Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko a known and leading member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) has indicated that Lawyer Akoto Ampaw did an excellent job at the Supreme Court today contrary to reviews on social media.

According to him, the Second respondent’s lawyer sought to expose the NDC’s John Dramani Mahama’s petition which he describes as empty.

He indicated that his questions sought to expose the fact that regardless of what additions and subtractions made on the figures declared by the Electoral Commission’s Chairperson, the second respondent emerged as the winner in the 2020 elections.

“Akoto Ampaw did a professional job today at the Supreme Court. His questions were germaine, approach meticulous and elicited answers that were wholly exhaustive in exposing the case of the petitioner as empty and of no material blow to the declaration of Dec 9, correction of Dec 10, or any other corrections based on any “moving targets” of numbers that the petitioner claimed and sought to rely on,” he said.

He added : “His task was simple: to prove to the court that no matter which figures you use, which alleged vote padding you delete, even if you accept all the numbers challenged or alleged by the petitioner, Nana Akufo-Addo still clears the over 50% hurdle as required by the 1992 Constitution. So, you may ask: if that’s the case, then why is John Mahama in court?”



READ HIS FULL POST ON FACEBOOK HERE:

Akoto Ampaw did a professional job today at the Supreme Court. His questions were germaine, approach meticulous and elicited answers that were wholly exhaustive in exposing the case of the petitioner as empty and of no material blow to the declaration of Dec 9, correction of Dec 10, or any other corrections based on any “moving targets” of numbers that the petitioner claimed and sought to rely on.

His task was simple: to prove to the court that no matter which figures you use, which alleged vote padding you delete, even if you accept all the numbers challenged or alleged by the petitioner, Nana Akufo-Addo still clears the over 50% hurdle as required by the 1992 Constitution.

So, you may ask: if that’s the case, then why is John Mahama in court?

If the petitioner does not know what is really going on with his own case then he will be well advised to take a big cue from the three questions posed to his witness by the bench before he was discharged. (1) Whether the NDC collated their own figures, as said by the General Secretary in the witness box, and if so what was the total valid votes that they found from their own calculations(2) what was the number of valid votes that per their calculation their own candidate, the petitioner, John Mahama, got (3) what was the number of valid votes that the 2nd respondent, Nana Akufo-Addo got from their own calculations?

To all three questions, the witness answered that they don’t have any numbers. And, just as he admitted under cross-examination, he told the bench that they did not come to court with their own figures to challenge the results but that they are in court relying on the figures that the 1st respondent, the EC itself declared, corrected, corrected, added and/or amended to ask for a re-run!