GENERAL MOSQUITO SHREDS PETITIONERS EVIDENCE AS HE DAZZLES ON THE BOX

Posted on: www.enquirerghana.com

By Felix Engsalige Nyaaba

Accra, Friday May 24, 2013

The General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr. Johnson Aseidu Nketial , aka General Mosquito,  yesterday testified  in the ongoing  presidential election petition before the supreme court and succeeded in punching holes in the evidence of the petitioners.

Mr. Aseidu Nketiah  who was testifying as witness for President John Mahama, the first respondent in the petition, after obtaining a power of attorney,  and NDC as the third respondent in the case, told the court that the president has giving the power to speak on his behalf..

Led in evidence by the lead counsel for the third respondent, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, he told the nine member panel of the Supreme Court that he had  been working  under various capacities  on matters related to the electoral system for over 34 years and that he was adequately informed of the do’s and don’t of the election procedure.

According to him, the 2012 presidential election was the best ever in the electoral process in Ghana since his involvement in election process starting from polling station agent position, parliamentary candidate of which he won some stage  and now a general secretary of the National Democratic Congress. 

Explaining some of the election process, especially the 2012 election,  which also witnessed the country first ever biometric registration process, the witness said based on his position as the general secretary of the NDC, he represented  President John Mahama  who stood  on the ticket of the NDC in all activities before, during and after the elections.

He further stated that during the election there were no any report of complaints of election malpractices, irregularities and statutory violation during the conduct of the polls at the 26, 02,000 polling stations throughout the country as been alleged by the petitioners in their petition.

He told the court in his evidence that, prior to the 2012 election, the Electoral Commission which is also the second respondent in the petition, took all stakeholders through some training regarding regulation and procedures in conducting the election.

Voter Register

Mr.  Aseidu Nketiah said, the EC organized periodic meeting and training for it staff and all political parties official on the biometric registration process and after the registration, copies were given to all parties and that the complaint of voter registration not been adequate by the petitioners was totally untrue and unacceptable.

He said throughout the registration exercises, all parties were given opportunity to have their official train by the  EC on the registration and the election process and that there after the registration exercises all political parties were given copies of the register.

On the issues of over seas voters register, the witness said, all the mission and other security of the UN services who registered outside list were made available to all parties involved in the election process and that it was not true that the register was bloated.

He said after the  general registration exercises was done, the EC further organized mob registration exercise for people who were not able to register at the specific giving dates and those who were outside on national assignment the opportunity to be register.

For that the witness added, all parties were again giving the updated version of the register where they also have their agents in all the  26,00,000 poling stations and he could understand why the petitioners turned round to make allegation of bloated register when all the registers were made available to them.

Over Voting

Testifying on the allegation of over voting as one of the violation in the 2012 presidential elections by the petitioners , Mr. Aseidu Nketiah said there was no over voting recorded in the presidential election and that the petitioners was purely lacking the simple understanding of the election regulations and process.

According to him, an over voting could only be occurred, when the total number of valid vote cast plus the rejected and spoilt ballots are far in excess of the total number of persons registered and qualified to vote.

He told the Supreme Court that, the activities and mistakes that the petitioners classified as election malpractices and irregularities were nothing perculiar to every election throughout the world of democratic countries as they could simply be described as clerical errors.

He further explained to the court that, an over voting could also be detected by simply checking the ballot papers serial numbers recorded in the results booklet which is also known as the pink sheets, adding that when the serial number of the ballot paper do not tally with the number of ballots issued to a particular polling station, then it could constituted over voting.

He denied the assertion by the petitioners that there were over voting in certain polling station which amounted to violation of election regulation and process, adding that all political parties were having their agents present and there was no record of any protest against any result at the poling station or the collation center.

Mr. Aseidu Nketiah testified that, it was through the results obtained from the various polling stations which was also not contested by any polling agent that the EC used in declaring the election and therefore wondered why the petitioners would now be seeking for same results to be annul.

Voting Without Biometric Device (BVD)

On the issue of voting without the biometric device, the NDC general Secretary in his evidence in-chief told the court that the use of biometric devices in  election was the first time in the country and that prior to the general election, all parties and their agents were trained on the use of the biometric machine during the election.

He said the EC at a time  held meeting between parties at the inter-party Advisory Committee(IPAC)  on issues regarding the uses of the BVD and that in those meeting it was made clear that the machines was going be use for the 2012 general election.

According to the witness, a pilot  exercises was organized  on the use of the machine with the involvement of all stakeholders in the 2012 elections and after that it was agreed at the IPAC meeting that all qualified voters must all pass through the biometric verification machine before casting their votes, which later became “ No Verification No Vote (NVNV).

Mr. Aseidu Nketiah in his testimony told the Supreme court that he voted at his constituency in the Tain District in the Brong Ahafo Region, and went through the verification process before casting his vote on that day, adding that it was during in the middle of the voting on the December 7, 2012 that some polling stations machines developed problem and some were replaced, but places that could not get replace machines were postpone till the next day.

He said despites all those election lapses, there was no any specific complain lodge by any party agent that some people were allowed to vote without going through the BVD system, adding that it was during the first day when there were reports and sentiments that some people would be disenfranchised that the president John Mahama as well as some chief and other prominent citizens made appeal to the EC to allow people to vote due to the breakdown of the machines.

Asked if the president appeal was in the form of decree or order to the EC to allow people to vote, the witness said it was not a command but rather an appeal since he was the President of the republic of Ghana, adding that if any voter had voted without the BVD there could have been a complaint lodged by the any of the parties agents president in those polling stations.

Petitioners Allegations

The witness in his evidence yesterday further told the court that prior to the declaration of the presidential results, the some members of the petitioners made some statements to the election was free and fair and that no one either the president or the third respondent, NDC should make any attempt to stop the EC from declaring the election results.

He said the petitioners prior to the announcement of the result said in various platform that they were winning the election and that it was the first ever free and fair election held in the country, but when they later realized they were losing the election they quickly wrote a petition to the EC asking to delay the declaration till they find the evidence to support their claims of irregularities and malpractices characterizing the election.

Mr. Aseidu told the court that at no point in time did the EC or any of the parties received complaints of irregularities during the collation of the results at the various polling stations and that the allegation of irregularities and malpractices were noting true and that the petitioners have no case.

He added that at all the [polling stations that the petitioners alleged of the lection violation the pink sheets have been signed by all parties’ agents including then petitioners party agents were trained on the regulation and process of the lection.

The NDC general Secretary also denied that president John Mahama defrauded the 2012 election results with the help of the Electoral Commission, adding that there was no iota of truth in the allegation by the petitioners and further challenged the petitioners to prove any evidence of malpractices, manipulation or statutory violation reported at the polling station in dispute.

He said  the petitioners have since failed to prove the evidence of malpractices as they kept on changing the  allegations with regards to the number of polling stations affected from 4,82200, to 11,916 000 , which he noted was later changed  to 11,842 and now battling on 11,138,00 polling stations.

“My Lords, I could not as at now tell the court the number of polling station that the petitioners are seeking their redress, because, my Lords, the figure kept on changing, first it was about 4,000 plus, from there to 11,916, 000, then from that figure to 11,842 and now they are saying 11, 138,000 or so, but we do not know whether they would change again or not, he said.”

Objection

Lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Philip Addison in his usual line of interjection, raised several objections to the manners of question that was asked to the witness by the respondents lead counsel, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata.

According to the petitioners counsel, Mr. Tsikata was asking the witness irrelevant and leading question, to which in his view was legally incorrect since the witness stamen could prejudicial to the case.

Tsikata:  Mr Aseidu Nketiah, did you voted in the 2012 elections?

Witness: yes, I voted in my constituency, in the Tain District of the Brong Ahafo Region. My Lords,   luckily enough for me, my polling station is just in front of my house, so I was the first person to voted and when I got there the polling station officials took my card, check it in the register and compared it with my physical face and satisfied themselves. I was then issued a ballot paper after going through the verification machine and I cast my vote for my preferred candidate, I believe you are all aware of whom I will vote for?

Tsikata: so after casting your vote on that day, did you visited any polling station physically to observe the voting process as General Secretary of your party?

Addison: objection, my lords’ counsel is asking irrelevant question, it was not part of their pleadings.

Tsikata: My lords, I think my question is relevant, because the witness stated in his evidence that he was involved in all the election process.

Court: by majority of 5-4 the objection is sustained.

Tsikata: Mr Aseidu Nketiah, did you participate in the monitory of the election process?

Witness: yes my lords, I visited three region and t10 constituency to observe the lection process.

The issue of objection and counter objection became hottest between the two counsels when Tskata wanted to tender Asokwa polling station in the Ashanti region results through the witness.

According to counsel the polling station he sought to tender the witness was to prove the bad faith the petitioners case was.

He said the petitioners selectively filed the case against poling stations where President John Mahama won massively and left out polling station that Nana Akuffo Addo also won massively.

But the tendering of the pink sheet from that polling station was objected to by petitioners counsel on the grounds that it was not part of their case.

The objection was once again sustained by the court with the reasons that the pink sheets was earlier objected to and the court ruled disallowing it as evidence in the court.

After several arguments over the tendering of documents and question asked to the witness between the two counsels, the court adjourned proceeding till Tuesday May 28,  for continuation of evidence by Mr Aseidu Nketiah.

The court will on that day also hear an application for review by Mr. Benony Tony Amedkuze , the lawyer who filed an application as amicus-curiae(friend of the court) for the court to explained why president Mahama was sued in the case as a sitting president when the law do not permit any case against a sitting president.