A former Deputy Minister of Health, Mr Robert Joseph Mettle-Nunoo, is testifying remotely today, Friday, 5 February 2021, via video, in the ongoing election petition through which former President John Mahama is challenging the presidential results declared by Electoral Commission Chair Jean Mensa on 9 December 2020 after the 7 December 2020 general elections.
Mr Mettle-Nunoo filed his witness statement on Thursday, 4 February in support of the Petitioner.
Rojo, as he is popularly known, together with Dr Michael Kpessa-Whyte, monitored the results collation exercise at the EC’s Strong Room during the elections.
Already, the General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia; and Dr Kpessa-Whyte, have testified and been cross-examined by counsel for the first and second respondents.
Mr Mettle-Nunoo will be the third witness for Mr Mahama.
At the resumption of the hearing on Friday, Mr Akoto Ampaw, lead counsel for the second respondent, President Nana Akufo-Addo, insisted that a court official be present at Mr Mettle-Nunoo’s location so as to prevent him from being assisted.
Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the Petitioner, Mr Mahama, did not object to that request.
The court adjourned for 30 minutes as it sent a court official with a dispatch rider to Mr Mettle-Nunoo’s location.
In his witness statement, Mr Mettle-Nunoo, accused the Chairperson of the election management body of acting in bad faith when she announced the presidential results, after having asked him and Dr Kpessa-Whyte to go and conference with their presidential candidate, Mr Mahama, on their qualms with the electoral process.
In his witness statement to the Supreme Court, Mr Mettle-Nunoo corroborated Dr Kpessa-Whyte’s testimony to the court.
Mr Mettle-Nunoo said: “Mrs Jean Mensa informed me that there had been a meeting held earlier in the day between the petitioner and the peace council, something I was unaware of at the time”.
“After I further drew her attention to some of the issues that were coming up in the interactions in the strong room, she said very directly that we should go and speak to the petitioner”.
“Having regard to her earlier reference to the meeting between the peace council and the petitioner, which she had obviously been briefed about, I took seriously, what she said”.
“I did not think that we, who were acting as agents of the petitioner, should be seen as taking positions which may be contrary to what the petitioner himself had conveyed in a meeting that I was unaware of with a body such as the peace council, which, I know has an important role in resolving disputes in connection with elections and calming tensions in the country. She indicated her own willingness to meet with the petitioner”, he wrote in the 32-point statement.
He continued: “I was also struck by the fact that she proposed that she would send a dispatch rider to help us get back to the headquarters of the EC ahead on time for her own exercise of her responsibilities. There was nothing in the discussion which could have given me any reason for doubting the word of the Chairperson of the EC. Indeed, having worked with her previously when I was a consultant to the IEA, I had no reason not to trust her. I took her at her word and I must say I was really shocked to realise how she had proceeded to make a declaration of results at a time when she knew that my colleague and I have left the premises at her instance. I can still remember her saying that she would even send a dispatch rider to hasten our return to the EC headquarters after our consultations with the petitioner”.
“Yet, my colleague and I realised with shock, when on our reaching the residence of the petitioner that the EC Chairperson was in the process of announcing the results. The petitioner naturally asked how this was possible when the same person had sent us with a message for him”.
“Attempts I made to reach the Chairperson of the EC by phone for clarification proved futile as she had turned off her phone. Clearly, the EC Chairperson had not been transparent and truthful and had taken advantage of the absence of the two representatives of the petitioner to make a premature and unconstitutional declaration. She acted with extreme bad faith, unfairly, unreasonably, and with no regard to due process”.
“I can still not believe she did what she did in the light of my experience over the years with elections in this country”.
“I have known that a declaration has to be transparent and the results must be justified by facts, figures and a transparent tally and collation of results. Clear errors, as have been admitted by the EC in this election, undermine the credibility of the whole and also casts grave doubts on the integrity of those assigned responsibilities for the free, fair and transparent conduct of elections. It is impossible to sweep these matters under the carpet”, he added.
