A member of the Communication Team for the Petitioner in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition, Lawyer Godwin Edudzi Tamakloe, has portrayed the opinion of one of the Supreme Court judges presiding over the case, Justice Yaw Apau, as “biased”.
According to him, Justice Yaw Apau’s remark that the second witness of the petitioner, Dr Michael Kpessa Whyte “bombed the petitioner”, former President John Dramani Mahama implies he has passed judgment on the matter even before proceedings definitively closes.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for the Petitioner, straightforwardly blamed the court for harassing Dr Michael Kpessa Whyte, the second witness of the Petitioner.
This was after Justice Yaw Apau, a member of the panel, had sought to find out from the witness if by leaving the Strong Room of the Electoral Commission he helped the course of the Petitioner.
“You didn’t help the course of the Petitioner by leaving the strong room of the EC,” he said.
Mr Tsikata, notwithstanding, vehemently opposed the question, saying: “The Supreme Court is harassing the witness.”
Entitled To Your Opinion
Counsel for the Petitioner held that inasmuch as Justice Apau had the legal leeway to seek further clarification from the witness, personal opinions can’t be part.
Justice Apau, notwithstanding, pointed out that he simply needed to comprehend the issues better consequently the questioning, and sought to find out from Mr Tsikata in what way his questioning was a harassment of the witness.
More Questions From Judges
In furtherance of the same issue more of the judges asked the witness why both agents of the Petitioner should leave the EC’s strong room.
They further needed to ascertain whether Dr Kpessa Whyte had any training before taking up the obligation as the Petitioner’s representative in the EC strong room, and whether they, as agents, were to take instructions from the EC Boss.
Proof Act, Section 58
Commenting on Okay FM’s Ade Akye Abia Morning Show, lawyer Edudzi Tamakloe said that the Evidence Act, area 58 licenses Justice Yaw Apau to make inquiries and furthermore seek clarification by method of questions, however not allowed over the span of proceeding to communicate his opinion that will be biased to the case of the individual who is in the witness box.
“You have just arrived at the resolution that the witness should not to have left the strong room of the Electoral Commission (EC). A portion of these things, if you don’t practice restraint, you will say what you shouldn’t say. This is why Mr Tsikata said that ‘you are presently harassing the witness with your opinion”, he contended.
Whiles calling for sagaciousness from the panel by keeping their opinions to themselves during court proceedings, Edudzi Tamakloe accepted that such a remark from a seasoned appointed authority like Justice Yaw Apau might have constrained any lawyer to end the case.
“What is the pith of continuing the matter? It was that piece of a question he asked that the NPP is going about making clamor with. The remark of the appointed authority has now harmed the case of the petitioner even before judgment”, he asserted.