There are a few things I would like to clarify.
We have personal rights and public rights. Both obviously cannot be the same. Now we have an electoral commissioner who has personal rights as an individual and there are public rights that attach to the office.
An individual could elect not to testify which is a personal right but as a public officer, I don’t think in a court matter where how you executed your job by law as a public officer has been put into question can elect not to adduce evidence.
This is a right that cannot come with the office because if accepted can cut across all public functions of the office and all other public officeholders. Eg. If summoned to appear before parliament you could claim not to want to testify. Any public officer can take advantage of this and get away with lots of bad things. It is never in the interest of the public to allow a public officer to rely on personal rights to evade or avoid accountability attached to the office.
Also, by filing a Witness Statement she has already elected to adduce evidence and cannot as a public officer be made to retract her footsteps.
This is my opinion but the Law is in the bosom of the judge so let’s see how it goes.
By Lawyer Isaac M.Larbi
Source: Mybrytfmonline.com/Obed Ansah
