Asking Asiedu Nketia of total valid votes in 2020 election irrelevant – Tsatsu clashes with Justice Appau

With barely two months into the 2020 election petition hearing, Ghanaians have had the pleasure of learning legal jargon, general courtroom procedures and a healthy legal battle between the Supreme Court Justices and the lawyers.

The usual culprit of the legal exchanges or blows has been counsel for the petitioner, the indefatigable Tsatsu Tsikata.

On Wednesday, Mr Tsikata, who is counsel for the NDC Flagbearer, the petitioner in this case again locked horns with another justice.

This time, it was Justice Yaw Appau — over the questions he asked one of the petitioner’s witness Johnson Asiedu Nketia.

According to Mr Tsikata, the questions posed to the NDC General Secretary was irrelevant to the matter before the court.

Counsel for the petitioner was of the view that knowing what the NDC General Secretary Asiedu Nketia claims to be the total valid votes cast during the 2020 general elections was immaterial since Mr Nketia did not come in the capacity of a commissioner.

He thus so argue that Mr Nketia need not give his own figure of the total valid votes cast but rather rely on the figures announced by the EC Chairperson Jean Mensa.

In his defense, Justice Appau simply said that was his opinion and he was entitled to it.

What happened on February 1, 2021

The NDC General Secretary Johnson Asiedu Nketia, who is the first witness in the ongoing election petition said he did not know the figures that the two leading parties candidates got in the December 7 elections. 

Although, the NDC claimed to have won the petition for which they are in court, the NDC General Secretary, who has generally been evasive of mentioning figures related to the total valid votes cast said he cannot say what John Mahama or Nana Akufo-Addo had.

Mr Nketia was responding to a question from Justice Yaw Appau, asking the NDC witness what they (petitioner’s) claim was the outcome of the 2020 general election.

Here are excerpts of the exchanges from Justice Yaw Appau (YA) and Johnson Asiedu Nketia (JAN) after Counsel for President Akufo-Addo, Akoto Ampaw ended his cross examination

YA: I know that when you purchase a pen drive it is empty and the data on any onedrive is generated by someone so the onedrive attached to the hard copy, who generated the data on the pendrive

JAN: My Lord, as I have said I haven’t seen the pendrive and its contents before till today (Monday), I was relying only on the hard copies. It was discovered by our election directorate and the legal directorate

YA: So, they gave it to you and you exhibited it as part of your exhibits

JAN: I did not exhibit that document

(Tsatsu Tsikata jumps in)

TT: That document is part of our exhibition, he did not exhibit it

YA: I want to find out who generated it, so your team generated and gave it to you without you checking its content

JAN: I just saw the hard copies of the documents because of the time pressure, I didn’t see the document, I am only seeing it for the first time today (Monday)

YA: In all the figures that were mentioned as the valid votes cast and all those things, you were saying if the figures were correct and that there were inconsistencies in the figures. I will ask you, in your own calculations what were the total valid votes cast in the presidential elections on December 7, 2020

JAN: My Lord, those calculations are reserved for a meeting for us to reconcile the figures because the first respondent herself keep changing the figures.

(Chief Justice Anin Yeboah steps in to put an end to the banter)

AN: Tell the court, when you started giving your submissions you said you had representatives from all the 275 polling stations across the country, and they were to collate the figures and he is asking you from that, what figures did you get.

JAN: My Lord, I haven’t brought that figure to court

YA: Very well, from your own calculations what were the valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner (John Mahama) to your knowledge

JAN: My Lord, when we discovered this discrepancies it was difficult to even tell what figures he got

YA: So, you don’t know, just answer

JAN: I don’t have them here

YA: What were the figures from your calculations did the second respondent (Nana Akufo-Addo) get as total valid votes cast in his favour

JAN: Mr Lord, I don’t have those figures here

YA: Thank you, that’s all

Tsatsu Tsikata’s first clash

The first clash was with Nene Amegatcher when he posed questions he claimed were key to discovering the ‘errors’ committed by the EC.

During Mr Tsikata submission, he kept on mentioning the name of the EC Chairperson and that did not not sit well with the Supreme Court Justice.

The apex court judge insisted that the questions should be directed to the office of the Chairperson and not come across as a personal attack on Mrs Mensa.

Here are the exchanges in court. Tsatsu Tsikata (TT) and Nene Amegatcher (NA).

TS: At what point did the Chairperson realise there were some anomalies with the results declared on December 7, 2020, elections…this is a question only one person in this world can answer

NA: Why wouldn’t you limit your references to the office rather than the personality. It seems to me that your attack is with the personality and not the office…We will be happy if you just limit it to the office and not the EC because in her absence any of her deputies could step in.

TT: Respectfully my lord, there is only one Returning Officer for the presidential election and that is the EC chairperson.

NA: let’s leave it at that, Chairperson of the Electoral Commission and not her person

TS: But my Lord, she is the Chairperson and she has a name, or Am I not allowed to mention the name of the Chairperson

NA: The question should be to the office

TS: I want to understand, am I being prohibited from mentioning the name of the Chairperson, is that the issue?

NA: Reading through your petition which makes constant emphasis on the name, what I am telling you is that we will be satisfied with the designation because in her absence any of her deputies could act in that position

TS: My Lord…

NA: So, it is an election petition and you are challenging the election, it is sufficient that the institution charged with conducting the election had done their work and the Chairperson who is the head represents that institution and not the personality

TT: With the greatest respect, I believe that the constitutional requirement regarding the returning officer and the particular circumstances do not make it possible for someone to step in for the Chairperson, it cannot be like you are envisaging.

NA: The institution had done the work and not the personality

TT: The particular circumstances that we are dealing with in this case, do not make it possible to have the situation that you are envisaging where you have somebody else step in for the Chairperson. The constitution makes the Chairperson and only that person the Returning Officer and in the circumstances of this case that Chairperson happens to be the person we referred to in the petition who undertook her responsibility in accordance with the constitution and legal situation that we have, I am not mentioning her name by targeting her individual…that is far from it. I do not target her when I mention her name as the person who declared the results, that is a fact.

NA: Thank you, you may continue with your interrogatories