After lawyers of both sides argued their cases in court citing authorities on Tuesday, the apex court set Thursday to determine the issue in contention.
It would be recalled that on Monday, lawyer for the Electoral Commission (EC), Justin Amenuvor, served notice his witness and chairperson of the EC Jean Mensa will not give any evidence in the ongoing Election 2020 petition hearing.
On Monday, Amenuvor told the Supreme Court to decide the petition filed by former president John Mahama on its merit.
“The case of the first respondent is that we do not wish to adduce any evidence. Our case is closed,” he said basing his argument on Order 36 (4) sub rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rule ), C.I 47, which he argued allowed the respondent to decide not to adduce any evidence.
He argued that so far as Mrs Mensa has put in a witness statement, and had indicated that she will testify, she had “elected” to give evidence and by the rules of court , she must give the evidence.
It was also the submission of counsel that it was based on the indication by Mrs Mensa to give evidence that led the court to order the parties to file their witness statements.
He argued that that order by the court still stand.
But Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata representing the petitioner John Mahama disagreed.
Justices on the bench such as Justices Getrude Torkornoo, Nii Ashie Kotey and Samuel Marful -Sau asked Mr Tsikata whether a witness can be forced to give evidence.
The court will make a determination on the case on Thursday.
Source: Daily Mail GH