I stand by the Citi FM interview - Asiedu Nketia

Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, Witness for the first and third respondent in the Election Petition, on Wednesday, told the Court that he still stand by an interview he granted Citi FM soon after the December 7, 2012 elections.

Mr Asiedu Nketia in that interview stated among other things that if evidence was made available that people voted without biometric verification, the results of that polling station should be cancelled.

Mr Asiedu Nketia made the statement during cross-examination by Mr Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners, who sought the Court’s permission and played the recording of the interview to refresh his memory.

Mr Addison then suggested to the witness that contrary to his claim that he did not know the penalty for “no verification no voting,” it was clear in the recording that he knew it and even called for the annulment of results if it could be proven that people voted without biometric verification.

Mr Asiedu Nketia, however, denied it and said his call for the annulment of results was for irregularities and not biometric verification.

Mr Addison also read portions of the transcripts of the interview in which the witness stated that figures generated as a resulted of voting without verification be annulled and taken out of the national figure.

Mr Addison’s cross-examination of the witness touched on special voting, further and better particulars, ghost polling stations, issues of bad faith and voting without biometric verification.

Out of four objections that were raised by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for the NDC, two were upheld and two overruled by the court.

Both counsels for the petitioners and the respondents concluded their cross-examination of the witness.

Mr James Quarshie Idun, Counsel for the second respondent, also took his turn to cross-examine the witness on issues bordering on the election procedure, over-voting among others.

Mr Addison, however, raised objection to the line of questioning by Mr Idun when he sought to question the witness on things he (Addison) had already cross-examined him on.

Mr Idun, however, insisted that his questions were legitimate.