The Supreme Court, as many legal experts indicated, has ruled in favor of the First Respondent when Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the petitioner, sought to coerce her to mount the witness box when her lawyer, Justin Amenuvor, had indicated to the court that she had no intention to do so.
The First Respondent, through lawyer Justin Amenuvor, emphasized that the petitioner had failed to adduce evidence cogent and powerful enough to warrant her to be cross-examined.
In her view, the petitioner came to the Supreme Court alleging some breaches in the discharge of her duties, events he believes impacted adversely on the declared results.
What is, however, worrying is this public interest nomenclature being introduced into the equation. Their view is that in the interest of the public the EC Chair must be cross-examined. The question is, for who and for what? In whose interest should be the topic? What is the charge brought against her and how has it been proven the petitioner to deserve being given the chance to cross-examine her?
Mr. Mahama has not provided a single piece of evidence that she needs to answer. Those pushing that agenda are doing so out of their self-centered interests and not in the interest of the public they claim to serve. What benefit will it serve the public to grant the petitioner his wish? No benefit.
Those pushing this public interest must do so in accordance with the law and not emotions. You talk public interest when you have compelling reasons to do so.
Source: P.K.Sarpong, Whispers from the Corridors of the Thinking Place /peacefmonline
Listen to this article A flagbearer hopeful of the opposition National Democratic Congress…