Justice Mettle Nunoo returns as Petitioner Witness 1 appears in court

court.jpg

The Judicial Board hearing the 2015 University of Ghana S.R.C Election petition continued with court proceedings on Wednesday April 29th 2015. The court was supposed to sit on Tuesday April 28th. The scheduled sitting could not take place because a member of the Bench Justice Mettle Nunoo had taken ill and had to be sent to the Clinic. This meant that the minimum requirement of a minimum of five members indicated in Article 46(1) of S.R.C constitution had not been met. The Court thus adjourned sitting to Wednesday April 29th. The presiding Judge reminded the petitioner to furnish the 2nd respondents with further and better particulars as well the need for them to pay their fine before sitting was adjourned.
court t
Wednesday Sitting
The Wednesday Sitting which was scheduled to commence at 6:30 pm started at about 7:30 pm on an interesting note. The issue of further and better particulars cropped up once more. The Petitioners revealed they had submitted a soft copy of the further and better particulars to the second respondent on Tuesday after a consensual agreement between both parties. The 2nd respondents however stated in open court that they were still dissatisfied with the further and better particulars. The Bench also asked the Petitioners why they had still not paid their fine which now stood at 150 cedis (50 for failing to furnish 2nd respondents with further and better particulars at the appropriate time and 100 for failing to introduce petitioners witness one at the last sitting). Counsel for the petitioners Derrick Ackah explained to the court their difficulty to pay the fine due to the poor state of their finances. He further pleaded with the court to give his outfit a week to pay the fine. He stressed the fact that his team had spent a lot on the petition so far and this had depleted their finances. He also asserted that the further and better particular is an accurate response to the demands of the second respondents.
Application for petition to be dismissed
The second respondent also applied for the petition to be dismissed. Counsel Nana Benyin who represents the second respondents explained the reasons for this application and backed his application by referring to some case precedents where the cases were dismissed and described as frivolous and vexatious.
Counsel Ackah then rose to explain to the court why he disagreed with the application made by the second respondents. He based his argument on the cases that had been cited by both the first and second respondent and argued that those cases were dismissed on the basis of the pleadings which was the substance of those cases. He further stated that the argument by the other parties was not asking the court to strike out the cases on the basis of the pleading which was the requirements of the law.

Court Ruling
The court after recess gave a ruling on the three issues. The court ruled that the petitioners pay their fine within 3 days. The court also ruled that the further and better particulars be accepted as such. The Bench directed that counsel for the second respondents take note of their specific demands that the F and B had failed to respond to. The presiding Judge explained the court will not permit such issues to be admitted in the court. The court further dismissed the application for the petition to be dismissed
Petitioners witness one (PW1) Appears in court
Petitioners Witness was then introduced by Counsel Derrick Ackah. Readers will remember that an earlier report on ugfile.com indicated that the petitioners had earlier failed to introduce the petitioners witness one which resulted in a fine of 100 cedis. Counsel Ackah led Christian Kpatsi (PW1) to present evidence to the court. He demonstrated to the court how the software which he alleged had been used in the 2015 S.R.C elections was manipulated to favor Davis Ohene Fobi. Prior to Counsel Benyin objected to the software being used in court indicating that he doubted its authenticity. The Bench, however, allowed the software to be used.
PW1 demonstrated to the court how he claimed the alleged software of Mr.Forson favored Davis Ohene Fobi. He indicated this by using two laptops which he claimed had been used as servers at Alexander Adum Kwapong Hall and Korle-Bu. The Alexander AdumKwapong Hall server had its results as 540 for Davis Ohene Fobi and 76 forMikdad Mohammed. Four persons within the court were added to the voter list through the use of add a voter feature on the software. The four persons were directed to vote for Mikdad Mohammed. At the end of voting, Davis Ohene Fobi’s votes increased to 541 while that of Mikdad Mohammed increased to 79. This meant that out of the four that voted for Mikdad, one of the votes was recorded for Davis Ohene Fobi. The alleged Korle-Bu server had its results at 31 for Davis Ohene Fobi and 4 for Mikdad Mohammed. Four voters were also added and asked to vote for Mikdad. At the end of voting, Fobi’s tally increased to 33 (despite no one voting for hi) while that of Mikdad increased just by 2 despite four people voting for him.
cross examination
Pw1 cross-examined
Pw1 was then cross-examined by the counsel for the first and second respondent as well as re-examination by Counsel Abisa after which sitting was adjourned to Thursday April 30, 2015. Ugfile will keep updating students on all issues regarding the petition hearing.

Joseph Kofi Frimpong Ackah-Blay

Posted by Joseph Kofi Frimpong Ackah-Blay

Writer|Social Critic|Patriotic Ghanaian|Nationalist and committed to African values|Radio Show host @Radio Univers 105.7| Student at University of Ghana|Twitter:@BlayAckah|Facebook:Kofi Frimpong Ackah-Blay|E-mail-j.ackahblay74@gmail.com

What are your comments on this post?

Top