Tsatsu Tsikata apologizes to Jean Mensa in court

Lead Counsel for the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata on Monday, February 15, apologized to the Chairperson of the 1st Respondent in the case, Jean Adukwei Mensa for saying in court that she sunk low.

Making a case for their move to subpoena her to testify, Mr. Tsikata said in court that “To talk about grievances of being served tea respectfully that is such a lack of truthfulness in terms of how the evidence came in.

[Rojo Metle-Nunoo] didn’t communicate a grievance here that they served tea and not biscuits. It was not feasible and he answered honestly.

“For the chairperson to descend into such triviality which was brought on by cross-examination of her own counsel that shows the depth to which she has sunk.”

It was at this point that Chief Justice Anin Yeboah came to say “Mr. Tsikata the practice is that you lawyers draft affidavit in applications so please don’t let us go that far”.

Another Justice of the Court also said “Beyond that I would advise that you withdraw”.

Following this, Mr. Tsikata said “I withdraw the statement about the depth to which she has sunk. I apologize that I used unduly strong language and I apologize to the chairperson of the 1st respondent”

Mr. Tsikata told the Supreme Court that he closed the petitioner’s case because he thought the Chairperson of the 1st Respondent, Mrs. Jean Adukwei Mensa will make herself available for cross-examination.

He said that the affidavit of the 1st Respondent indicated that she will testify in the case hence, their earlier decision to close their case for that to happen.

“We had the expectation that the chairperson of the 1st Respondent will testify” hence the conclusion of the case.

“The Chairperson of the 1st Respondent has in an affidavit made clear that the petitioner will not the slightest bit be biased because the questions that the petitioner sought to have in interrogatories those will be topic in cross-examination,” Mr. Tsikata told the court.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Adukwei Mensa has sworn an affidavit, praying the Supreme Court to dismiss a fresh application filed by the petitioner in the election petition case John Dramani Mahama to reopen the case.

According to Mrs. Mensa, the application is not warranted by any standard of law or methodology “and the same ought to be dismissed by this Honorable Court”.

She indicated that Mr. Mahama’s application is “creating the erroneous impression that this application is made at my behest”.

The Chair of the Commission explained that at no time had she informed the petitioner nor his lawyers of her longing to testify in the case.

Lawyers of Mr. Mahama on Thursday, February 11 declared their intention to re-open the case in request to subpoena Mrs. Mensa as the Returning Officer of last year’s presidential elections to testify.

It followed the unanimous dismissal of an earlier application to force observers of the two respondents – EC and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo – to appear in the observer box.

The respondents had closed their case by voting not to introduce their observers in court.

In any case, the petitioner filed the application to get the Chair of the EC, in particular, to make an appearance in the interest of the general population.

In her affidavit, calling for the dismissal of the petitioner’s application, Mrs. Mensa stated: “I accept that there are more convenient fora (forums) for ventilating the so-called public interest issues and further that this ought not form the basis of the Petitioner re-opening his case in a Presidential Elections Petition in Court.”

She communicated surprise how the petitioner, after closing his case on his own volition, will return again to demand that the case be re-open.

“I’m advised that regardless of whether this Court grants leave for the Petitioner to reopen its case; it should not to cause a subpoena to be issued against me because a subpoena is issued with coercive impact.

“The Honorable Court, having held that I appropriately exercised the option of my privilege not to testify would be overriding its earlier decision to arrange that I be constrained to testify.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: