Pratt is talking like someone from the village - NPP

A member of the communication team of the opposition New Patriotic Party, Hopeson Adoryeh has disagreed with a submission by Kwesi Pratt asking whether the nine-member panel adjudicating on the case are the only people in the country comprehensively knowledgeable about the law.

Citing the NPP's decision to contest the 2012 electoral results by filing a petition at the Supreme Court to buttress his point, the seasoned journalist sought to find out if the nine-member panel adjudicating on the case are the only people in the country comprehensively knowledgeable about the law.

According to Hopeson Adoryeh, it is surprising to hear an astute journalist like Kwesi Pratt whose comments on the court case disprove his credibility as a journalist in Ghana.

“Why is Kwesi Pratt talking like someone in my village and or is he doing this to please his pay masters?” he inquired.

Speaking on “Ghana Decides” program on Okay FM, the NPP communicator said that the judges of the Supreme Court and the lawyers of the various parties in court are not there to play if the verdict will remain the same.

According to him, the framers of the constitution foresaw the possibility of such future occurrence; as such the idea was to settle election disputes to make way for the right person to win the mandate of Ghanaians.

He affirmed that the petition before the Supreme Court will see power changing hands to the deserving person, adding that the cross examination which is being conducted by the President’s counsel, Tony Lithur has no effect on the analysis made by Dr. Bawumia on the CD ROM.

He again said Dr. Bawumia is very confident to answer the questions which will be put before him, and that the adjudication is on figures which the running mate of Nana Akufo-Addo for 2012 election on the ticket of NPP is well endowed with.

He further said that the proceedings in court is for people who are knowledgeable in the law, saying that the perception that this court case cannot unseat President Mahama if the case favors the Petitioners is a not true.