“My Lord, I Disagree with You”: Courtroom Communication Strategies During Cross-Examination in the 2012 Election Petition in Ghana

Abstract

This paper presents an empirical study on courtroom communication strategies adopted during cross-examination of witnesses in the 2012 election petition in Ghana. The study relied on qualitative secondary evidence drawing on archival information on the 2012 election petition and by conducting a content analysis of the data. Participants classified as star witnesses and lawyers who largely cross-examined the star witnesses during the electoral dispute in the Supreme Court were purposefully sampled for the study. Using Aristotle’s persuasive appeals and litigation communication theory, the findings demonstrated how lawyers and witnesses adopted the hostile, soft and conversational communication styles for different purposes during cross-examination. It also emerged that the three persuasive appeals: logos, pathos and ethos were deployed for effective cross-examination, although the logos strategy seemed to be the most widely adopted mode of presenting proof in the legal communication processes. Significantly, the observations from the study point to the strategic role of communication in litigation, litigants’ expectations of courts and judicial interventions. Therefore, understanding how to use communication purposefully is crucial to guarantee the right information is conveyed to build trust, credibility, and to ultimately, improve perceptions of procedural justice and fairness in the legal process. There has been little research that examines communication processes and cross-examination regarding election petitions in courtroom contexts. In contrast to the predominantly focused simulated cases on courtroom discourses, this paper makes a real-case scholarly contribution on how communication strategies can be leveraged in the justice system. The findings have useful implications for judges, lawyers and expert witnesses in courtroom legal proceedings.