The Supreme Court hearing the election petition sent to it by 2020 National Democratic Congress flagbearer, John Mahama, has deleted portions of the statement submitted to it by the General Secretary of the party.
Akoto Ampaw, the lead counsel for the second respondent, President Nana Akufo-Addo, had argued that 10 paragraphs in Johnson Asiedu Nketia’s statement should be deleted as they are “not based on the pleadings of the petitioner, unduly prejudicial and scandalous.”
But, Tsatsu Tsikata, the lead counsel for the petitioner, opposed the position taken by Mr Ampaw, saying it was preposterous.
He demanded the court allows all the paragraphs to stay as they are “material” to their petition.
This did not convince the Supreme Court, which overruled seven out of 10 paragraphs.
Consequently:
1. Paragraphs 6 and 7 struck out.
2. Paragraph 21 maintained.
3. End part Paragraph 25 struck out.
4. Part of Paragraph 26 struck out.
5. Part of Paragraph 28 struck out.
6. Paragraph entirely 30 struck out.
7. Paragraphs 32 and 33 and maintained.
8. Paragraph 37 struck out.
Read excerpts of Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue:
The 1st and 2nd respondents have raised objections to portions of the witness statements of Mr John Asiedu Nketia who has been sworn in this court as (Petitioners Witness 1) PW1.
The objections to these paragraphs precisely paragraphs 21, 6, 7, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 37. Both counsel based their objections to the witness statements of PW1 on two grounds that some of the paragraphs under attack are not based on the pleadings on record and some of the statements are unduly scandalous and prejudicial.
It will be preferable to set out the paragraphs in the witness statements which in our view are amenable to be struck out.
We are of the opinion that paragraphs 6 and 7 ought to be struck out as the witness (Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia) cannot testify on the facts in the said paragraphs. It would have been admissible if the petitioner himself is testifying and the statements in the said paragraphs are not within the knowledge of the witness.
We find paragraph 21 as a matter which has its foundation in the pleadings and same is accordingly maintained.
As regards paragraph 25, we find out that part and that paragraph is hereby struck out as not based on the pleadings.
In respect to paragraph 26, the court is of the opinion that the statement is also struck out on the basis that it has no foundation in the pleadings.
As regards paragraph 28, it is not borne out of the pleadings and same is accordingly struck out.
In respect to paragraph 30, the court is of the view that it has no foundation in the pleadings as it just refers to C.I. 127 which the witness cannot testify on the statutes.
As regards paragraphs 32 and 33, we find that they are based on the pleadings and therefore maintained to be part of the witness statements.
In respect to paragraph 37, we find that it is just an inference to be drawn and not evidence and therefore proceed to struck it out.
The court, therefore, orders that the paragraphs referred to offends the law and are hereby expunged from the witness statement of PW1.