By
Felix Engsalige Nyaaba
An intense legal argument ensued between lead counsels on
both sides of the ongoing presidential election petition at the Supreme Court
yesterday over an attempt by Mr Philip Addison, lead counsel for the
petitioners, to introduce some new pink sheets into the case during cross
examination on Dr Kawdwo Afari-Gyan, the returning officer of the presidential
elections.
Mr. Philip Addison, in the middle of his cross examination
on Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission, tried to
introduce some pink sheets for the witness to identify but the counsel for the
EC, Mr. James Quashie-Idun objected to the introducing of the documents
claiming the pink sheets were unknown
to them for they do not bear the exhibit numbers as those served on to the EC
by the petitioners.
The arguments over the authenticity and admissibility of the
documents through the witness however caused the court to adjourned proceedings
unexpectedly till today.
Addison
Lead counsel for the petitioners in his 4th day
of cross examination asked the EC boss who has been in the witness box for
the past two weeks to identify some documents that the petitioners filed as
exhibits as part of the 11,842 polling station results pink sheets in
contention before the court.
According to counsel, the exhibits bear some
figures which in his view on the face of the pink sheets have contrary meaning
to the explanations given by the EC Chairman with regards to the allegation of
over voting.
James Quashie-Idun
However, before the witness could testify on the documents
introduced by the petitioners counsel, lead counsel for the second respondent,
raised objection to the introducing of the pink sheets through the witness in
box.
According to counsel, the exhibit which the petitioners
sought to introduce bear different exhibits numbers, as well as polling station
names and codes to that of those served on them.
He contended that the exhibits numbers do not tally with the
numbers in their possessing and that the authenticity of the exhibits introduce
by the petitioners was in doubt and it was an attempt to mislead the court and
the respondents, adding that the act amounted to ambush litigation by the
petitioners counsel.
Mr. Quashie-Idun argued that, the second respondent was
never served with those exhibits that the petitioners’ sought the witness to
give answers on, and that when he cross check on the exhibits filed and served
on the EC, those exhibits of the pink sheets could not be found.
He therefore invited the court to take judicial notice and
compel the petitioners to go according to the rules of the court and cross examine
the witness on the evidence he provided to the court.
My Lords, we are objecting to the tendering of these
exhibits, the exhibits numbers are different from what have been served on us,
the name of the polling station, the code numbers and even the region are all
contrary to what we have, so we are saying that these documents cannot be
brought here, we would resist any attempt to present such pink sheets to the
witness in the box,” he argued.
Tony Lithur
Mr. Lithur the lead counsel for the first respondent’, President
John Mahama expressed surprised over the manner in which the petitioners was
conducting the case.
He said the exhibits the petitioners counsel sought to
tender through the EC box in the witness box was completely different from the
pink sheets that have been served on them and that in any attempt to introduce
them would amounted to illegality.
“ My Lords, I am
totally amazed of what the counsel for the petitioners is doing, we said here
over and over that we have not been
serve with these exhibits, in fact these exhibits are completely different from
what we have, so my lords would appreciate that we are not just talking of
exhibits numbers, but the exhibits are new.
There are not stamps from the register of this court, which
clearly indicates that they have not been filed, my lords, these are matters
which borders on the authenticity of the documents counsel sought to introduce
through the witness and we are expression our difficulties about it, “ he
contended.
Tsatsu Tsikata
Counsel for the third respondent, the National Democratic Congress
(NDC) supported the objection by the EC counsel, adding that the issue was not
the difference in the exhibits numbers but rather the petitioners do not have
the 11,842 polling stations as they alleged to have filed before the court.
He argued that the second petitioners, Dr Bawumia under
cross examination confirmed that the petitioners have filed a total of 11,842
poling stations pink sheets which in his view was untrue which led to the
coming of KPMG.
He however described the unknown exhibits as “jumble papers”
of which the petitioners sought to use to mislead the court in order to deny
the respondents fairness and justices and therefore invited the court to take
serious notice on the issue.
Mr. Tsikata argued
that until the report from the
KPMG is received , it would be difficult for the court to appreciate the
arguments by the respondents, adding that the
report from the KPMG would help settle the issue of unknown pink
sheets been introduce into the case by
the petitioners.
Addison
The petitioners counsel in rebuttal told the court that,
the differences in the exhibits numbers emanated from the
difficulties the petitioners had had to go through in labeling them and further accused the third respondent, Mr.
Tsikata for introducing exhibits which
were never part of their evidence to cross examine the second petitioner, Dr
Mahamudu Bawumia.
He further contended that the exhibits that the respondents
raised objection have all been filed before the court which were also pleaded
in the further and better particulars provided to the respondents, adding that
the KPMG drafted report had captured some of the pink sheets in contention and
wondered why the respondents refused to appreciate that the mistake aroused out
from the difficulties in labeling the exhibits.
Mr. Addison argued that the petitioners’ position would be
vindicated when the KPMG report is made ready to the court and also denied the
claims by the respondents that the petitioners were introducing new evidence
into the case.
Tony Lithur
Mr. Lihtur in further response told the court that, he was
extremely surprise of the petitioners action in an attempt to introduce new
exhibit into the case which has almost reach its conclusion,.
He also accused the petitioners for introducing exhibits
which have not filed before the court, saying there was no court official stamp
on the exhibits, which all bored different exhibits numbers with different
constituency polling stations pink sheets.
Court
The nine member panel after several attempt to get understanding from both counsels to failed
adjourned the matter till today for the petitioners to continue his cross
examination on different line of issues while waiting for the report from the
KPMG.
According to the presiding judge, Mr. Justice William
Atuguba, the report from the KPMG would help ascertain the true total number of
exhibits as well as the polling station pink sheets filed before the court and
those served on the respondents.
Election Errors and
Validity of Vote
Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission
and the chief returning officer of the presidential election, yesterday told
the Supreme Court that, the transposition errors that recorded on the elections
results booklet also known as pink sheets have no bases for the invalidation of
the results.
He said even though he did not see copies of the 2012 presidential
election results booklet before the declaring the results, it could not have affected
his work as the returning officer.
According to him, it would take him of about 4-5 months to
be able to complete counting the pink sheets results before declaring the
results, adding that the returning officers at the collation centre does the
work and forward same to the regional offices of the EC before he had the final
and complete results to declare the winner.
He contended that if there were any irregularities, it could
have been protested at the polling station level and the collation centre
before the results were tabulated leading to the final declaration.
The EC boss also denied the claims by the petitioners, that
the pink sheets were double printed for
fraudulent reasons, adding that the double printing was done due to the
contract agreement with the company that does the printing of the pink sheets.
Non Signature of
presiding officers
The witness in answering question under cross examination
said even though about 905 pink sheets were not signed by presiding officer as
required by law, the absence of their signature was no material meaning to
invalidate the results.
He stated that the signature of the presiding officer
together with the polling agents are needed on the pink sheets after counting
of ballots but when either of them failed to sign it has no basis to invalidate
any election results.
Quantity of Ballots
Papers Used In 2012
Dr Afari-Gyan on cross examination disclosed to the court that,
the EDC order for the printing of 15, 434,968 plus 10 % ballot papers for the
2012 presidential elections.
He said among the ballot papers, 104, 597 of them were
printed in 100 booklets 12, 627,000 in
50s booklets form and 38,0041 were in 25s booklets and was distributed
nationwide for the election.
He noted that the serial number on the ballot papers is very
important feature to the commission, for it serves as security and its printing
are always done under security guards in the presence of all political parties
contesting the election.
Dr Afari-Gyan also denied several allegation on the
register, the number of poling station affected
as well as the number of persons registered and voted on the Biometric
Verification Device(BVD) which the
petitioners claimed characterized massive irregularities.
The cross examination continues today by the petitioners
counsel, Mr Addison.
No comments:
Post a Comment