ELECTION PETITION PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO JUNE 24, As Court Await KPMG Report, The Enquirer, 13th June ,2013

By Felix Engsalige Nyaaba

The nine members panel of the Supreme Court (SC) hearing the presidential election petition, yesterday adjourned proceedings till June 24, to await the report from KPMG, the private accounting firm that was selected by the Supreme Court to serve as referee and conduct an audit counting into the number of pink sheets that the petitioners filed as exhibits before the court.

The court reached the decision to adjourn  proceeding after counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Philip Addison, has told the court that he could not  continue with his cross examination on Dr Afari-Gyan, without references to the pink sheets exhibits that the respondents objected to their admissibility in court.

Following that Mr. Justice William Atuguba, president of the nine panels, sought from the Registrar of the court as to when the KPMG would be able to finish its work and submit the report.

The Registrar of the Court however informed the court that when he contacted KPMG, the officers said they would need a week and some days to be able to conclude the work and transmit the report to the court.

The court therefore adjourned proceedings to June 24, 2013, by which that the KPMG report would be ready for the parties to continue with the cross examination.

Cross Examination

Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, the chief returning officer of the presidential election and witness for the second respondent in the ongoing presidential election petition yesterday told the nine member panel of the Supreme court that the Electoral Commission has accepted the responsibility of the palpable mistakes recorded in the 2012 general elections and that the candidates should equally bear the responsibility of their agents.

The EC boss who has been in the witness box for the past three weeks was answering questions posed to him By Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners.

He told the court that political parties agents though do not form part of lection officers, they have significant role to play at the polling station by ensuring that the election was organized in transparent and fair manners without any breach of the election regulations.

He denied the assertion by Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, second petitioner’s claims that party agents are just observers and that they do not play any role at the polling station.

According to Dr Afari-Gyan, the constitutional Instrument (CI 75)  section 4, has recognized the role of party agents, adding that before any party agent participate in the observing of election, he or she has to take an oath administer by officer of the commission.

The legal arguments

Serious legal arguments were ensued between counsels when the lead counsel for the petitioners Mr. Philip Addison showed a copy of the Biometric Verification Device (BVD) using manual for the purpose of the 2012 general election.

 Dr Afari-Gyan before answering question from the manual raised doubt on the copy from counsel and rather showed the court a copy that the EC used in the election.

However, when Addison sought to let the witness identify some paragraphs statements in the manual, Mr.James Qusahie-Idun, counsel for the EC intervened that the witness could not answer any question on the document for it was in evidence.

According to counsel, the document has not been pleaded for the petitioners in their affidavit and therefore could not ask the witness questions on it, adding that if the document was pleaded for in their affidavit the EC as second respondent could have responded to it.

Mr. Tony Lithur, lead counsel for President John Mahama, first respondent in the petition associated himself with the objection by the EC and added that if the document was allowed, it could open the flood gate for all parties to bring in documents to support their case.

Mr Addison in response accused the witness for always looking at the direction of his counsel before answering question.

He said counsel for the witness could have answered the question if he had not looked into the direction of his counsel and that the court should take notice.

But Addison was reprimanded over the comment and warned that the continue of such insinuation could attract sanction from the court by way of contempt.

No EC Staff at Polling Station
Dr AfariGyan told the court that none of the permanent staff of the EC participated in the administration of elections at the various 26,002 polling stations across the country.
According to him, the EC engaged temporary personnel numbering more than 130,000 to assist in the smooth conduct of the presidential and parliamentary elections.
When asked how the temporary staffs were recruited, the witness said the EC placed adverts in the national daily papers and the selection was done bases on the qualification.

According to Dr Afari-Gyan, the EC has always preferred teachers to apply for the work, but the minimum qualification for any Ghanaian was the Senior High School (SHS) certificate or any person with reasonable education level.

He told the court after the Commission has short listed the candidate, the Commission officer interview the returning officers while the district election officers also interview the presiding officer for the election.

Dr Afari Gyan informed the court that the EC trained 270,000 party agents, as well as printed 400,000 guides for candidates and their agents for the 2012 general election, adding, “Agents form part of the team entrusted with the responsibility for making sure the elections are run properly at polling stations.”
He stressed that polling agents were not observers.

Collation Sheets

The witness was asked if he could produce collation centre results sheets for some constituencies which have been affected by the petition.

According to Mr. Addison , the  witness in his evidence-in-chief alleged that it is usually at the collation results sheets that the mistakes do occurs where one candidate results is mistakenly added onto another among others transposition errors.

But counsel for the EC, Quashie –Idun objected to the request for the documents, saying that the petitioners never added collation centers results in their pleadings and that the request should not be granted.

He accused the petitioners for using the cross examination to smuggle in documents which they never pleaded in their case, adding that the collation sheets were provided to all parties and that they have the opportunity of bringing their copies to confront the witness.

Again Mr. Lithur,  counsel for the first respondent supported the argument by the EC lawyer and said the petitioners never let the parties know that they would require the collation sheets to make their case.

He contended that the petitioners could not use the cross examination to seeks for document s into the court which they never pleaded for , adding that the first and third respondents would not have opportunity to cross examine the witness on those documents since they have closed their cross examination.

He further argued that if the document was allowed, it open flood gate for all parties to bring in document that would help in support of their case and prayed the court not to grant the request.

Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the third respondent, the National Democratic Congress(NDC) argued that the petitioners have never at any point in time mention about collation sheets in their case, reminding the  court that the issue of the collation sheets has been solved since the  beginning of the case.

Judges interventions

Following the legal arguments which ensued between the parties, the judges including justice Jones Dotse and Sule Gbadegbey said foundation has not been laid proper for the document to be tender before the court.

Justice Dotse said the proper thing was counsel for the petitioners to lay reasonable grounds for the tendering of the document before the court and that since that was not done it would be difficult for the respondents to allow the witness to answer question on it.

Justice Gbadegbe said if  the document was allow to be brought in, the respondents could also apply for some documents they believe would help them to be brought to court and at the end the case would dragged to a longer period.

He expressed his disappointment over the matter by counsel for the petitioners, adding that if activities of that nature was allow the case could go on for the whole year without conclusion.

At that point Mr. Addison conceded to the bench intervention and humbly withdrawn the request for the collation centers results sheets.

He therefore pause his cross examination on the witness till the report of KPMG is made ready for parties in respect of the pink sheets involved.