EC MOUNTS WITNESS BOX TODAY

By:  Felix Engsalige Nyaaba

Accra, Thursday 30^th May, 2013

Mr. Amadu Sulley, the Deputy Chariman of the Electoral Commission (EC) in Charge of Administration and Finance, will today mount the witness box to testify in evidence in-chief.

He is expected to give account of the 2012 election which had generated into a legal tussle at the Supreme Court through a petition filed by three leading members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

Mr. Sulley, who has sworn all the affidavit of the EC as the second respondent in the ongoing election petition case, is billed to take over from Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia, the General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), who was yesterday discharged from the witness after giving his evidence and also cross examined by all parties in the suit.

The evidence by the EC witness will  by far extension give the Supreme me Court the opportunity to assess the merit and the substance of the petitioners allegations that the 2012 presidential election was characterized by massive irregularities and malpractices amidst statutory violation of election procedures.

Mr. Aseidu Nketiah in his evidence -in-chief  to the Court, said the  allegation by the petitioners were without merits and that it was filed  selectively out of bad faith.

The evidence was led on four categories of irregularities as spelt out by the petitioners and rebutted each of the allegations.

He stated for instance, that it was not true for the star witness for the petitioners, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, to state that polling stations were recognized by their serial numbers.

He explained that in his 34 years of observing elections in the country, polling stations had always been recognized by their names and unique codes, adding that serial numbers did not impact on the results of elections.

Mr  Aseidu Nketia, popularly called General Mosquito, in his evidence in-chief and on cross examination stated that polling station names and codes were crafted such that anyone conversant with elections would recognize polling stations by letters of the alphabet, except I, for each of the 10 regions of the country.

He stated for example, that the code number for the Brong Ahafo Region begins with G, while those for the Greater Accra and the Ashanti regions began with C and F, respectively.

According to him, no polling agent, as far as he was concerned, had received training on serial numbers as security features.

Mr Aseidu  Nketia refuted allegations of over-voting, voting without biometric verification, the call for the annulment of votes at the polling stations which had the same serial numbers, no signature of some presiding officers on some pink sheets, as well as voting taking place at some 23 unknown locations.

He gave contrary evidence to the petitioners’ claim and stated that each of the alleged infractions was false and made in bad faith.

Over-voting

Responding to the petitioners’ claim that over-voting was recorded during the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential poll, the witness replied that there was nowhere that over-voting took place.

To him, over-voting meant the number of ballot papers in ballot boxes exceeded the number of people at a particular polling station and stated that in that particular instance, there was no complaint from any polling agent, as well as an indication that any polling agent had registered any form of protest.

Reacting to Dr Bawumia’s claim that over-voting meant ballots cast exceeded the number of ballots issued, Mr Nketia said, “I have heard of it. This is the first time over-voting has been defined that way in my 34 years of observing elections in this country.”

In any case, Mr Nketia stated that he was not aware of anyone filing a formal complaint at any polling station with regard to the issue of over-voting.

Voting Without Biometric Verification

On the petitioners’ allegations that some voters were allowed to vote without undergoing biometric verification, Mr Nketia indicated that it was not true and further pointed out that he was not aware that there was any formal complaint in that regard.

Touching on allegations that the President directed the EC to allow persons to vote without undergoing biometric verification, he disagreed with assertions that that statement amounted to instructing the EC, adding that several prominent personalities also appealed to the EC not to disenfranchise anyone because of biometric verification.

Mr Nketia further indicated that the petitioners’ party also issued a counter press statement, adding that the EC eventually declined the request to allow persons to vote without undergoing biometric verification. 

The witness was shown copies of some pink sheets which said persons voted without undergoing prior biometric verification but he repudiated that assertion and attributed such errors to “clerical errors”, adding, “All polling agents have certified these results.”

Polling Stations with Same Serial Numbers

Reacting to calls by the petitioners for some votes to be annulled because some polling stations had the same serial numbers, Mr Nketia said the petitioners did not appreciate how voting was organised and explained that polling stations where special voting took place had two declarations of results on double pink sheets.

He described special voting as polls conducted for persons who would not be available at their various polling stations on the day of polls and further indicated that sorting and counting of ballot papers for those special votes were not done until the close of polls on voting day.

Mr Nketia indicated that in that instance, one would find same polling station numbers and codes on two pink sheets but different signatures of polling agents and presiding officers, adding that every political party knew in advance areas where special voting took place.

Blank Spaces on Pink Sheets

Touching on allegations by Dr Bawumia that blank spaces on pink sheets gave room for over-voting, Mr Nketia denied that assertion and said, “Blank is blank.” 

He also explained that such blank spaces could also be attributed to clerical errors and further pointed out that there was no protest recorded on any pink sheet.

No Signature on Pink Sheets

Witness admitted that the EC had trained polling agents and presiding officers to sign pink sheets after the declaration of results and then forward the sheets to the collation centre.

He stated, however, that nowhere had a presiding officer lodged a formal complaint on why he/she had not signed a pink sheet.

Voting at unidentified 22 Polling Stations

Rebutting the petitioners’ claim that voting took place at 23 unknown polling stations, Mr Nketia said that was not true because the alleged polling stations were all part of the originally designated 26,002 polling stations.

He further explained that polling agents of the petitioners and the other polling agents were all present to observe elections at the said unknown locations.

The witness said he had been involved in meetings of the Inter-Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) prior to the conduct of the December 2012 presidential and at those meetings the modalities and processes to be adopted before and during the elections had been spelt out and agreed upon by the Electoral Commission (EC) and political party representatives.

He explained that all parties agents were deployed to each polling station across the country ensure that: persons who were not entitled to vote did not vote.

He further stated that there was no multiple voting, no one tampered with the content of ballot boxes, focus on the tally of votes cast to avoid cheating, as well as ensure that electoral officers conducted their duties in accordance with the rules that apply to the elections.

Mr.  Aseidu Nketia also indicated that all the political parties were involved in the printing of ballot papers which was to ensure that extraneous materials were not introduced into the ballot papers.

He said the move was also to ensure that ballot papers tallied with polling station codes and further indicated that representatives of the various political parties were also allowed to track the distribution of ballot papers to the various regions, constituencies, districts and polling stations.

He also informed the court that the EC organized training for all agents of political parties and went ahead to show the court a copy of the guidelines issued by the EC for the conduct of the polls.

The witness also took the court through the voting process he underwent on voting day and was asked if he visited other polling stations on the day of the polls. 

Further and Better Particulars.

Counsel for the petitioners Philip Addison in cross examination suggested the National Democratic Congress (NDC) represented by its General Secretary, Johnson Asiedu Nketia submitted 4,941 affidavits and not 5,316 as claimed by the witness.

Mr. Asiedu Nketia  in responds to question posed to him by counsel, told the court that  the third respondent, NDC, intended to submit 7,200 pink sheets in their affidavit,  but due to time constraints they  were able to  submit only 5,316 pink sheets.

But Addison, counsel for petitioners disagreed and said the witness submitted 5,316, which was in shortage of 1884 less of the affidavits.

Counsel added that the number filed by third respondent, 1,278 have been identified by the petitioners legal team as duplicates, while 291 of the affidavits were  not  part of the 11,842 polling stations provided by the petitioners as the collection of exhibits in controversy in court.

Mr. Addison further alleged during cross examination that, 171 of the exhibits provided by the NDC are rather in 703 polling stations that the petitioners were no longer relying on.

But Mr Asiedu Nketia, disagreed and insisted that he cannot confirm revelations made by counsel for petitioners.

Tony Lithur Angered and throw away documents in Court  

Lead Counsel for the President in the election petition case, Mr. Tony Lithur yesterday during cross examination on the first and third respondents witness lost tempers and flung a document and exhibits which the Lead Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Philip Addison attempted bringing to the Court’s notice.

 Mr. Lithur hurled off the exhibit as it was handed over to him for inspection, but following the attitude of the petitioners counsel in his line of question on the witness got angry and threw away the document onto the side of the EC counsel, Mr. James Quashie-Idun.

 Mr. Addison had attempted, in court, to have the key witness for the First and Third Respondents, Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia, who is being cross-examined, identify the document as “the further and better particulars”, provided to the parties and the Court, at the beginning of the trial.

 Mr. Lithur’s flinging of the document in open Court generated brief murmurings among the Court audience.

 His action attracted reaction from Mr. Addison and some members of the bench.

Addison

 “My Lord this is a man who talks about respect in the Supreme Court; this  kind of behavior is not acceptable”.

  Lithur

 “When Counsel seeks to bring that kind of document to Court as further and better particulars, I don’t know what kind of response he expects”.

“My Lords, the further and better particulars were given in volumes, indicating which paragraph is referring to what, and it’s not just one volume; there are several volumes and the matter has already been ruled on by this Court about what the legal effect of the further and better particulars is; they are pleadings and the attempt to tender them was rejected earlier”, he burst out.

He added, “You are talking about respect, I beg your pardon Counsel”,

Justice Baffoe-Bonni

 One of the nine Justices hearing the matter however expressed strong reservations about what he described as Mr. Lithur’s behavior as “condemnable”.

 “Counsel, clearly I mean this behaviour is very much uncalled for, clearly condemnable; you know your behaviour is toward the bench or the Court, you should know that”.

 He added, “It is clearly an affront to the Court”, to throw the docket away was wrong”.

 The President of the nine-member of the Court, Mr.  Justice William Atuguba, concurred with his colleague Justice Baffoe Bonni and said: “I was about to say the same thing, that jettisoning of cargo is not something to be done at the bar”.

 He joked that: “It’s on the high seas that when ships are in trouble that they start jettisoning cargo”.

Mr. Lithur

“I am sorry, I did not meant that way, am sorry so sorry, my Lords, am sorry, he apologized profusely.

The NDC General s Secretary was further questioned on his stand on the No verification No votes, of which he insist that statement allegedly made by the EC chairman has no legal backing and therefore could not be used as a bases to annul the result.

  Following the witness consistent stands on the NVNV,  the petitioners counsel sought permission of the court and paled a voice statement  Mr. Aseidu Nketiah granted to CITIFM, an Accra based private  Radio station after  on the allegation of over voting and voting without Biometric Verification Devices.

After few question on the witness by the petitioners counsel bordering on  his public statements, both on radio and other places,  the  petitioners counsel ended his cross examination.

Counsel for the second respondent, the EC, Mr. James Quashie-Idun, took over the cross examination and ended it after few questions which were also intermittently objected by the petitioners counsel.

According to Mr. Addision lead counsel for the petitioners, the EC counsel was rather conducting re-examination rather than cross examination which he has no opportunity to object if there was a need be.

The court ruled in 5-4 majority sustaining the objection and after few questions on the witness the EC counsel also ended his cross examination.

Hearing continues today and the EC witness, Mr Amdu SULE is expected to give evidence –in-chief before the court.