ine aeot afiipm IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ‘his TOFGHANA | IN THE SUPREME COURT _juptcarune ct ACCRA~ A.D. 2021 PETITION No: 31/5/2021 ARTICLE 64 OF THE 1992 CONSTITUTION AND SUPREME COURT RULES, 1996 (C.I. 16) (AS AMENDED BY G.I. 74 AND C.I. 99) AMENDED PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HELD ON 7™ DECEMBER 2020 THE PETITION OF: JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA No. 33 CHAIN HOMES AIRPORT VALLEY DRIVE ACCRA GL-128-5622 PETITIONER AND ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF GHANA 8™, RIDGE — AccRA 1s™ RESPONDENT NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO HOUSE NO. 02 ONYAA CRESCENT NIMA ~ ACCRA . 2NP RESPONDENT AFFIDAVIT OF 15' RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RE-OPEN CASE OF THE PETITIONER 1, JEAN ADUKWEI MENSA of No. E199/2 8"" Avenue Ridge, Accra in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana, make oath and say as follows: 1lam the Chairperson of the 1** Respondent and the deponent herein. 7 The 1% Respondent has yet again received service of the Petitioner's latest Application titled motion for leave to re-open the case of the Petitioner in terms of the supporting affidavit. The 1% Respondent is opposed to the said Application and says that the Application is not warranted by any rule of law or procedure and the same should be dismissed by this Honourable Court. | observe from the motion paper that the Petitioner-Applicant seeks leave of this Court to re-open the case of the Petitioner- Applicant ‘TO ENABLE CHAIRPERSON OF ELECTORAL COMMISSION TO TESTIFY’, creating the erroneous impression that this Application is made at my behest. At no time have | informed the Petitioner or his lawyers of my desire to testify in this case. On the contrary, | have intimated to this Honourable Court that 1 would not testify in the case. Aggrieved for no obvious reason, the Petitioner's lawyers urged this Honourable Court to compel me to testify. On 11" February 2021 this Court unanimously held in conclusion that ‘the law, is therefore settled that a Party will not be compelled to enter the Witness Box and testify in support of his or her case.’ | am advised that, the Petitioner seeks leave to reopen the case of the Petitioner ‘for the purpose of serving a subpoena on me to testify.’ This Application, | am advised, is purposely for leave to reopen the Petitioner's case.10. | am advised and verily believe that the Application does not show sufficient reason for the Court to permit the Petitioner to reopen his case. | am advised that reopening a case is not a remedy for the asking; the Applicant must show the harm to be suffered if the case were not reopened. The Petitioner _ skipped this requirement. Again, | am advised that the Petitioner's lawyers were confident when they closed his case without reservation, and this Court ought not to permit proceedings before it to drag unduly on the basis of a Party's afterthought and inability to prove its case in Court. Further, | am advised that nothing new has happened to warrant the Petitioner re-opening his case. On 11" February 2021 this Court ruled that the 1* Respondent was entitled to decide not to testify. | verily believe that the decision affirmed a right vested in 1% Respondent at all material times, to the time when the 1* Respondent announced to the Court that it was exercising the right. The Petitioner and his lawyer, presumed to know the law, knew that the 1% Respondent could exercise that right. The Petitioner suggests that following the said ruling of this Court, this Application ‘has become necessary in the interest of justice and for faimess in the adjudication of this case,’ implying that the ruling was neither just nor fair. The Petitioner prays in support of this Application that | had ‘indicated that the interrogatories were not necessary because the questions could be asked...in cross-examination,’ and attached my affidavit in support. | am advised and verily believe that I filed that affidavit in the conduct of my case; \did12. not conduct my case in agreement with any person, least the Petitioner. The Petitioner was entitled to design his strategies based on the conduct of my case but does not acquire accrued rights over inferences drawn by him from the conduct of my case. | verily believe that the 1*' Respondent is entitled to design it's on strategies. | am advised and believe that in the conduct of this case, my duty is to the 1° Respondent Commission, not the Petitioner. Any suggestion to the contrary would put me in a conflict situation. It is said further that | should be compelled to testify because | ‘made representations to the Court and to me.’ But the Application does not state what | represented neither does it state what prejudicial reliance was placed on the alleged representation. The Application for interrogatories was dismissed not on the basis of the alleged representation but ‘on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to make outa case. The Petitioner was an adversary and as such not entitled to assume that | was conducting the case of the 1 Respondent in the Petitioner's interest. | am advised of the Petitioner's contention that my testimony ‘is critical for the Court to ensure compliance with the Constitution’ because | was the Returning Officer. | verily _ believe that when this Court gave its ruling, | was the Returning Officer, sued as such, and this Court took my status into consideration. | verily believe that the same issue must not be resurrected; litigation must come to an end and indeed on the Petitioner's own showing he closed his case without14. 16. prompting from anybody and he should be bound by his election. References were made to the testimonies of Kpessa Whyte and Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, forming the basis of the Application herein. These witnesses testified mostly about their departure from the Strong Room. | verily believe that if this Strong Room ‘matter’ were of any importance to the Petitioner, it would have been pleaded as the grievance of the Petition. The allegation was raised to justify a Petition that never ought to have been filed. Again, these testimonies were raised in the long, extensive argument against my option not to testify but the Honourable Court upheld my decision not to testify in its ruling on 11" February 2021. Since the said ruling of this Honourable Court, nothing has changed. The Petitioner prays in support of this Application that | indicated that | would be available for cross-examination. Again, this Honourable Court was addressed on this issue extensively by the Petitioner's lawyer nevertheless this Honourable Court in its wisdom ruled in my favour that | cannot be compelled to testify. Tne Petitioner entered into the contest herein believing that he would testify if need be. It became clear too soon that the Petitioner's case drifted into departures from the Strong Room by the Petitioner's agent of his own volition and grievances that | had served ‘tea without biscuits’ to the Petitioner's agent who had left the Strong Room to be in my Secretariat.18 20. Ls Ze: 23. The 1% Respondent Commission decided that it would not waste time and effort over the tottering case hence my decision not to testify because there was nothing to testify about. Again, the Petitioner deposes in support of his case to matters concerning ‘the biometric verification process for which huge sums of taxpayers’ money was spent.’ These are matters that that have sprung up in this Application for the first time and do not form the basis of the Petitioner's Petition. | verily believe that there are more convenient fora (forums) for ventilating the so-called public interest issues and further that this should not form the basis of the Petitioner re-opening his case in a Presidential Election Petition in Court. The Petitioner deposes in the supporting affidavit further that this Court has the power to summon me as a witness. | am advised and verily believe that the Application is an abuse of this Honourable Court's process in so far as it does not tell this Court whether | am needed as a witness for the Petitioner or for the 1s" Respondent or what | am required to say. i verily believe that this Court has power to call a witness suo motu but not a Party let alone a Party adjudged to have a vested right to decide not to testify. | am opposed to the Petitioner being granted leave by this Honourable Court to re-open a case that he closed of his own volition without compulsion. | am advised that even if this Court grants leave for the Petitioner to reopen its case; it ought not cause a subpoena to be issue against me because a subpoena is issued with coercive effect. This Honourable 624. 25. Court, having held that | rightly exercised the option of my right not to testify, would be overriding its earlier decision to order that | be compelled to testify. Again, | am advised that a subpoena is issued to a person, not a Party, to testify for the Party on whose behalf it is issued; 1° Respondent is a Party and disqualified, and so am |. A person subpoenaed is punishable by committal. | am advised that the decision of this Court renders the proposed subpoena irrelevant. WHEREFORE | swear to this affidavit in opposition to the Application herein by the Petitioner to re-open a case that he closed on his own volition. SWORN IN ACCRA THIS Pad 42™4 DAY OF FEBRUARY DEPONENT 2021 BEFORE ME THE REGISTRAR sul JPREME COURT ACCRA ANI D FOR SERVICE ON THE PETITIONER OR HIS LAWYER, TONY LITHUR ESQ., LITHUR BREW & COMPANY NO. 110B 187 KADE CLOSE KANDA ESTATES, ACCRA AN ID FOR SERVICE ON NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO OR HIS LAWYER AKOTO AMPAW ESQ., AKUFO-ADDO, PREMPEH & CO., 67 KOJO THOMPSON ROAD, ADABRAKA — ACCRA F