NPP UNCOVERS MORE FRAUD

 NPP lawyers: Philip Addison (left) with Frank Davies. Behind them are Egbert Faibile Jnr and Gloria Akuffo

 NDC lawyers: Tsatsu Tsikata (left) and Dr. Abdul Bassit Aziz Bamba

 Stanley Amarteifio is part of the EC legal team

Tony Lithur represents President Mahama

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Friday February 1, 2013.

The Supreme Court will on February 5, give multiple rulings in the case in which New Patriotic Party (NPP) presidential candidate Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and two others are challenging the validity of the election of John Dramani Mahama as President as the petitioners amended their petition.

Yesterday morning, the petitioners amended their petition because they have finally completed their analysis of all the pink sheets available to them, finding substantially more electoral violations and malpractices.

These alleged irregularities now affect 4,670,504 votes out of the 10,995,262 "valid" votes cast. 

Annulling them will take out 3,101,590 from John Mahama's total and 1,473,346 from Nana Akufo-Addo. 

The petitioners are therefore asking for the results in 11,916 polling stations to be annulled, instead of the 4,709 in the original petition. 

This will bring John Mahama's total valid votes cast to 39.1% (2,473,171) and Akufo-Addo's down to 3,775,552, making him the clear winner by 59.69%. 

This is because about 67% of the illegal votes that the petitioners are asking to be annulled benefited the NDC candidate. 

On February 5, the nine-member panel chaired by Justice William Atuguba will determine whether or not to order the petitioners: Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and NPP Chairman Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, to furnish the Electoral Commission (EC) with ‘further and better particulars’ of the 4,709 polling stations where they (petitioners) claim irregularities occurred during the December 7 & 8, 2012 general election.

The highest court of the land will again determine whether or not to order the petitioners to furnish the1st respondent (President Mahama) with the same ‘further and better particulars’ of the 4,709 polling stations where they claim irregularities occurred during the December 7 & 8, 2012 general election.

The two applications for ‘further and better particulars’ had been moved separately by James Quarshie-Idun, supported by Anthony Dabi and Stanley Amarteifio for the EC and Tony Lithur, assisted by Dr. Abdul Bassit Aziz Bamba for President Mahama.

Finally, the court will also give a ruling on whether or not to grant leave for an application for interrogatories filed by the petitioners to order the EC to furnish the court with particulars of Ghanaians serving abroad including foreign service official, students on government scholarships abroad, Ghanaians working in international organizations and security service personnel returning on duties.

Philip Addison, supported by Gloria Akuffo, Frank Davies, Alex Quaynor, Akoto Ampaw, Kwame Akuffo, Nana Asante Bediatuo, Godfred Yeboah Dame, Egbert Faibille and Professor Kenneth Attafuah had moved the application for interrogatories on Monday and responded to by counsel for both the EC and the President.

The National Democratic Congress (NDC) which the court ruled that they were an interested party to the petition and subsequently made them the 3^rd respondents did not file any application to either support or object to the applications.

Tsikata’s Intervention

When the court was about to fix a date for ruling, Tsatu Tsikata supported by  Samuel Cujoe and Barbara Serwaa Asamoah, counsel for the NDC got up to request that the NDC be allowed to respond to the petitioner’s application because with the nature of interrogatory application all the parties in the matter needed to be heard.

Tony Lithur in support of Mr. Tsikata had said “we should be allowed to contribute in this application. To constrain us to constantly file an application on any issue cannot be the best”.

The Court’s Ruling

As a result, the court in a 6-3 majority said that the NDC could be heard but must file officially.

Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and Annin Yeboah had ruled that the NDC could not be heard while Atuguba said Mr. Tsikata could be heard “on points of law now.”

The remaining Justices Julius Ansah, Sophia O. Adinyira, Rose C. Owusu, Jones Victor Dotse, Sule N. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo had said the NDC could be heard but needed to file on notice thereby adjourning the proceedings.

Tsikata’s Application

Yesterday when the case resumed, Mr. Tsikata moved the application saying that what the petitioners were seeking to do “was an abuse of the court’s processes.”

“We submit that the processes of discovery, in particular the service of interrogatories is to obtain information as to facts material to the issues before the court. The petitioners had made claims about irregularity which they sought to particularize and are asking that over 1.3 million votes count to be annulled. They have sought orders on the basis of these claims.”

He argued that no issue arose about the registration processes for the purposes of the order that the petitioners sought saying “none of these issues have any relevance to the orders they are seeking. The orders are votes actually cast which they are seeking to annul.”

He said the petitioners would be broadening the scope of the petition beyond the matters they are seeking the court to determine adding “It is clear that an election petition of this nature brought under C.I. 74 is a process which the legislature intends to have it dealt with expeditiously and justly.”

He said neither the cause of justice would be served in broadening the scope of the petition saying “even though C.I. 74 itself does not have specific provision on interrogatories, we submit that Order 22 (2) of C.I 47 of the Civil Procedure is material in outlining significant factors that the court may take into consideration.”

He said the Supreme Court is obliged to apply stricter criteria in the interest of justice and efficiency when dealing with some of the applications.

Research Project

“The court does not sit on an election petition as if it were a research project of an academic nature. The court sits in order to achieve justice. There is no basis laid by the applicant to justify the grant of an interrogatories.”

He said that in respect of the 4,709 polling stations “there is no indication in the pleading of the petitioners of how the interrogatories relate to what had happened.”

“It will be dangerous for this procedure to develop such a wide scope of enquiry that we could never successfully conclude in this investigation.”

“The application is in the nature of a fishing expedition which cannot be countenanced by this court,” he argued.

He said that the petitioners are invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court but “this inherent jurisdiction is not a device for abusing the process of the court in relation to election petition.”

EC’s Response

Mr. Quashie-Idun in his response said that there was no indication that any voting took place outside Ghana adding “everything was done in the 26,002 polling stations in the country.”

Addison Replies EC

Replying the respondents, Mr. Addison said that the petitioners had never said that there was voting outside Ghana as contested by the EC.

“This is an after thought after having heard the NDC counsel,” he replied the EC counsel.

He said the petitioners had specifically asked for the total number of voters who were registered abroad and not any voting outside Ghana because the issue of over-voting had been raised in the petition adding “If there is a bloated register it will facilitate over-voting.”

Mr. Addison said interrogatories relate to matters in issues between the petitioners and the EC adding “They are necessary in the fairly disposal of the petition.”

Citing authorities to buttress his case, the petitioner’s counsel said there is an issue arising between the petitioners and the EC in relation to the total number of registered voters and it was within their rights to ensure that the issue is settled.

Just as counsel turned to address issue raised by the NDC in moving their application in opposition, Mr. Tsikata stood up and said that the petitioners counsel had already argued but Justice Atuguba cut in to say that the petitioners were entitled to respond to Mr. Tsikata’s submission.

Addison’s Rebuttal

Mr. Addison then continued that he did not see why a third party (the NDC) should come into something that strictly was between the petitioners and the EC who had conducted the Voters’ Registration Exercise.

“We are saying that this is between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent; not the 1^st, not the 3^rd. The EC is directly affected by the interrogatories.”

He said that the EC is represented in court by “A very senior and experienced counsel who did not deem it fit to raise these issues. His only issue was that we should do it at the close of pleadings.”

He said the petitioner’s request for the total number of Ghanaian registered abroad when granted “would not lead to the petitioners amending their pleadings as put forward by the NDC counsel. That is not the purpose of interrogatories.”

Mr. Addison alerted the court that the petitioners have been served with a fresh application for interrogatories filed by President Mahama and asked “Is Mr. Tsikata saying that it is an abuse of the court’s process?”

He said that the service of that application showed clearly that the 3^rd respondent (NDC) is not included in that move and concluded that “this (NDC) intervention is nothing more than a red herring.”

Controversy

Mr. Tsikata then took the floor again to claim that the NDC had been served with the President’s application but Mr. Addison hit back saying “This is a court of record. The document I hold here does not indicate service on the 3^rd respondent (NDC). If they have made photocopies privately they should tell us.”

Another NDC application imminent

Mr. Tsikata then told the court that “We have just filed our application for further and better particulars. It was set for February 5.”

He proposed to the justices to allow him to move the application on the date so that the court could decide on all the applications together but Justice Doste told him that it was not before the court and they could not grant the proposal.

The landmark case has attracted attention of almost every Ghanaian, as well as the international community who see the handling of the case by the court as a critical test for Ghana’s fledgling democracy.

Baring any further preliminary objections, the 5^th February decisions might finally pave way for the court to investigate whether the EC validly declared Mr. Mahama as President-elect in the December 7 and 8 general elections.