YOU’VE BEEN OUTSMARTED – GABBY TELLS TSATSU TSIKATA
Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, a leading member of the NPP has lashed out at Tsatsu Tsikata, the Lead Counsel for the Petitioner in the ongoing Election Petition at the Supreme Court that, he should admit that he has been outsmarted by Counsels for the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
According to him, Tsatsu Tsikata does not expect the Respondents to make their case on a mere allegation the Petitioner has brought before the Supreme Court and requires witnesses for the 1st and 2nd Respondents to testify.
He said it is only an option for a party to call on a witness to testify and be cross-examined before a court of competent jurisdiction if that party finds it necessary or vice versa.
“You do not allege and expect the respondents to make your case for you if they opt not to mount the witness box. Calling of witnesses is an option which a party can choose not to exercise if indeed that party sees it as not necessary.”
“Tsatsu should simply admit that he’s been outsmarted! It’s left with populist submissions for the ears of party activists,” Gabby made the comment in a post on his social media handle on Tuesday after the case was adjourned to Thursday, February 11, 2021, for a ruling by the Supreme Court.
Counsels for the 1st and 2nd Respondents told the Supreme Court on Monday, February 8, 2021, that they do not want to call forth any witnesses to adduce evidence in court in the matter before the apex court.
The counsels for the two respondents cited Order 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.
Both Counsels told the court that they had expected the petitioner to be happy with their decision since it works in his favour.
Justin Amenuvor, Lead Counsel for the EC supported his argument with Section 62 of the Evidence Act, which states that the court cannot compel his client to testify against her will, while Lead Counsel for the President, Akoto Ampaw, maintained that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner and not the respondents.