By
Felix Engsalige Nyaaba
The election petitioners at the Supreme Court were
shelled –chocked yesterday when the justice sustained their vehement objection to
the tendering of over voting pink sheets from the Ashanti region, the area
known to be their stronghold.
Mr. Tsatsu
Tsikata, lead counsel for the NDC asked Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, the star witness
and second petitioner in the ongoing election petition case to identify a pink
sheet result from a polling station at Asokwa in the Ashanti Region.
But the Supreme Court said the document from Asokwa
polling station in the Ashanti Region, could be allowed and that questions
should not be asked on the witness except to identify them.
In tendering the documents, Mr. Tsikata said the
witness during cross examination by the first and second respondents in the
case told the court that the allegation of over voting was affects every
polling station in the country and if there were over voting identified in any
polling station, it should be equally annul per their petitions.
However, when document from Asokwa polling station
alleged to have over voting was shown to the witness to identify and confirm
the figure on the face of the pink sheets as having contained over voting, the
lead counsel for the petitioners raised objection.
According to Mr. Addisson, the document from Mr.
Tsikata was alien to their petition and that the witness was not legally
obliged to answer question on it’s since it was never added in the response to
their petition by the third respondent.
He argued that, the petitioners came to the court
with some specific polling station seeking to annul about 24,000 polling stations
and the poling station pink sheet being tendered by the counsel for the witness
to identify was never part of their pleadings.
But Mr Tsikta disagreed and said the document was
been tendered to make the witness reconfirm his position that there was over
voting only at the 11,138 polling station that they are seeking the court to
annul its results.
He said the witness was only to identify and confirm
of the figures on the face of the pink sheet but not to make comments about
their authenticity.
Tsikata:
Dr. Bawumia, can you identify the document in your hand, it is a pink sheet or
not?
Witness:
My lords, it looks like a pink sheet.
Counsel:
so you can feel that it is a pink sheet?
Witness:
yes, but I cannot say anything about its content.
Counsel:
can you see the name of that polling station?
Witness:
yes my lords, it is Asokwa polling station.
Counsel:
can you see the figures on the face of
that pink sheet
Witness:
yes, but------
Addison:
“we object to this style of question,
the witness was asked to identify the document, but not speak about its
content. In any way the document or the polling station was not part of the 24
000 poling station that we are stalking here about.
My Lords I must also add that the third respondent
is not one of the petitioner, so we do not under stand these new documents
being brought here, or they are opening a new case?, I think this is not our
case, we are her with specific polling station and we have provided them with
pink sheet, if like he should ask the witness questions on those pink sheets
but these unknown documents.”
Tsikata: we are just asking
the witness to identify the document and confirm the figures on it , because my
lordships, they made allegation of over voting and we are asking them on the
face of this document to identify name and figure , so I do not understand
counsel objection here, I think this is one of the baseless and irrelevance objection.”
He continues,” My lords the witness and the
petitioners are here seeking to annul 55% of the first respondent votes results
and the first petitioner result votes of 285 , so we are entitle t to ask
question with regards to those allegation.
The witness cannot be new over the 26,02n polling
station nationwide, we do not think your lordships should entertain this kind
of petitioners, they want one person results of of about 55% annul and do not
want to be cross examine on the polling station that those results come from.”
Justice
Vida Akoto Bamfo : counsel are you sure you are not dealt into other areas beyond your line, I think you should left the rest for the
court, some of the issues you are raising are matters to be determine by the
court , the witness cannot answer question on the pink sheet that is not in
their case”
Tsikata: My Lords I appreciate your views, but I think
the witness and the petitioners pink sheets here are not here for mischievous,
the objection are that we did not add that in our pleading or response in their
petition, but I want to note that we actually did so, we have pleaded that in
our response that is paragraph 27, in our response to their second amended
petition.
My lords I think the objections are in bad faith, we are not asking the witness
question, we are only asking that he identify name of the polling station and
the figures.’
Court;
we are considered that the objection by the lead counsel for the petitioners in
responses to the third respondent counsel is not proper, the objection is over
ruled.
We further suggest that questions on the role of the polling agents and the protest
notice at polling stations should not be
ask again, because those are documented and
the court has taking notices on those legal matters.
Mr. Tsikata continue his question asking to
introduce another document from another
polling station which was not part of
the number of pink sheets used as exhibits and served on the respondents.
For that, Mr. Addison raised legal objection, saying
that the third respondent counsel was trying to introduce a new case into the petition,
contending that they are not co-petitioners in the matter.
He vehemently object to the tendering of documents
outside those been petitioned on and invite the court to stop the counsel fro
introducing new case into their petition.
However after argument and counter argument between
Addison and Tsikata, the court retired to chambers and returned with a ruling
that Tsikata can ask the witness to identify the documents but not to ask him
question on the authenticity of the figures on the face of the pink sheets.
The objection of the tendering of over voting
documents from the petitioners strong hold has compelled many in the court to
believe that the petition was not that there were irregularities in the 2012
election, but rather the petitioners was acting in the event of hypocrisy since
they failed to tally results as over voting from the Ashanti and other places
where they have strong support base.
Dr Bawumia has been on the witness box for 12 days
and has since been under cross examination by counsel for the third respondent,
the NDC after the first and second respondents have ended their cross
examination on him.
He had on many occasions during cross examinations admitted
there are several errors in their case as most of their exhibits were found in
triples and quadruples and brought to court, but continued to maintain that the
data was entered ones in their analysis.
The petitioners are claiming there were massive
irregularities, statutory violation and malpractices and therefore want the
court to annul results from the affected polling stations and declare the first
petitioner, Nana Akuffo Addo, the presidential candidate of the NPP for the
2012 presidential election as the winner.
The case continues today at 9: 30 am.
No comments:
Post a Comment