A spokesperson for the legal team of the 2nd respondent in the ongoing election petition hearing, Nana Adjoa Adobea has said that the petitioner, Mr John Dramani Mahama has not been able to satisfy the burden of proof in the case.

She said, the inability of Mr Mahama to meet the burden of proof occasioned the decision by the respondents not to elect to testify in the hearing.

“Based on the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it further vindicated our position that this petition does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that is why we elected not to adduce evidence.

“The petitioner’s evidence vindicated our position that he has not in any way satisfied the burden of proof,” she told Abena Tabi, host of the Key Points on TV3 Saturday February 13.

Meanwhile, a member of the legal team of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Kojoga Adawudu has noted that Mr Mahama has made a strong case in court.

He also said on the key Points that even if the chairperson of the 1st Respondent, Jean Mensa does not appear in the witness box to testify, the petitioner still has a solid case before the highest court.

“Even if she doesn’t come into the box, we have made a compelling case. Without defendant it does not mean our case has not been made,” he told host of the show Abena Tabi.

The Supreme Court said that the Chair of the Electoral Commission (EC) Jean Mensa and Campaign Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in last year’s elections, Peter Mac Manu cannot be compelled to mount the witness box to be cross examined in the ongoing election petition.

The apex court said this on Thursday February 11 when delivering its ruling on whether or not Mrs Adukwei Mensa, should mount the witness box to be cross-examined.

During proceedings on Tuesday, February 9, lawyers for the 1st and 2nd respondents, Justin Amenuvor and Akoto Ampaw respectively, told the Court that the petitioner cannot compel them to elect witnesses to appear in the witness box.

During legal arguments on a move by the respondents not to testify in the case, Mr Akoto Ampaw told the Court: “The petitioner cannot compel us to enter the witness box to adduce evidence.”

He added: “The petitioner has adduced evidence and closed his case. We have taken the position that in our assessment, they have not discharged the burden of proof and the burden of producing evidence and, therefore, we will not give further evidence and the Court will determine the case on the evidence before it

Lawyers for the two respondents on Monday, February 8 moved to close their cases without their witnesses being cross-examined.

Lawyer for the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing, Mr Tsikata has filed for a review of the Supreme Court ruling that the Chair of the electoral Commission (EC), Jean Mensa, cannot be compelled to mount the witness box for cross examination.

Mr Tsikata also subpoena Mrs Adukwei Mensa.

Mr Tsikata told the court on Thursday February 11 that: “We are applying to reopen our case and on that basis we are issuing a subpoena addressed to the chairperson of the electoral commission of Ghana.