By
Felix Engsalige Nyaaba
Mr. Philip Addison, Lead counsel for the
petitioners, yesterday told the Supreme Court that, the petitioners has difficulties
in reconciling the figures of pink sheets provided by KPMG in its report on the
number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners as exhibits in the presidential
election petition case.
According to counsel, per their own analysis on the
figures provided by KPMG, the international audit firm that was selected to
count the pink sheets, the number of pink sheets appeared in unique was more
than what the firm stated in its final report and submitted to the court.
Counsel made the argument when the court reconvened
yesterday for the petitioners to continue with the cross examination of Dr.
Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, the returning officer of the presidential election and key witness for the second respondent in the
case, the Electoral Commission9EC).
Mr. Addison contended that, the KPMG failed to take
into account, the full comments of the petitioners’ response to the draft of
the audit report before issuing its final report on the on the audit of the pink
sheets, which are the centre of the controversy of the petition.
The KPMG in its final report concluded that a total
of 13, 927 pink sheets were filed, out of that number, 1,545 of them could be identified
either through the polling station name, code number and the exhibit number.
According to the audit report, 9,504 pink sheets
were able to be identifying with only exhibits numbers, 5,470 pink sheets were
able to be identified through the code number and 8,675 pink sheets appeared
with their unique numbers, that is the poling station name, code and exhibit
numbers were unique, while 3,593 wwere identified to be in duplicate,
triplicate and quadruplicate numbers.
The report also stated that
it
revealed a total of 9,860 pink sheets were counted to be the with presiding judge
which were used as control mechanism, 871 pink sheets were neither in the
presiding judge copies nor the register.
However, in arguing his case, lead counsel for the
petitioners said their analysis has given contrary figures as against the
figure given by the KPMG.
Mr. Addison said, the analysis has revealed that, 876
out from the presiding judge set of pink sheets which are in the registrar
set have been found by the petitioners
to be unique numbers., adding that 675 which the 1st and 3rd
respondent used to confront Dr Bawumia during cross examination were also not
captured by the report .
He contended that, beside those conflicting figures,
1,291 pink sheets out from the 1,545 that could not be identify through either their names, code and exhibits numbers have also been found by the petitioners per their analysis to
be unique, therefore making the total of 11,485 unique pink sheets filed by the
petitioners.
Counsel argued that, the analysis however vindicated
the petitioner’s position that they field a total of 11,482 pink sheets which
were in the bone of contention between the respondents leading to the order for
KPMG to audit the pink sheets.
Mr. Addison also told the court that, until the
upstanding issues surroundioing the total number of pink sheets is established,
the petitioners could not be able to continue
with the cross examination of Dr Afari-Gyan.
But lead counsels for the three respondents
vehemently disagreed with the petitioners counsel position on the report.
Quashie-Idun
Lead counsel for the EC indicated that, the
petitioners on Tuesday gave them some pink sheets to go through and check if
they fall within those that were served on them as exhibits, but upon
going through he found out a substantial of the pink sheets could not be found in their
copies.
He said the EC would be comfortable if the
petitioners could go on with those pink sheets that have appeared to be in
their copies.
Tony
Lithur
Lead counsel for the president, the first respondent
in the case said the figures been bindles by the petitioners counsel was noting
but to create an erroneous impression that the report did not captured
everything.
He said the petitioners’ calculation of figures
vindicating them was a completed fabrication to distort the finding of KPMG.
Tsatsu
Tsikata
Lead counsel for
the third respondent, National Democratic Congress (NDC), third respondent
said (NDC) said it was clear that the every pink sheets was counted by the
referee and that KPMG report has rested the issue of the number of pink sheets
the petitioners filed.
He argued that the figures the petitioners counsel
sought to add and subtract to make up the number in contention was improper and
that the report has indicated the number of pink sheets filed were 13, 927 and
anything to distort that figures could not be appropriate, adding that the
series of figures of exhibit set of pink sheets have also been indicated in the
report.
He said the petitioners representative were at the
counting place but did not raise any objection or indicated to the referee of
difficulties in analyzing the figures and wondered why the petitioners counsel
would come to the court and tried to
disputes the report.
Judges
Intervention
Mr.
Justice Baffoe Bonni, member of the panel said the issue
over the unidentified pink sheets should be establishing as to clear the doubt
that they were either counted or not.
He noted that the report did not indicated whether
those unidentified pink sheets were part of the unique pink sheets or not and
that until the identity of those pink sheets it would be a problem to the
court, adding that the figure is so significant that it could affect the
outcome of the number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners.
According to Justice Baffoe Bonni, if those pink
sheets identity could establish, it would help a lot, be it that they are in
duplication or unique pink sheets the figure could affect the case.
Justice
Anin Yeboa, said the court is a court of record and suggested
that if the petitioners have a point in their analyzing, they should come by a
motion for the court to consider it merit and that no one should attempt to
suppress evidence of the court.
Tsatsu
“if the petitioners are saying that the report has
vindicated them, then they should proceed to cross examine Dr Afari-Gyan, but if they have some
upstanding issues, they could put them in their address to the court.
But for me, my lords, it is clear that every pink
sheet have been counted and part of the 13, 927, so this figures or analysis do
not change the report, however, if counsel is seeking for adjournment he
should simply do so.”
Justice
Jones Doste,” can we make some progress in this
case, I think everything is stated in page 12, paragraph 5, onwards, the
remarks by the referee is there.”
Justice
N.S Gbadegbey, “ you could have had ask that the
report should be send back for proper thing to be done, but you did not do so,
now that the referee has submitted and it has been adopted by the court as
documents, you cannot do that,
You also lost the opportunity to cross examine the
witness when he was in the witness box, but all these things went and now you
have problem with some of the figures, the pink sheets not identified, I think
it is too late, we have to make some progress in this case.”
Quashie
–Idun; lead counsel for the EC, stated, “ the report has
captured everything , the 5,5445 were featured in the total number of the pink
sheets, but the referee made it clear that those pink sheets cannot be tested
because their identity was not known, that rest the matter.”
Justice
Atuguba, president of the panel said the issues at stake
are the total number of the pink sheets that have been filed by the petitioners
and the second issue is whether or not the said 1,545 pink sheets have been
covered by the report.
He said the cross marking by the referee that some
of the pink sheets could not be identify was irrelevant in the case at the
moment, because the total number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners has
been established to be 13, 000 plus and that the court would look into every
issue raised.
Justice
Sophia Adinyira, a member of the panel said the
argument over the figure of not be identified was baseless, for it has been
captured by the report, but if the petitioners have issues, they could put them
in their address to the court.
She also noted that the court would not force the
respondents to disclose the number of pink sheets in their custody that were served
on them by the petitioners, adding that the petitioners could continue with the
cross examination and if the respondents
have issues with the pink sheets being tender they could be easily cross check
in the report..
Scope
of Work
According to the final report, it was agreed by all
parties that the procedures to be carried out shall be as follows:
A count setting out the total number of all pink
sheets filed at the registry by the petitioners according to the manner in
which they had been set out under paragraphs 44 to 67 of the affidavit of Dr
Bawumia, filed at the registry of the Supreme Court on April 7, 2013.
The paragraphs of 44 to 67, give the breakdown of
the specific combinations of constitutional and statutory violations,
irregularities and malpractices and providing the exhibit number, if any, of
the polling station name and code and number of pink sheets filed at the
Supreme Court’s registry.
Court
view
The court yesterday concluded that, the crux of the
matter was the number of the pink sheets filed by the petitioners and whether
they were used only ones as stated by Dr Bawumia in his evidence.
The case was adjourned till today to enable parties
to cross check pink sheet to be use for the cross examination.
No comments:
Post a Comment