The Supreme Court has thrown out request of Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, the lawyer of the petitioner, for EC Chair Jean Mensa to mount the witness box and testify in the ongoing election petition.

The ruling which was giving is in relation to a request by the Mr Tsikata to cross-examined the EC Boss and clarify issues surrounding the 2020 presidential results was rejected by the Apex Court of the land.

According to the Court neither Jean Mensa nor Campaign Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in last year’s elections, Peter Mac Manu, can be forced to mount the witness box.

“We are minded to state that our jurisdiction invoked in this election petition is a limited jurisdiction clearly circumscribed by law. We do not intend to extend our mandate beyond what the law requires of us in such petitions brought under Article 64 (1) challenging the validity of the election of a president. Simply put, we are not convinced, and we will not yield to the invitation being extended to us by counsel for the petitioner to order the respondents to enter the witness box to be cross-examined. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner against the decision of the respondents declining to adduce evidence in this petition,” he added.

Counsel for the respondents insisted that the evidence put forth by the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama does not meet the burden of proof thereby making it unnecessary to put a witness for a counter case.

Mr. Amenovor relied on Order 36 Order sub-rule 4 and 38, rule 3 (e) sub-rule 1 and 5 of CI 47 as amended by CI 87 as the basis for their decision to close their case and not call a witness.

By that application he (Mr. Amenovor) suggested that other parties can treat the witness statement by the EC Chair as a “hearsay”.

Likewise, lead counsel for President Nana Akufo-Addo, Akoto Ampaw also announced that the New Patriotic Party’s 2020 Campaign Manager, Peter Mac Manu would not be taking the witness box for cross-examination.

Mr. Ampaw argued that the petitioner has not been able to make a solid case in court hence the decision to close their case.

He further insisted that the petitioner “should rather be happy since his petition would be ruled on by his own evidence.”

But the lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, disagreed.

Mr. Tsikata thus accused Mrs. Mensa of evading cross-examination.

He insisted that Mrs. Jean Mensa has signed to a witness statement and affidavits thereby constituting an election to adduced evidence.