Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah has told the second witness of the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing at the Supreme Court, Dr Michael Kpessa-Whye while under cross-examination to stop delivering lectures and rather answer the questions.

During proceedings on Tuesday, February 2, a lawyer for the 1st Respondent, Justice Amenuvor told Dr Kpessa-Whyte that “You are well aware that failure or refusal to sign and leaving the form blank was not an option.”

In an attempt to respond to this, Kpessa-Whye said: “My Lords, in the strong room our understanding was that we were there to make sure that ultimately, whatever is declared as the outcome of the election reflect the will of the people.”

It was at this point that Chief Justice Kwasi Anin intervened and said “Dr. Kpessa-Whyte, please answer the question. Who doesn’t know that the strong room is for you to go through whatever has been submitted.”

Lead counsel for the petitioner Tsastsu Tsikata then stepped in and replied to the Chief Justice that “My Lords, I believe he was in the process of answering.”

Justice Anin said again that “The witness doesn’t have to be allowed to give a lecture before he answers the questions.”

Kpessa-Whye further told the Supreme Court that he has no reason to lie to the justices against the Chairperson of the 1st Respondent, Jean Mensa.

This comes after the lawyer of EC Mr Amenuvor had told the court that his claim that Jean Mensa asked the representatives of the petitioner in the strong room to leave, is not the case.

Mr Amenuvor said Kpessa-Whyte and his colleague took the decision to move away from the strong room and not on the instruction of Mrs Mensa.

But Dr Kpessah-Whyte insisted during the cross-examination on Tuesday, February 2 that they were instructed to leave the place by the EC chair.

During proceedings, the EC’s lawyer said: “I put it to you that you were not instructed by the Chairperson of the first respondent to leave the room.”

In response, the witness said “My Lords we were instructed by the first respondents. I have no reason ever to just lie or deceive this honourable court if that was not the case. As I have indicated our leaving there was not in secret.”