A spokesperson for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s legal team in the ongoing election petition hearing, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has said today’s court proceeding has exposed the inconsistencies in the petition by the National Democratic Congress’ 2020 presidential candidate, John Dramani Mahama and his witness Johnson Asiedu Nketia to set aside results of the election.
According to him, lead counsel for the President in the election petition, Mr. Akoto Ampaw today exposed the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the petition filed by Mr. Mahama to annul results of the 2020 presidential elections.
In a media interview after the cross-examination in court on Monday, February 1, 2021, Mr. Oppong Nkrumah stressed that the witness for the petitioner could not substantiate any of the evidence presented to the court by the petitioner as prove that the 2020 presidential election was flawed.
He noted that “we are of the view that today has been a big day in court and the big word today is ‘exposed’. You would notice that counsel on our side spent a lot of time exposing the inconsistencies and sometimes the outright falsehoods that have been put out by the petitioner (Mr. Mahama) and the witness who was in the witness box today.
“So when you juxtapose the earlier claims that we won and now what they are saying in the witness box to they now saying they don’t know who won, you will realise there’s a discrepancy… One of the first things that the counsel on our side sort to do today was to expose the inconsistencies and sometimes outright falsehood by the petitioner and the witness,” he added.
Mr. John Dramani Mahama on December 30,2020 filed a petition at the Supreme Court to contest results of the 2020 presidential election which Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Jean Adukwei Mensa declared Nana Akufo-Addo, president candidate for the New Patriotic Party (NPP) as winner and President-elect on December 9, 2020.
Meanwhile, the case has been adjourned to Tuesday, February 2, 2021 where the second witness of the petitioner will take his turn to be cross-examined.
