Dr. Michael Kpessah-Whyte, the second witness for John Dramani Mahama in the Election Petition, has disclosed that he was instructed by the Electoral Commissioner to exit the strong room to consult with the petitioner and flagbearer, John Dramani Mahama, prior to the declaration of the December 7 election results.
The instruction from the chair and 1st respondent to exit the strong room in the ongoing trial, according to Mr. Kpessa Whyte was to give him, along with his colleague Rojo Mettle Nunoo, the opportunity to consult Mr. John Mahama on some election-related issues.
Dr. Kpessah-Whyte, during his narration insisted he had no reason to deceive the court upon cross examination by lawyer for the Electoral Commission, Justin Amenuvor.
“I have no reason for lying. When we were leaving the room, I informed in the open room to the hearing of everybody that we were instructed by the Chairperson of the EC to go and consult with our flagbearer who is the petitioner on the basis of our observations and therefore, she was going to make sure that she sends a rider to bring us back to the strong room because of the potential of traffic then therefore, when we finished the process, then the results will be announced”.
The second witness of the plaintiff in a bid to corroborate his assertions said they had left their laptops in the EC’s strong room and moved in a vehicle to meet with the petitioner only to return to meet the strong room vacant with the election results already declared.
“On the basis of this, when we were leaving the place, we left our laptops. We left in only one vehicle. I left my vehicle in the premises of the Electoral Commission. Why would we leave our laptops and our working tools in the place if we were actually not instructed to go? Indeed, we returned to the place in about 45 minutes to 1 hour only to have the strong room completely deserted and everything packed out”.
Reacting to the narration from Mr. Kpessah-Whyte on the EC Chair’s instruction to leave the strong room, Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Yaw Apau, told him he did not take his training on the elections seriously.
Seeking further clarifications on the matter, Justice Apau said “Will it be right to say that by taking contrary instructions from the chairperson and 1st Respondent, granted what you have said is true, you did not help the course of the petitioner who sent you there?”
Mr. Kpessah-Whyte however explained they were working in furtherance of making sure that the “results that ultimately gets announced by the 1st Respondent reflect and represent the will of the people and if she, asking us to consult with the petitioner is part of how we will get there, we were happy to do it”.
“Then seriously speaking, you did not take your training seriously. I want to be clear, you have gone to do a particular job, then instead of doing the particular job that sent you there, you take instructions from somebody, and then you leave your job. That is what I want to find that you did not help the petitioner,” Justice Apau responded.
