Tsatsu Tsikata, Lead Counsel for the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, has punched holes in the evidence of Attorney-General’s first witness, Richard Takyi-Mensah.
Mr. Tsikata punched the holes in an effort to discredit the witness’ evidence before the Criminal High Court ‘3’, presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, yesterday.
The witness, under cross-examination, was asked in which language the police took his statement?
The prosecution first witness (PW1) said he spoke in English, but documents tendered and adopted in court indicated that Mr. Takyi-Mensah spoke in the Twi language, and the same was recorded and translated for him.
Prior to this, Lawyer Tsikata asked the witness if someone claimed that he spoke in the Twi language in making the police statement, whether that person would be telling the truth, but PW1 insisted that he spoke in English.
He further told the court that the statement was made and signed on the same day.
However, after his statement was given to him to read in open court, the witness said he could have spoken in Twi inadvertently during the course of giving the statement.
The witness also indicated that he learned about complaints made to the Electoral Commission against the Legislator from an article online, as well as some of the processes in the civil case that were served through him.
The cross-examination followed the shooting down of the motion to stay proceedings by the defence, pending the determination of an application at the Court of Appeal and Certerirar at the Supreme Court.
The court held that there was no order before it from the supervisor courts suspending its proceedings, hence, dismissed the application.
Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, after quashing the application, called on the witness to mount the box for the continuation of the cross-examination.
Excerpts of how the witness was grilled:
Q. Have you ever been to the premises of the Electoral Commission in Accra?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware of a complaint lodged with the Electoral Commission against the candidacy of the accused person in December 2020?
A. I read about it.
Q. And you were aware that following that complaint the Electoral Commission went into the matter of the complaint?
A. I read about it.
Q. Are you aware of it from what you read?
A. Yes, my lady, per what I read.
Q. And you are aware that the complaint was that he was not qualified to stand for that election?
A. My lady, per what I read, a group sent [a] complaint to the Electoral Commission.
Q. And you are aware that the complaint was based on his owing allegiance to a country other than Ghana. Are you aware of that?
A. Per what I read, that was what the complaint was.
Q. And you are aware that the Electoral Commission invited the complainant, as well as the accused, to appear before it?
A. Per what I read, the EC went into it, and if my memory serves me right, the complaint was around 24th October, 2020.
Q. And you are aware that the EC cleared the accused person to stand?
A. Per what I read, the EC invited the complainant and the accused to a meeting, and based on what the accused told the EC, and based on that the Supreme Court cleared him.
Q. The EC cleared the accused person. Are you aware of that?
A. Yes. Per what I read, the EC did clear him based on what the accused put before the EC.
Q. Where did you read this?
A. If my memory serves me, I think it was a report on the net, and also as I stated earlier, some of the processes in the civil case were served to the petitioner through me, so I got to read some of the documents served on the petitioner through me.
Q. So you realise that the accused participated in that election on the basis of being cleared by the EC?
A. Yes. Based on what the accused told the EC.
Q. You cannot say on what basis the EC cleared him.
A. I am saying this was based on what I read.
Q. You are also aware that the EC asked the complainant to provide evidence that the accused owed allegiance to a country other Ghana?
A. I cannot say exactly that.
A. When you yourself sent a petition to the Director General, CID, you claimed that you will provide evidence…?
Q. And you also made a statement to the police after you sent the petition?
A. Yes.
Q. In what language?
A. English.
Q. You signed the police statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Just have a look at this document and see if that is your signature?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. If anybody claims that you spoke in Twi in making that statement they would not be telling the truth?
A. I already said I have the statement in English.
Q. Read the first statement…
A. “Complainant spoke in Twi language, and same taken down in English.”
Q. Is that the true statement?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You signed this document according to you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read the document before you signed it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are telling this court that it is not true that you stated something in Twi which was recorded in English by a police officer?
A. I remember narrating everything in [the] English language, but maybe in the course of the narration it could have…
Q. You also wrote in that statement that you were attaching copies of the documents in which the MP made [the] false declarations, and among those document is the statutory declaration the accused made. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. So if anybody says to the court that you did not attach that statutory declaration, they will not be telling the truth?
A. The person might be telling the truth, because I did attach all the documents that I had….
Mr. Quayson is being tried for perjury and forgery.
Hearing continuous today.
