Supreme Court strikes out 5 paragraphs of Rojo Mettle Nunoo’s statement

The Supreme Court has struck out five paragraphs of the witness statement of Rojo Mettle Nunoo.

The paragraphs that have been struck out are 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18.

P4: Claims that the EC Chair did not perform her duties as required by law prior to the declaration of the 2020 presidential results

P5: A request to make available a video recording of happenings in the EC strong room to confirm his [Rojo Mettle] claims of what transpired

Harruna Attah writes: “The Law Is A(n) Ass”

P6: Claims that some machines in the strong room failed to work at some point and that the fax transmission was slow

P7: Claims Dr. Sereboe Quaicoe from time to time brought into the strong room documents he claimed to be regional collation sheets without them knowing where he was getting them from.

P18: Claims that with regard to Northern Region, two different summary sheets were brought into the strong room and that the original sheets will be required to authenticate the results.

Lawyer for the 2nd Respondent in the ongoing election petition hearing, Mr Akoto Ampaw asked the court to strike out 23 paragraphs of the witness statement of Mr Mettle Nunoo, the third witness of the petitioner.

Mr Ampaw objected to the parts of the statement during proceedings on Friday February 5.

Paragraph 5 of Mr Nunoo’s statement said “The EC had a video documentary person recording the events in the strong room and I have no doubt that if that documentary is made available in its authentic version it will confirm what I am saying in this witness statement about things that occurred in the strong room.”

Lead Counsel for the petitioner, Mr Tsatsu Tsiktata told the court that “Second witness said there was somebody taking video commentaries. That evidence was not objected to, that evidence is before you and we are respectfully submitting that what is stated in Paragraph 5 is no different from what is already before you about the video documentary.

“All that this witness is adding is that he is willing to put his credibility on the line so that if anybody wants to have recourse to the video they are entitled to.

“Depending on the cross examination we may indeed come before you with an application that that video should be produced in court and played.”

Hearing has been adjourned to Monday February 8.

By Laud Nartey|3news.com|Ghana