How can irrelevant questions be accepted during cross-examination? - Tsatsu Tsikata quizzes

Lead Counsel for petitioner John Dramani Mahama, Tsatsu Tsikata quizzed why the Supreme Court would refuse to grant their request for interrogatories on grounds that they were irrelevant and yet state that these same questions could be asked during cross-examinations.

He made the pronouncement when he was arguing for their application for review for the case of interrogatories which was dismissed by the court a few weeks ago, to be granted.

The Apex Court on January 19, 2021, dismissed the application by the petitioner.

Former President John Mahama was seeking permission to elicit answers to some 12 interrogatories from the Electoral Commission.

The petitioner among other questions were asking the EC to answer if the National Communications Authority (NCA) played any role or facilitated in any way, the transmission of the election results to its headquarters.

It was the case of the petitioner that interrogatories were critical as it would help the apex court determine the authenticity of the results that saw the NPP presidential candidate, emerging as the winner of the 2020 polls.

However, the 1st and 2nd respondents argued that Mr. Tsikata was using the back door to introduce matters that are not stated in their earlier petition.

Giving its verdict on the motion, the Supreme Court held the view that Lawyer Tsatsu was relying on CI 47 while the current rule in force relating to the Supreme Court is the CI 99.

Also, the request requires the exercise of discretionary power that is granted when a case for relevance is made but since this has not been established hence the decision to dismiss the motion.

On Thursday, January 27, 2021, lawyer Tsikata attention was drawn to the fact that he would get the opportunity to ask these question during cross-examination.

But he responded by saying the judges have said that interrogatories under common law is discretionary, respectfully the interrogatories were not brought to you under common but under rule 22 of CI 47.

“If you say the interrogatories were dismissed because it wasn’t relevant and you say it can be asked during cross-examination, respectfully how can irrelevant questions be accepted during cross-examination?”