Lead Counsel for the petitioner in the ongoing presidential election petition hearing, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata has told the Supreme Court on Monday February 15 that he closed the petitioner’s case because he thought the Chairperson of the 1st Respondent, Mrs Jean Adukwei Mensa will make herself available for cross-examination.

Mr Tsikata told the apex court that the affidavit of the 1st Respondent indicated that she will testify in the case hence, their earlier decision to close their case for that to happen.

“We had the expectation that the chairperson of the 1st Respondent will testify” hence the closure of the case.

“The Chairperson of the 1st Respondent has in affidavit made clear that the petitioner will in no way be prejudiced because the questions that the petitioner sought to have in interrogatories those will be subject matter in cross examination,” Mr Tsikata told the court.

Lawyers of Mr Mahama on Thursday, February 11 declared their intention to re-open the case in order to subpoena Mrs Mensa as the Returning Officer of last year’s presidential elections to testify.

It followed the unanimous dismissal of an earlier application to force witnesses of both respondents – EC and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo – to appear in the witness box.

The respondents had closed their case by voting not to present their witnesses in court.

But the petitioner filed the application to get the Chair of the EC, in particular, to make an appearance in the interest of the public.

In her affidavit, calling for the dismissal of the petitioner’s application, Mrs Mensa stated: “I believe that there are more convenient fora (forums) for ventilating the so-called public interest issues and further that this should not form the basis of the Petitioner re-opening his case in a Presidential Elections Petition in Court.”

She expressed surprise how the petitioner, after closing his case on his own volition, will come back again to request that the case be re-open.

“I am advised that even if this Court grants leave for the Petitioner to reopen its case; it ought not cause a subpoena to be issued against me because a subpoena is issued with coercive effect.

“The Honourable Court, having held that I rightly exercised the option of my right not to testify would be overriding its earlier decision to order that I be compelled to testify.”