Here are the paragraphs of Asiedu Nketia’s witness statement struck out by the Supreme Court

The seven-member panel of the Supreme Court hearing the 2020 presidential election petition, following a lengthy argument by counsels on Friday, ruled to strike out 7 paragraphs in the petitioner’s witness statement.

The statement was that of the General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, who is the first of two witnesses of the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama.

Lawyer Akoto Ampaw, counsel for the second respondent (President Akufo-Addo) was the first to raise objections, asking the court to strike out ten paragraphs in the witness statement. According to him, they were “not based on the pleadings of the petitioner, unduly prejudicial and scandalous”.

He was opposed by the petitioner’s lead counsel, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata, who argued that the objections were preposterous.

Lawyer Justin Amenuvor, lead counsel for the Electoral Commission supported Mr Akoto Ampaw’s objections.

Consequently, the Supreme Court justices ruled to maintain three out of the ten paragraphs objected to, and ruled to expunge the remaining seven.

The paragraphs maintained were paragraphs 21, 32 and 33. The expunged ones are paragraphs 6, 7, 25, 26, 28, 30 and 3.

Read from the statement of the witness the expunged paragraphs as well as the maintained ones below:

Read Below excerpts of the court’s ruling on the matter:

The 1st and 2nd respondents have raised objections to portions of the witness statements of Mr. John Asiedu Nketia who has been sworn in this court as PW1.

The objections to these paragraphs precisely paragraphs 21, 6, 7, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 37. Both counsels based their objections to the witness statements of PW1 on two grounds that some of the paragraphs under attack are not based on the pleadings on record and some of the statements are unduly scandalous and prejudicial. It will be preferable to set out the paragraphs in the witness statements which in our view are amenable to be struck out.

We are of the opinion that paragraphs 6and 7 ought to be struck out as the witness (Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia) cannot testify on the facts in the said paragraphs. It would have been admissible if the petitioner himself is testifying and the statements in the said paragraphs are not within the knowledge of the witness.