The hearing for the 2020 Election Petition at the Supreme Court continued today Wednesday February 3, 2021 as hearing started at exactly 9:30am as scheduled.

Tsatsu Tsikata and Lawyer Tony Lithur representing the petitioner, Justin Amenuvor with Somuah Asamoah for 1st Respondent and Akoto Ampaw with Frank Davies, Kwaku Asirifi and Yaw Oppong for 2nd Respondent.

Present at the hearing were National Chairman of NDC, Samuel Ofosu Ampofo, NDC General Secretary Johsnon Asiedu Nketia, running mate for NDC in 2020 election, Prof. Naana Jane Opoku-Agyeman among others.

Supporting the 2^nd Respondent were the NPP National Chairman, Freddie Blay, 2020 NPP Campaign Manager, Peter Mac Manu, National Youth Organizer of the NPP, Henry Nana Boakye, Information Minister designate Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, a lead member of the NPP, Gabby Otchere Darko a among others.

Representing the Electoral Commission were the Chairperson Jean Mensa, and two deputies; Bossman Aasre and Samuel Tettey.

The lead Counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata told the Court of an application he had served and copies given to the Respondents.

The application is to inspect original documents of the 1^st Respondent.

Making a case for his application, Mr. Tsikata submitted that in view of the incessant changes in figures announced by the Chair of the 1st Respondent, it was essential to have access to the originals so as to correctly authenticate the numbers forming the basis of 1st Respondent’s declaration.

He further suggested that lawyers for Respondents had cross-examined their witnesses on some of the documents they sought to inspect.

He cited an example of the Eastern Regional summary sheet, which they were possessed of two but the 1st Respondent was claiming one was a corrected version.

He clinched his submissions by referring to a ruling of the Supreme Court in a similar application in 2013 which was refused.

He argued that in 2013, he submission did not grant that application because the petitioner had put out duplicates of some of the documents he was demanding to inspect.

He informed the Court that in the present situation, they have not put out any figures and are depending on the words in the 1st Respondent’s declaration.

Justice Getrude Torkonoo asked Counsel for the Petitioner what happens after the inspection and his response was that it will enable them to compare with documents they have.

The judge then opined that so the Petitioner has some documents but don’t see the need to bring to the court what they have?

After submission by Lawyer Tsikata, 1^st Respondent's Counsel in the person of Justin Amenuvor stated that the Petitioner has failed to bring the application timeously.

According to him, the application is being filed on the 34th day after the petition was filed. He was of the view that the Petitioner could not assume for himself the power of the Court and decide what procedure to use in the absence of clear rules.

Mr. Amanuvor stated that the witnesses of the Petitioner, Mr. Asiedu Nketia and Dr. Kpessah Whyte had acknowledged under oath that Petitioner had duplicate copies of all the documents being requested henceforth the request was unnecessary.

He concluded that the Petitioner had failed to provide any evidence to support the application hence same should be dismissed.

When he took his turn, the Lead Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent Akoto Ampaw submitted that at the goal of the application by the Petitioner was the question of who had the duty of proving his case and providing sufficient evidence in the case.

He contended that for the Petitioner to demand to inspect the originals of the documents, he must first produce what he has and make a case for it that what is in his position is different from the 1st Respondent’s so as to compel the original copies to be produced.