In their impassioned desire to pull the wool over the eyes of their party members who, obviously, had had their hopes dashed by the poor performance of the party in the 2020 elections, the opposition National Democratic Congress, through its failed presidential candidate, John Dramani Mahama, petitioned the Supreme Court.

Prior to coming to the decision to petition the apex court of the land, it was severally drummed into the ears of these unsuspecting party members that Mr. Mahama had toppled President Akufo-Addo through the ballot and that the leadership of the Electoral Commission had connived with the ruling NPP to deny Mr. Mahama and the NDC what was theirs. In their view, the will of the Ghanaian voter was being subverted and that ought not to be tolerated.

This development led to these innocent party members hitting the streets of Accra, Kumasi and several other towns, chanting war songs, inviting fire and brimstone to fall on Jean Mensa and Akufo-Addo.

They had been schooled to believe that the NDC actually won the elections but Akufo-Addo ended up being declared the winner and sworn into office consequently.

In the various press conferences they had, the leadership of the NDC, including Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, Peter Boamah Otukonor, Sammy Gyamfi and Mr. Mahama himself, Ghanaians were made to believe that the NDC had enough but substance-filled facts, figures and evidence to petition the Supreme Court with.

Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, an NDC MP and lawyer, on Newsfile, emphatically stated that the party had gathered enough evidence to go to court with, and gave the date the petition would be filed.

With bated breath, Ghanaians waited for the petition to be filed with the evidence they claimed they had.

The reliefs sought, a reading from their petition, could not readily be discerned.

The reliefs, it was obvious, lived on a landscape of vague and fuzzy exteriors since it was difficult sifting anything from the petition.

During his cross-examination, the General Secretary of the NDC, Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, categorically stated that they were not in court to ask that a new declaration of the results should be made or Mahama should be declared the winner of the elections.

Impliedly, the party was not in court to challenge the validity of the results as declared by the EC.

They were in court to rather subject the constitutional duties of Jean Mensa to scrutiny.

Dominic Ayine, soon after that abysmal performance of Asiedu Nketiah said that they were in court to showcase that nobody crossed the 50%+1 threshold to enable him to be declared the winner in the 2020 elections.

This petition is riddled with confusion.

These, clearly, departed from the claims they had made in the streets of Accra and in their own press conferences.

It became evidently clear that the NDC did not win the elections, per his own statements.

One key thing which became topical and apparent in the course of Asiedu Nketiah’s cross-examination was the fact that the opposition party went to court with no evidence.

The Bench asked Mr. Asiedu Nketiah to supply the court with numbers or facts in relation to the claim that no one won the elections and, therefore, there should be a run-off, the General Secretary of the NDC admitted that they didn’t bring the evidence to the court.

Ghanaians were aghast by that admission, questioning the petitioner why he would make wild claims of having enough evidence to support his claim but stating, through his star witness, that they indeed had no evidence.

The expedition to wheedle evidence from Jean Mensa began earnestly after this episode.

The petitioner, through his counsel, Tsatsu Tsikata, though ended his case, has been fighting tooth and nail to have Jean Mensa cross-examined.

The First Respondent, represented by Mrs. Jean Adukwei Mensa, believes that the petitioner could not adduce any evidence to warrant the request to have her coerced into the witness’ box to be cross-examined.

The petitioner then filed a request to have Jean Mensa in the box to be cross-examined.

That request has consequently been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Tsatsu Tsikata has served notice, once again that the petitioner is ready to file the process for subpoena to enable them cross-examine her.

All these go to show that the petitioner would not be able to prosecute his case without siphoning something from the First Respondent.

The burden of proof, it is common law, lies with the one who alleges, but in this instance, the petitioner would want to place that burden on the First Respondent.

What is also true is the fact that in his view, the petitioner’s case would collapse without getting the First Respondent testifying in the witness box.

The success of the petitioner’s case depends on the evidence he would be able to get out of the First Respondent, and that defies any legal authority across the globe.

In effect, Mr. John Dramani Mahama, despite the cacophonous noises he made before going to court, and his claim that he had enough evidence to support his claims, actually went to the Supreme Court with an empty cup, hoping that Jean Mensa would fill it up for him to take back to his abode.

The petitioner’s case has crumbled!

****

P.K.Sarpong, Whispers from the Corridors of the Thinking Place