PETITIONERS' WITNESSES ESCAPE THE BOX, AS SUPREME COURT DISMISSES TSATSU APPLICATION

By Felix Engsalige Nyaaba

By a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court yesterday saved the four petitioners witnesses from the tricky questions of Tsatsu Tsikata and turned down an application brought by the three respondents in the ongoing election petition case seeking to invite the four witnesses for cross examination.

Mr. Justice William Atuguba, President of the nine member panel of the Supreme court, hearing the case in a ruling said, the court has taken into the consideration of the numerous affidavits and pink sheets before the court and have reached a conclusion that those material evidence,  as well as the witness evidence on cross examination were of sufficient for the court to decide on the matter.

According to the Supreme Court in its ruling, the evidence per the affidavits filed by both parties and the evidence received from the witness was enough for the court, and calling the four other petitioners witnesses would be of no relevancies for the moment.

For that the Supreme Court said there were no bases for the application to be granted and therefore accordingly refused the application for unmeritorious.

Legal counsel for the three respondents, president John Mahama , the Electoral Commission(EC) and the National Democratic Congress(NDC)  in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition has filed a motions for leave seeking to  cross examine  four witnesses whose testimonies have come by affidavits.

The Supreme Court as part of its directive orders said that parties involved in the election petition case to come by affidavits testimony in order to facilitate a speedy trial.

By affidavits testimony, witnesses will, in writing address all questions that they would ordinarily have answered had they been dragged to the witness box.

The Court in that order also indicated that it will grant a special dispensation to key witnesses to appear in person and if necessary, also grant an application for other witnesses who have sworn affidavits to appear in person.

The three respondents have taken advantage of this caveat and have applied to cross examine some of the witnesses for the petitioners, Mr. Kwabena Twum Bariamah, MP for Upper West Akim, in the Eastern region, Freda Premprey, MP for Tano-North constituency in the Ashanti region, Eugene Sakyei, a polling agent and Abdulai Ahmed, a presiding officer who have sworn affidavits for the petitioners.

However in his argument, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata who has been delegated by the tow other respondents to speak on their behalf told the Supreme court that, the application  was not to cross examine all witness but to the four whose evidence are so relevant to the case before the court.

He argued that the four witnesses’ affidavit has been filed before the court and per the rules of the court, (Rule 69, 4, and 8) the Supreme Court rules of procedure the witnesses ought to be invited to be cross examined.

Counsel further contended that, the rules of the court do not allow the witnesses to make a choice either to appear and testify or the parties involve to chose on whom to be cross examine and that the laws of evidence, per the Evidence Decree must be allow to take its precedence.

Mr. Tsikata told the court that, the evidence swore by the witnesses are very important in the case before the court and there was no any allegation that the four witnesses are not available and therefore could appear to provide evidence.

He further wondered why the petitioners who are so eager to have the case tried wanted to protect the witnesses, saying that the petitioners cannot pick and chose for the court which witness should appear and give evidence, adding that the petitioners are also relying on the allegations made by the witnesses.

‘ My Lords, if it is indeed the case that these witnesses were present at the polling stations and the collation centers in which they made these allegation, then  I think it is proper that they be invited for cross examination to determine whether they are telling the truth or not,’  Mr. Tsikata contended.

He added that, the testimony by the witnesses in his view will best serve the interest of fairness and justice on the case and that the court has no reason to deny the respondents the right to invite the witnesses to be cross examine.

He further invited the court to take into account that the petitioners have been using the allegation by those witnesses that there were some polling stations that have their results annulled due to over voting and voting without Biometric Verification Devices.

Counsel also denied the argument by the petitioners that the application was in a clear attempt to unduly cause delay in the proceeding of the case, adding that the witnesses could not deposed the affidavits to the court without been cross examine.

He therefore invited the court to take into consideration of the allegation which was based on some admission of the EC that some results were annulled, saying that allegation have no substance since the EC has responded them in its affidavit in response.

However, lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Philip Addison, vehemently opposed the application on the grounds that the three applications were of no base but an attempt to delay the ongoing petition process.

He said the Supreme court in its orders dated April2, 2013 stated that it needed an expeditious on the matter and the application to cross examine the witnesses was of no necessity to the case.

According to counsel, if the court was mindful of granting the applications , then it should exempt the three of the witnesses, Freda Premprey, Kwabena Twum Barimah and Eugine Sakyei, for in his view their allegation was based on parliamentary voting and not presidential.

He further contended that, the matter the respondents want the court to grant are matters that are no longer in dispute before the court and that the applications should be throw for lack of substance.

Mr. Addison also told the court that the affidavit are already evidence before the court and inviting the witnesses into the witness box  would serve no purpose for far the merit of the evidence was concern.

He therefore prayed the court to dismiss the application, adding that the first and third respondents have failed to file response to those allegations by the witnesses.

After argument and counterargument, the court retired to chambers and came back with a unanimous ruling dismissing the three applications.

TSATSU BATTLES JUDGES

Lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress yesterday continued his cross examination on Dr Mahamudu Bawumia , with a heated argument between  judges of the supreme court and the petitioners counsel over ht e tendering of documents bordering on the duplication pink sheets serial numbers.

Mr. Tsikata on Monday this week made request to the court to order the petitioners to furnish him with some counterpart list of pink sheets that were in the number of exhibits the petitioners have filed and served on them.

However, when the list was finally brought yesterday, it was detected that some of the pink sheets that were having duplicate serial numbers in the case of exhibits rather double into triple and quadruple serial numbers from one polling station to another covering 150 polling stations.

Following, when counsel sought the court to tender the list pink sheets together with the document that the petitioners used in gathering the counterpart list information, lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Addison objected to the tendering of such document.

The tendering of that document became an issue between the bench and Tsikata as he sought to explain the reason for tendering the document from the petitioners.

According to counsel, the document the petitioners used to provide the counterpart pink sheets information was carrying information which in his view needs to be tender through the witness to the court.

But Addisopn, opposed to the tendering of such documents on the grounds that, they were primary documents from the petitioners which was not also in contention before the court.

He argued that the document contained information which the court does not need in the case and that tendering it at the court through the petitioners’ witness was improper and violation of the petitioners rights to their primary document.

The arguments however made Mr. Tsikata used words which Mrs. Justice Vida Akoto Bambo found not to be polite and asked that he mind the language he uses in court.

Mr. Tsikata accepted the advised and apologized reservedly and explained that he did not used the words in bad faith and that he was trying to establishes a point in his argument.

After the heated back and forth arguments between Mr. Tsikata, the judges and the petitioners’ counsel, to tender the document, the court adjourned the matter till Monday May 20, 2013 for continuation of cross examination.

 The court would on Monday also rule as to whether the document Tsikata sought to tender through the petitioners witness could be tender or not.