A member of the National Democratic Congress legal team says the assertions by critics that the star witness for the first and third respondents in the ongoing President contradicted himself in yesterday’s cross-examination is a misunderstanding of Respondents case. Abraham Amaliba said Johnson Asiedu Nketia acquitted himself and clearly represented the position of the Respondents on the allegations of voting without biometric verification. The NDC scribe was confronted in the witness box with an interview he granted Citi FM on December 20, 2012- an interview in which he intimated, among other things, that the NPP must be ready to prove the allegations of voting without biometric verification and other irregularities and if they did, then the full penalty of annulment of votes in those areas where the irregularities occurred can be imposed. Members of the Petitioners have described the comments by Asiedu Nketia as a sharp contradiction from the evidence he had given and the answers he gave during cross examination. Buabeng Asamoah in an interview on Joy FM said Asiedu Nketia was just a walking contradiction in court. He said for a witness who had denied hearing the no verification no vote rule or the penalties associated with the rule to be caught on tape virtually telling listeners about the rule and sanctions thereof smacks of a discredited witness. But Abraham Amaliba told Bernard Nasara Saibu on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show, Thursday, there was no contradiction whatsoever in the comments made by Asiedu Nketia. He said the Respondents position on the no verification;no vote rule is clear and unambiguous. According to him, the voters register is biometrically generated and so too is the voters ID. Once a voter has these two requirements he is qualified to vote, he insisted. He said nowhere in the constitution does it say that a voter must be passed through a machine before voting. Small machines cannot deny qualified voters from voting, he said. Amaliba maintained the performance of Asiedu Nketia was so impeccable, counsel for the first and third Respondents did not find it necessary to re-examine him as was the case with Dr Bawumia.