By
Felix Engsalige Nyaaba
Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, the star witness in the election petition case on his third day cross
examination by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the National Democratic
Congress(NDC) admitted that there were
statistical errors in the over 11,000
exhibits that the petitioners have attached to their affidavit as evidence
before the court.
In a heated cross examination by the NDC counsel,
the witness told the court in his answers that the duplication of pink sheets
as exhibits were statistical errors made by the petitioners during the
compilations of evidence in the case.
Some of the exhibits used as evidence and attached
to the petitioners are far excess in quadruple, triples and twice from one
polling station to another in all the 11, 138 polling station results that the
petitioners are seeking to annul.
Tsatsu
Tsikata
Mr. Tsikata took Bawumia through a hell of question,
which led him to admitted on several occupation that some of the exhibits were
done in his absence as against his earlier statement that the exhibit were all
done in his presence and that he could attest to the fact that, there was no an
attempt to mislead the court with duplication of pink sheets.
However, the manner of question thrown at the
witness yesterday witnesses another fiery legal argument between Mr. Tsikata
and Mr. Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners.
The NDC lawyer, asked the witness to identify and
confirm if the pink sheets that they duplicated in quadruples were all done his
presence or in the presence of other members and who were they.
The witness then mentioned Mr., Akoto Ampaw and Ms
Gloria Akuffo, as members of the legal team and some members from his9Bawumia)
teamn who witnessed the compilation and stamping of the exhibits by a
commissioner of oath.
But Mr. Tsikata dissatisfied the answer and further
asked the witness if there were any other members, beside the two legal counsel
members,
Addison
Lead counsel for the petitioners objected to the
question for further names of persons present during the compilation of the
exhibits.
For him, the it was irrelevant in the case and that
the question that Tsikata asked has been answered appropriately and that there
was no basis for further question as to the specific number of persons who
witness the compilation of the evidence.
Tony
Lithur
Lead counsel for president John Mahama intervened
and said the question asked by Mr Tsikata was relevant in the cross
examination, because in his view the question sought to exposed the witness
credibility as to whether he was giving a
truthful evidence or trying to
mislead the court.
He also argued that, if the witness said it on oath
that he supervises the stamping of the exhibits, but in another vain testifying
that he did so with a third party and that it was relevant for the court to
know who those third parties are.
Addison
He said the argument advanced by Mr. Lithur was
irrelevant, for in his view, the witness was being cross examined by the third
respondent in the case and that Mr. Lithur as counsel for the first respondent
has no locus in arguing over his objections.
Lithur.
“I think counsel got it wrong, we are necessary
party, we are a party in this case, and so whatever happened we have interest,
we are concern. My Lords , I think counsel is missing a point, the witness told
this court that, he was the one who did all the exhibits and if today he is
telling as there was a third party , then we need to known who that third
parties are?”
The argument and counterarguments between two legal
luminaries had provoked Mr. Tsikata to told Mr Addison that he was an
inexperience lawyer in cross examination.
Mr. Addison was also asked to shut up in his attempt
to raise legal objection over the manner in which the questions were asked on
his witness.
Court
“We are of the opinion that the question asked by
counsel on the witness has no relevance, objection by petitioner’s counsel is
hereby sustained.
The argument by counsel for the first respondent
objection to the petitioners objection is hereby disallowed, counsel, Mr
Tsikata, you may continue,” court upheld objection.
However, after several question on duplicate pink
sheets to the witness, the court adjourned the matter to today for
continuation.
Mr. Tsikata has cross examined on his evidence in
chief that there were massive irregularities,, malpractices and statutory
violation during the 2012 presidential
election and that the results from 11,138 polling station should be annul.
Earlier the Supreme Court sent a caution notices to
lawyers both in and outside the court and the media over misinterpretations of
its ruling in cases in the ongoing election petition case.
Mr. Justice William Atuguba, Chairman of the nine
member panel of the Supreme Court hearing the election petition case served the
caution notices over its last week Wednesday ruling on cases before it.
According to the court, some elements in the general
public, especially lawyers and some journalist have misinterpreted the ruling
it delivered in connection with Mr. Benony Tony Amekudzi, a legal practitioner
who was seeking leave of the court to file documents in the petition case as amicus-curers,
otherwise known as friend of the court.
Justice Atuguba stated that, the court dismissed the
motion for amicus-curers, on grounds of procedural errors, but some lawyers as well as journalist and some social
commentator have interpreted to the effect that the motion was thrown out simply because there
was no an affidavit attached to the motion.
He noted that in cases such as the amicus-curers motion,
the court do not dismiss them on
one error, but a number of legal and
procedural process which are not been followed and urged lawyers to consult the court for
understanding , while the journalist also seek clarification from lawyers.
Justice Atuguba further stated that, the court has
inherence jurisdiction over the matter before it and that it was not wrong in
the decision taking in respect of the amicus-curer.
Mr. Justice Sule Gbadebey, a member of the panel
also took a swift on lawyers for attacking judges on issues occurred in the
court room.
He said since judges do not have the opportunity to sit on
radio and television set to argue on their ruling , it was incumbent on lawyers
as friends of the court to take the step
and educate the general public about decision taking in court.
According to him, after the court ruling on the
application brought by Mr. Bernard Mornah, the General Secretary of the People
National Convention (PNC), some members of the general public including lawyers verbally attacked judges and described them as timid over the
decision they took in that application.
He also cautioned that, if lawyers do not desist
from such utterances, it would weaken the country rules and governance and that
the country democratic will sink down.
“ We all know that this is the first time we are
trying cases such as this , but I must say some of your critics are very bad,
how can you described judges as timid? . We also know your arguments, but you
must be circumspect and civil. You also know that we have the power as judges,
but as human we cannot do as the way you are doing outside there,” Justice
Gbadebey cautioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment