questions that were meant for the petitioner, John Mahama and not the witness.
As such, Mr Asiedu Nketia saying, ‘I am not the petitioner,’ doesn’t mean he will not be able to speak to the petition.
…Look at the nature of questions posed to him, in respect of which he said, ‘I am not the petitioner’…those were matters that required an enquiry to the personal knowledge of the petitioner.
In respect of that, Asiedu Nketia is not John Dramani Mahama so he won’t be able to say whether or not at the point in time the declaration was done, John Mahama knew or reasonably ought to have known that he has lost the election. So it was the question posed that elicited the response,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court after hearing the election petition sent to it by 2020 NDC flagbearer, John Mahama, has struck out portions of the statement submitted to it by the General Secretary of the party.
Akoto Ampaw, the lead counsel for the second respondent, President Akufo-Addo, has argued that 10 paragraphs in Johnson Asiedu Nketia’s statement should be deleted as they are “not based on the pleadings of the petitioner, unduly prejudicial and scandalous”.
But, Tsatsu Tsikata, the lead counsel for the petitioner, opposed this saying it was preposterous and demanded the Court allow all the paragraphs to stay as they are “material” to their petition.
This did not convince the Supreme Court Justices, who overruled seven out of 10 paragraphs.
Source: MyJoyOnline.com
