Before any party in a case will choose not to testify, that party must be 200 per cent sure that the opponent has a weak case, a private legal practitioner, Martin Kpebu, has said.

His comment comes after Lawyer for the Electoral Commission (EC) Justin Amenuvor on Monday, February 8 moved to close his case in the ongoing election petition hearing after the cross-examination of the third witness of the petitioner, Rojo Mettle Nunoo without Jean Mensa being cross-examined.

Mr Amenuvor told the court that given the evidence of the petitioner’s witnesses who were crossed examined in the case, they do not want to lead any further evidence.

“Given the evidence of the petitioner’s witnesses under cross-examination so far, of those witnesses, speaking for the 1st respondent, it is the 1st respondent’s case that we do not wish to lead any further evidence and therefore we are praying that this matter proceeds under Oder 36 Rule 43 and CI 87 rule 3 (e) 5, we hereby and on that basis close our case.”
Lead Counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, however, objected to the move by lawyer for the 1st Respondent.

Hearing has been adjourned to Tuesday, February 8 ” for legal argument,” on this matter the Chief Justice said.

Speaking on this development on Joy News, Mr Kpebu expressed surprised at this decision.

He said “I was surprised because I didn’t know she will use such a tool in her toolbox. In law that is permitted anyway but before any party chooses not to testify then that party must be 200% sure that the case of the opponent would not stand firm.

“That is the real meaning of Madam Jean Mensa’s election not to testify.”