An individual from the National Democratic Congress (NDC)’ legitimate group, hosts guarded the get-together’s General Secretary, Johnson Asiedu Nketia’s idiom ‘I’m not the candidate’ when he took the observer enclose the progressing political race request hearing on Friday.
Dr Dominic Anyine’s protection comes after, an individual from President Akufo-Addo’s legitimate group, Frank Davies said Mr Nketia’s mentality in the testimony box was “generally shifty” by responding to each address presented, with, “I don’t represent the candidate.”
However, talking on Joy FM’s NewsFile Saturday, Dr Anyine said the observer’s assertion has been misinterpreted.
As indicated by him, the legitimate advice of the first and second respondents were continually posing inquiries that were intended for the candidate, John Mahama and not the observer.
All things considered, Mr Asiedu Nketia saying, ‘I’m not the applicant,’ doesn’t mean he won’t have the option to address the appeal.
“… Look at the idea of inquiries presented to him, in regard of which he said, ‘I’m not the solicitor’… those were matters that necessary an enquiry to the individual information on the applicant.
“In regard of that, Asiedu Nketia isn’t John Dramani Mahama so he won’t have the option to say whether at the point in time the revelation was done, John Mahama knew or sensibly should have realized that he has lost the political decision. So it was the inquiry represented that inspired the reaction,” he said.
Then, the Supreme Court subsequent to hearing the political decision request shipped off it by 2020 NDC flagbearer, John Mahama, has struck out bits of the assertion submitted to it by the General Secretary of the gathering.
Akoto Ampaw, the lead counsel for the subsequent respondent, President Akufo-Addo, has contended that 10 sections in Johnson Asiedu Nketia’s assertion ought to be erased as they are “not founded on the pleadings of the candidate, unduly biased and outrageous”.
Yet, Tsatsu Tsikata, the lead counsel for the solicitor, restricted this colloquialism it was unbelievable and requested the Court permit all the passages to remain as they are “material” to their appeal.
This didn’t persuade the Supreme Court Justices, who overruled seven out of 10 passages.