Johnson Asiedu Nketia, General Secretary for the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and a principal witness for President John Dramani Mahama, the First Respondent in the on-going election petition suit being heard at the Supreme Court says he cannot be embarrassed by the legal team of the petitioners when he takes his turn to testify because he does not “lie”.
He strongly believed the opposition will not be a match for him because of his honest approach in addressing issues.
“I speak my mind and say things which some people consider unpleasant. But if those are the truthful positions, I don’t fear espousing them,” he said.
Speaking to Radio Gold, the NDC Chief Scribe indicated that he was ready to face the petitioners’ lawyers and so, expressed no worry over his cross-examination, stating firmly that “every citizen of the country must hold himself or herself ready to testify in any court of competent jurisdiction when he’s called upon. It is one of the duties of a good citizen.”
Touching on the live broadcast of the election case, Mr. Asiedu Nketia, also called General Mosquito, urged the media to expose the petitioners for wrongly accusing President John Mahama of stealing.
He said when the President was pronounced victor in the 2012 general elections, the three leaders of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and their members labelled President Mahama as a “thief”, accusing him of conniving with the Electoral Commission (EC) to rig the elections.
But to him, the NPP 2012 Vice Presidential candidate, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, in his cross-examination on Wednesday admitted that his party is not accusing the President of any wrongdoing but rather contesting the declaration by the EC.
He wondered why the NPP keep shifting the goalpost and so, called on the media to “join the bandwagon to straighten these records and then to expose the NPP of trying to accuse His Excellency the President wrongly.”
He therefore questioned the NPP’s logic for casting accusations on the President “if Electoral Commission by your own petition in court are not being accused of stealing anything, how could the beneficiary of their [whatever, assuming without admitting that it is true, how could the beneficiary of their] inefficiencies be classified as a thief?”