By
Felix Engsalige Nyaaba
Accra,
Wednesday May 29, 2013
Mr. Johnson Aseidu Nketiah, the General Secretary of
the ruling National Democratic Congress(NDC), who has been testifying in the presidential election petition as
witness for the first and third respondents yesterday succeeded in demolishing the
evidence of the petitioners during his last day in evidence –in-chief .
Led by Mr.
Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the
third respondent,the witness told the supreme court judges that all the
allegation and claims of irregularities brought by the petitioners were sheer
clerical errors by some election officers and that those errors have no substances
to over turn the over four million votes that the petitioners seeks the court
to annul in the 2012 presidential election.
Having gained over 34 years experience in electoral
process and procedures in Ghana’s elections system, Mr. Aseidu Nketiah said
there was no were in the election process that there were irregularities in the results
and no person or agent of the various political parties present could not raise objection or protest
to the results.
Bad
Faith Petition
Mr. Aseidu Nketiah in his last day on evidence
–in-chief told the Supreme Court that upon a simple glands through the exhibits
by the petitioners, it was confirmation that the petitioners were in court on
bad faith, for in his view the petitioners selectively filed their case against
polling stations where the first petitioners, Nana Akuffo Addo lost and
President John Mahama won massively.
He denied that the comparative of polling stations
of similar irregularities was self admission of the respondents that there was
indeed electoral violation in the 2012 elections, adding that the issues the
petitioners classified as irregularities and malpractices was simply clerical
errors and therefore wondered why the petitioners did not include areas where
Nana Addo lost in their claims.
Over
voting allegation
The general Secretary of the NDC in his evidence did
prove that he was onto of issues as far electoral process and procedures was
concern as he took the court through the process that could possibly bring over
voting into an election.
He told the nine member panel of the Supreme Court
that, there was no over voting issue arising from the 2012 presidential
election as against the allegation by the petitioners.
According to him, per the lection laws and
procedures, an over voting could only occurred when the total number of votes
in the ballot box at the end of voting exceeded the total number of persons
registered and qualified to vote in a particular polling station.
Mr Aseidu Nketiah, who described over voting ballot
paper as unidentified material, further told the court that an over voting
could also detected when the total number of ballot papers in the ballot box
exceed the total number of ballot papers issued to a particular polling
station, but quick to add that that could also be possible when after sorting
and comparing with the ballot serial number it was concluded that additional
ballot papers are found in the box.
He also explained that when a ballot paper is
counted as unknown ballot papers, it is up to the presiding officer together
with the various parties agents present to cross check whether such paper has
same serial number as other and if it is found that it does not fall into the
category of the ballot papers issued to the polling station the paper is
disallow and counted as rejected ballot paper.
Duplicate
Pink Sheets Serial Numbers
In answering to a question on the allegation of
duplicate pink sheets serial number, Mr. Aseidu Nketiah said throughout the election process and procedure
that he had involved for the past 34 years, pink serial number has never used
as security in identifying a polling station or checking the authenticity of
votes.
He said what was important in any polling station during
election to prevent duplication and over voting is the polling station name and the code number, adding that the
serial number on the ballot papers is more important in checking malpractices
and violation than the pink sheets serial number.
According to him, there was no point in time did the Electoral Commission in
it training to political parties agents and candidate referred to the pink
serial number as a security in protecting the valid votes at a polling station.
Pink
Sheets Serial Number and Bank Cheque Book
When asked on his view of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, the
petitioners star witness assertion that the pink sheet number could be likeness
to that of Bank Checque book number which cannot be duplicated, the respondent
witness said he disagreed entirely with the assertion by the petitioner’s
witness.
He told the court, instead of the cheque book, the
pink sheet could rather be compare to
that of deposit slip where any person with bank account in same bank could use,
adding that in case there is a shortage of pink sheet in a polling station
, additional pink sheets could be
supply.
The respondent witness further explained that,
unlike Dr., Bawumia, he would rather compare the bank cheque book to the ballot
paper which serial numbers are unique to each voter, adding that in the bank
the deposit slip could be use by any customer of the bank but not that of the
checque book.
Mr. Aseidu Nketiah also noted that the primary sources of deterring
the issue over voting was to cross check
the serial number of the ballot paper if it does not formed part of the serial
numbers ballot papers recorded in the pink sheet, but not the number on the pink
sheets itself.
Polling
Agents Duties
When the respondent witness was asked as to the duty
of polling agents at the polling station during voting, he said all polling
agents were trained by the EC and their presence at the polling station was to
ensure that all election procedures are followed and that no one was allow to
vote without going through the verification process.
According to him, the agent represent the candidates
who could be present at all the polling station throughout the country at the
same time and their work was to also ensure that the witness the collation and
the declaration of the election result and if one found out that certain
results have not reflected in the votes, he or she could protest by way of a
written complain which would be analysis by the presiding officer together with
other agents present.
Mr. Aseidu Nketiah said, the NDC party has never received
any complaint, either from its agents or any of the political parties that participated
in the 29012 election about results been not accurate and so on, adding that
the second respondent, the EC declared the results as recorded by the poling
stations without any form of protest from any party agent.
Voter
Register/Non Existence Polling Stations
Answering question posed to him by Mr. Tsikata on
the allegation by the petitioners that the EC used two different register in
the 2012 presidential elections, the witness said that was not truth and that
to the best of his knowledge, the EC made same register to all stakeholders,
especially the participating political parties and that there was no point in
time did the EC provide separate register to others.
He said when the EC first conducted the Biometric
registration exercises, the total number of registered voters were about 13
million plus , but when the mob up exercises including the registration of
Ghanaians working at foreign mission, Peacekeepers who returned to the
country among similar issues, the final
register was compiled to about 14 million plus voters.
He further testified that, throughout the biometric
registration exercises, all parties have their agents present and they were
taking through all the procedure and process on the election day , adding that
all polling station that was going be use in the elections were also made known
to parties.
For the allegation of non existence of poling
station, the NDC general secretary o said the petitioners have their agents
represented in all the polling station that the election was conducted, saying
that the agents also signed after every result was counted and recorded to
certifying those results to be true reflection of what took place.
Non
Signatures of Presiding Officers
The witness told the court that though signatures of
the presiding officers are important in the election pink sheets, the absence
of the signature on the pink sheet could not affect the result.
He said the omission to sign the signature by
presiding officers could be as a result of an over sight and that per the
procedure of the election process in the country have no negative effect on the
results.
According to him, since the agents signed certifying
the results to be true and was dully declared, the absences of the presiding
officers’ signature on the pink sheets has no effect to over turn the result.
Affected
Polling Stations
As regards to the number of polling stations
exhibits served on to the respondents, the witness said though he was not serve
directly, checks with his legal counsels indicated that the respondents made
their allegation against 24, 000 polling
station, out of the total number 26,02, 000 polling station across the nation.
He further told the court that among the 24,000
polling station that the petitioners alleged of the incidents of irregularities
and malpractices, there was no single evidence of protest from those polling
station and that the allegation of statutory violation was boned out of bad
faith for haven suffered from heavy electoral defeat.
Petitioners
Cross Examines Mosquito
In a cross examination by the lead counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Philip Addision, the respondents witness maintained that the
election was conducted free and fair and
that declaration president John Mahama
by the EC was the true reflection of the results from the polls.
Mr. Aseidu
Nkatiah under cross examination told the court that the petitioners only rushed
to court after they lost miserably at the polls and that there was no evidence
from the petitioners’ allegation that could over turn the election results.
Counsel:
you said you have 34 years experience in election?
Witness:
yes my lords.
Counsel:
so do you have same experience in biometric election process?
Witness:
no my lords.
Counsel:
you said you attended IPAC meetings?
Witness:
yes my lords, I participated in IPAC meetings.
Counsel:
so can you produce the minutes of those meetings?
Witness;
IPAC is an advisory body that EC uses to deliberate issues with political
parties, it is not a legal body, it meetings has no legal backing, so the
minutes are not recorded.
Counsel: you gave your own definition of the meaning
of over voting, take a look at this pink sheets and I ask you question.
Witness:
ok,
Document pass through all counsel to check whether
it was a gineu document.
Counsel:
so how many pink sheets do you have in your hand?
Witness:
they are 10 pink sheets with different exhibit numbers.
Counsel:
look on the figure on the face of the pink sheets and tell the court whether
there was no over voting.
Witness:
after going through, as I said over voting is when the votes are more than the
number of persons registered to vote, but there is no protest on the pink
sheets, I also insist these are clerical errors.
Counsel:
you know the petitioners in this case?
Witness:
Yes my lords.
Counsel:
you know the first petitioner?
Witness:
yes,
the first petitioner is Nana Akuffo Addo, the presidential candidate of the NPP
who contested the 2012 presidential election but lost.
Counsel:
you know the second petitioner?
Witness:
yes, my lords the second petitioner is called Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, the vice
presidential candidate for the first petitioner in the 2012 presidential
election, but they lost.
Counsel:
you know the third petitioner too?
Witness:
yes my lords, the third respondent is Jake Obetsibi-Lamptey, national Chairman
of the NPP before, during and after the 2012 presidential elections, he was the
one who led them to a defeat.
Counsel:
you said the presiding officer have to sign the pink sheet?
Witness:
yes, but not in order, there is no orders as to who sign first, it could
before, in between or after the agents signed.
Counsel:
so you can say if a presiding officer did not sign it could be amount to
malpractices?
Tsatsu:
objection, the witness could not tell that, that is a point of law.
Addison:
the witness has told this court during his evidence about the signature of the
presiding officer, and I just, eeeh, eeh----
Tsatsu:
we object to the question, it is improper.
Court:
by majority of 5-4 , the objection is sustained.
Counsel:
you know the serial numbers in the pink sheets?
Witness:
I don’t know of serial numbers in pink sheets, as I said serial number is known
when there are many numbers and you then give series of numbers, but as tat now
I do not know of serial numbers on pink sheets, the second respondent never
notices us of serial numbers on pink sheets.
Counsel:
you know of ballot box serial numbers?
Witness:
ballot box do not have serial numbers, what I know is code numbers and polling
station name.
Counsel: you know of tempo envelops it has serial numbers?
Witness:
I known of tempo envelops but I do not know if they have serial numbers, but
those are for the second respondent, they are exclusively for the election
officers and since I was not present at the polling station this time round I
could not tell.
After several arguments between counsel, the witness
and the bench, over some questions posed to the witness, the court adjourned
proceeding till today for the petitioners to continue cross examination today
at 10:00 am.
No comments:
Post a Comment