Asiedu Nketia confessed Mahama not in court to challenge validity of elections – Nana B

A member of the legal team of the second respondent in the ongoing election petition, Henry Nana Boakye, alias Nana B has said that former President John Mahama has no business to run to the Supreme court following the revelation that he’s not seeking to challenge the validity of the election as envisaged by Article 64(1) of the 1992 constitution.

He contended that the Petitioner is only wasting the time of all parties to the case since it was established through his Chief witness, Johnson Asiedu Nketia on Friday that he’s in court for the wrong reasons.

“Indisputably, the Petitioner, his lawyers and witnesses know that their case do not meet the test of Article 64(1) and the Petition was a still birth but have still decided to waste the time of all parties and Ghanians,” he said in a Facebook post on Saturday.

This comes on the back of Mr Asiedu Nketia’s response to Counsel of the 1st respondent during proceedings on Friday saying: “My Lords, we are not in Court to challenge the validity of the 2020 elections or to try to declare another Presidential results by us. We are in Court to challenge the performance of a constitutional duty of the 1st Respondent and to see whether that duty has been discharged faithfully”

This is after the Counsel for 1st Respondent suggested to Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia during cross-examination that he had no evidence to support the allegation of vote padding.

Earlier seven out of the 42 paragraphed witness statement by Johnson Asiedu Nketia in support of the petition by former President John Mahama over the 2020 election were struck out by the Supreme Court today when hearing begun.

The apex court took the action after a protest by lawyers of the 2nd respondent in the case – President Akufo-Addo.

The lawyers raised concerns with 10 of the paragraphs but after banter with the petitioner’s lawyer, the court settled on seven.



Below is Nana B’s Facebook Post

ASIEDU NKETIA CONFESSES; WE ARE NOT IN COURT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF 2020 ELECTIONS

Article 64(1) of the 1992 constitution provides that:

“The validity of the election of the President may be challenged only by a citizen of Ghana who may present a petition for the purpose to the Supreme Court within twenty-one days after the declaration of the result of the election in respect of which the petition is presented”.

It is a settled legal principle that, where a law provides a special procedure by which a particular relief is to be sought, a person cannot use any other procedure to obtain that relief except what is stated. Conversely, a person shall also not use that procedure to obtain any other relief except the purpose for which that procedure was put in place.

Yesterday, during cross-examination, Counsel for 1st Respondent suggested it to Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia, Chief witness of the Petitioner that he had no evidence to support the allegation of vote padding and he responded as follows:

“My Lords, we are not in Court to challenge the validity of the 2020 elections or to try to declare another Presidential results by us. We are in Court to challenge the performance of a constitutional duty of the 1st Respondent and to see whether that duty has been discharged faithfully”

Counsel for the 1st Respondent then put it to Mr. Asiedu Nketia that, if that was what they were in Court for, then they Could not come to the Supreme Court let alone through a petition.



The admission by Mr. Asiedu Nketia above summarises the entire preliminary legal objection of the Respondents that, the Petitioner’s case in its current state, is not challenging the validity of the election as envisaged by Article 64(1) of the 1992 constitution hence the Petitioner has no business filing a petition since the procedure of a petition can only be used when the validity of the election is being impugned. Any other challenge, going to declaration or any other conduct cannot be obtained through a petition hence no cause of action arises before the Supreme Court.

Indisputably, the Petitioner, his lawyers and witnesses know that their case do not meet the test of Article 64(1) and the Petition was a still birth but have still decided to waste the time of all parties and Ghanaians.