Lawyers of Akufo-Addo, EC disagree on whether Rojo Mettle should refer to summary sheets during cross-examination

Lead counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the 2020 Presidential Election Petition hearing Monday took opposing stance on whether or not the Supreme Court should allow the petitioner’s 3rd witness, Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo (Rojo Mettle) to refer to the regional summary sheets used by the Electoral Commission of Ghana to declare the 2020 Presidential Elections results.

Rojo Mettle in his witness statement had stated he was misled into signing some regional summary sheets and that he signed others because he did not want to put spokes in the works of the EC, and not because he believed in their veracity.

During cross-examination Monday, Lawyer for the 1st Respondent EC, Justin Amenuvor, sought to know from Rojo Mettle which regional summary sheets he signed because he did not want to put spokes in the work of the EC.

Rojo Mettle agreed to answer, but requested to refer to all the regional summary sheets to refresh his mind.

On learning that Rojo Mettle wanted to refer to the regional summary sheets, which are not documents in evidence, counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, intervened to request a leave of court for the witness to refer to the said documents.

Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Akoto Ampaw, raised an objection and argued that since the documents in question were not in evidence, the witness could not be allowed to rely on same to answer a question while under cross-examination.

But counsel for the EC insisted that the question be answered and that he did not mind if the witness had to rely on the regional summary sheets despite that they are not in evidence.

READ ALSO:  NPP's Obiri Boahen chides petitioner Mahama for not filing witness statement

The court allowed Rojo Mettle to answer the question making reference to the documents, to which he did region by region.

By P.D Wedam||Ghana