Dr Kpessa-Whyte, a lecturer at the University of Ghana, today mounted the witness box for cross examination as the second witness of the Petitioner, John Dramani Mahama.
Dr Kpessa-Whyte, through his witness statement narrated what transpired in the “strong room” of the electoral commission before, during and after the pronouncement of results by the returning officer for the Presidential elections, Jean Adukwei Mensah.
The Witness states, that in the course of collation of figures that were trickling in from regional collation centres, he, together with anothr counterpart, raised issues with some of the figures from some regions and requested that steps be taken to rectify those errors.
He continued that, the returning officer for the Presidential elections, then asked them through his other colleague to deliberate with the candidate they were representing, John Dramani Mahama on the way forward.
It was at this Juncture, the witness claimed, after they had left the Electoral Commission headquarters to speak to their candidate, that Mrs Jean Mensah proceeded to announce the result and pronounce the second respondent, President Akuffo-Addo, winner of the elections despite the errors that were identified and also denied them an opportunity to exhaust the due processes available.
During cross-examination by the first respondent lead counsel, lawyer Amenuvor, he attempted to query Dr. Kpessa-Whyte on a document(form 13) that was not yet in evidence and so an objection was raised by lead counsel for petitioner, lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata and it was upheld by the bench.
After cross-examination, as usual of court procedures, the bench asked questions for clarity and it was at this point that, a document that was rejected during cross-examination, was shown the witness by a member of the bench to be identified. The witness confirmed that, that document purporting to be form 13, the Presidential summary sheet, was not what it appears to be because some features were missing.
The lady Justice further proceeded to ask what document it was, and the witness deflected that question to the first respondent. The document was subsequently withdrawn from the witness without further questions.
Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed for application to inspect the original EC documents in contention and the court has duly adjourned proceedings to tomorrow at 9:30AM for arguments by the various counsel and determination.