Lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata has accused the Electoral Commission Chairperson, Jean Mensa of attempting to evade cross-examination.

This was after lawyers for the President, Nana Akufo-Addo and the Electoral Commission (EC) said they will not present any witnesses in the case ongoing election petition case.

Mr. Mahama had filed witness statements for the NDC’s General Secretary, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, Dr. Kpessa-Whyte and Rojo Mettle-Nunoo.

These individuals were subsequenly cross-examined by lawyers for President Akufo-Addo and the EC.

Following the discharge of Rojo Mettle-Nunoo, Lawyer Tsikata informed the court that the petitioner had closed his case.

But in an interesting twist, the lawyers for the respondents who had already indicated that they will call one witness each told the court they have rescind that decision.

Lead counsel for the EC, Mr Justin Amenuvor, told the apex court that his client, (EC), which is the first respondent has decided not to adduced any evidence and therefore the court should decide the petition filed by Former President John Dramani on its merit.

“It is our case that we would not wish to lead any further evidence, and therefore we are praying that this matter proceeds under order 36 rule 43 and C.I. 87 rule 3 (5) and we hereby on that basis, close our case.”

Lead counsel for President Nana Akufo-Addo, Akoto Ampaw also argued that the petitioner has not been able to make a solid case in court hence such decision.

READ ALSO:

Supreme Court Strikes Out Portions Of Mettle-Nunoo's Witness Statement

But Tsatsu Tsikata disagreed.

He alleged that the move by the 1st and 2nd Respondents is a deliberate attempt by the EC Chairperson, Jean Mensa to avoid cross examination which will expose the illegalities that characterised the December 7 elections.

Explaining further, Lawyer Tsikata also said the request by the counsel for the Respondent was not in line with Order 36 Rule 43 and CI 87 rule 3 (e) 5 as stated.

But the judges sided with the respondents, adding that the witnesses cannot be compelled to testify.

The case has since been adjourned to Tuesday, February 9 for legal arguments on whether or not the respondents can opt not to call witnesses.