KPMG AUDITS PINK SHEETS FOR FREE, SAVE THE STATE $100,000

By Felix Engsalige Nyaaba

KPMG International , the private accounting firm that has been  selected  by the Supreme Court to serve as referee and  conduct an audit counting into the  presidential election petition  case exhibits has accepted  the offer and agreed to conduct the audit counting free of charge to the court.

In a letter written formally to the president of the Supreme Court through the Registrar, the KPMG expressed its gratefulness for the opportunity and said the audit counting services would be done without any monetary value charges to the judicial services and for that matter the government of Ghana.

The letter came in a day after officials of the company held a crunch meeting with legal counsel for the parties in the election petition case over the modalities that the company would use in conducting the counting.

 It was after that extraordinary closed door meeting with the parties that the KPMG wrote a letter to the Supreme Court that made the order, accepting to conduct fair and unbiased audit counting into the pink sheets filed as exhibits to the court by the petitioners.

However, after receipt of the letter which was made known in open court, president of the nine member panel, Mr. Justice William Atuguba, applauded the decision of the company acceptance and the kind gesture to conduct the counting free of charge to the Ghanaian tax payer.

According to the court, the exemplary shown by KPMG to offer its services free of charge should serve as a lesson to the parties and all Ghanaians that there should  be time for sacrifices for the country and that there was no  need of acrimonies in the case before the court.

The court therefore directed the Registrar of the court to convey its official appreciation to KPMG, for the kind gesture and hope the counting would be done in free and fair manners in the presence of all the parties.

The terms of reference to be considered in the counting by KPMG includes the names of the polling stations, the code numbers and the exhibits numbers as labeled by the petitioners in their affidavits.

KPMG was selected by the Supreme Court on the 9^th of May, 2013, to conduct an audit counting into the pink sheets filed by the petitioners, following a legal request by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the ongoing election petition case.

Mr. Tsikata request was as a result of a controversy answer to a question to Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, the chief witness and second petitioner in the presidential election petition case during cross examination.

The question by the NDC legal counsel who has been cross examining the witness for two weeks now bordered on the number of polling station pink sheets the petitioners attached to their affidavits as exhibits and filed before the court.

Judges threaten to take over case

Mr. Justice William Atuguba, President of the nine member panel hearing the presidential election petition yesterday served a stiff warning to legal counsel in the matter to exhibit professional conduct in the matter while arguing their case or the court would stamp its authority and give directives on counsel as to how to conduct the case.

According to the court, the continued acrimonious arguments between lawyers in the matter was getting out of hand and if they failed to respect the rules of the court while at the Bar, the court would  have no option than to stamp it authority and control the manner in which each counsel have to behave in the case.

The court threat was as a result of a behavior that Mr. Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners has exhibited towards the bench while in his attempt to objects questions thrown at the petitioners witness by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata.

In reaction to Addison continue interjection on Tsikata questions, Justice Atuguba said,  “ we have  followed the case and realized that the relevance of  questions or anything in this matter depend largely on the court, so far questions and answers in this case is concern, we have the power to decide on the relevance and what is not  relevance.

In the court, we have got control over the issues; the case is under trial by us, so we have the authority to do what we want you to do, we have to track the issues, not what the witness says, so counsel kindly resume your seat,”  the court stated in reaction to Addison behavior.

The court further noted that the case has both political and legal issue, and since the case is before the law court, parties should leave the acrimonious attitude and attack on each other sand deal the matter in the legal procedures.

Tsatsu Tsikata vs. Dr. Bawumia (Witness)

As part of strategies on legal skills to weaken the petitioner’s case, lead counsel for the NDC took the witness through a thorough prosecution surgery on issues bordering statements the petitioners made before the declaration of the presidential result on December, 9, 2012.

In the cross examination, Mr Tsikata asked the witness to confirm the allegation that the petitioners made that some votes were deducted from the first petitioner, Nana Akuffo Addo and added to president John Dramani Mahama.

According to counsel, the petitioners on several platforms, prior to the declaration of the results claimed that they were winning the elections, but when it was later made clear to them that they were rather losing the elections they resorted to some allegation that the votes were rigged.

Counsel: do you still stand by your allegation that votes of the first petitioner was deliberately deducted and added to the first respondent, John Mahama?

Witness; if I may say again that there are so many ways of killing a cat, we made that allegation, but now we are no longer relying on those we have made a specific case before the court on irregularities, violation and malpractices.

Counsel: so in your petition, you are not alleging any criminal action against anybody, is that correct?

Witness; yes, we are not, but our petition is evidence that the second respondent did not follow the rules, and that is our case.

Counsel: take this document, it is a statement by the second petitioner, your party chairman, can you read the allegation of systematic malpractices?

Justice Atuguba: please counsel this question is not allow, you can ask composite question, I think we have ruled on this issue.

Tsikata: my Lords, every part of the paragraphs in this document coming from the petitioners, have a specific allegation, so am just asking the witness, they made allegation, not one not two, but several of them, my Lords I understand but I think I have the right to ask the witness to know if he was aware of all these allegation.

Justice Atuguba; yes, we known that but the witness has answered those question, I think yesterday or so , so if you have a question, put them in a composite form and put it onto him, so we move forward.

Counsel: Dr. Bawumia, are you aware that the allegation you made, I meant your party Chairman made in a statement to the second respondent, the EC?.

Addison: My Lords, we object to this question, I think counsel does not want to take cue from the bench, this question has been denied by the court, why counsel kept on asking these questions?

Tsikata: My Lords, can I continue,

Addison: My lords, counsel do not want to listening to the court, we are objecting to the question posed at the witness, is he withdrawing the question or not and want to proceed?

Justice Atuguba: please, counsels resume your seats, we are trying the matter, so we have to track the issues that the witness want to say, so counsel sit.

Witness: am saying that, I am not aware if the allegation is true or not or not, but we have filed a case before the court and we are relying on all what we said in our further and better particulars.

Counsel: before the statement to the second respondent, the NPP, your General Secretary Kwadwo Afriyie asked your supporters to wear white dress to church the following for there was victory, are you are of that?

Witness: I am not sure about that that the party asked supporter to go to church with white dress.

Counsel: but before that stamen your party claimed and declared that you were winning?

Witness: I am not aware of that, but we know there is only one body that declared election that is the second respondent.

Counsel: But your party made a statement and claims you were winning, are you not aware of that?

Addison; My Lords, we objects, this are irrelevant questions.

Tsikata: I think the question is relevant, they made such allegation, and----

Justice Atuguba: please, counsels take your seats, we have the power to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant, the case is before us, so leave those things for us.

Tsikata: I put it to you that the claims of malpractices, irregularities and violation are all for the purpose of what you want to achieve so the first petitioner could become president?

Court; question overruled.

Tsikata; I suggest to you that what you and your co-petitioners are seeking is to achieve what you did not achieve through the ballot box?

Court; question overruled, it is not proper that is left on to the court to determine.

Tsikata: I suggest to you that what you and your co-petitioners are claiming is to subvert the will of the people of Ghana/

Court; Question overruled, it is not proper.

Tsikata; I suggest to you that is your practices that when you loss election, you also resort to court, it is your practices?

Witness: no my lords, we go to court for a particular issue, we are in court over the irregularities and the malpractices caused by the second respondent.

Tsikata: I suggest to you that the first petitioner resort to this method because when he realised that he lost the elections?

Court: counsel, we cautioned that you do not enter into unnecessary stage, these questions could be put in your address to the court.

Tsiktata; I suggest to you that when the media started reporting that you were loosing the elections, you then resorted to violence?

Witness; My Lords, that is not correct.

Tsikata; I suggest to you that all these allegation of irregularities, malpractices and violation cannot be proven?

Witness; we have large sum of documents that would probe that there were irregularities in the elections.

After several argument on the some duplicated pink sheets were polling agents signed three different pink sheets for one polling station counsel ended his cross examination and requested that the petitioners provided him with some needed pink sheets that they did not attach to their affidavit.

The court therefore adjourned the matter to enable the petitioners to exchange some of the counter pinks sheets requested by Tsikata to continue his cross examination today at 9:30 a