.JPG)
Nana Akufo-Addo and Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia after the proceedings
Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Tuesday April 31, 2013
Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the ruling National
Democratic Congress (NDC) yesterday took his turn in the cross examination of
Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, the 2nd petitioner in the ongoing Presidential
Election Petition at the Supreme Court trying hard to punch holes into the
evidence.
However, the star witness stood his grounds;
answering the NDC counsel on a number of questions which sometimes led to
heated arguments between Phillip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Tsikata over the latter’s mode of cross-examination.
According to Mr. Addison, apart from answering the
questions, the witness needed to also explain issues to the court where
necessary and felt Mr. Tsikata was not allowing the 2nd petitioner
to do so but the NDC counsel insisted he had every right to intervene if he
felt the witness was straying from the issues.
Mr. Tsikata started his cross-examination by first looking
at the Electoral Commission’s (EC) Form 1C, touched on the mystery polling
stations where the petitioners claimed election took placed outside the
mandated 26,002, highlighted on polling agents’ signatures of Pink Sheets
before settling on voting without biometric verification.
Form
1 C
Counsel
(Mr. Tsikata): The Form 1C as you referred to in your
evidence-in-chief is not torn as you suggested. You were wrong then.
Witness
(Dr. Bawumia): I
was not wrong. After filling the particulars of the voter, you then tear the
bottom part of Form 1C and it is laminated to become the voter’s ID card.
Mr. Tsikata insisted that Form 1C was not meant for
voters ID Card but Dr. Bawumia disagreed and as the give-and-take ensued
between counsel and the witness, Mr. Addison again stepped in to say that Mr.
Tsikata’s question was ‘speculative’ and needed to ask direct questions for the
witness to answer.
Just as the NDC counsel stood up to answer Mr.
Addison, Justice Jones Victor Dotse, a member of the panel cut in to remind
members of the bar to allow lead counsel to raise objections and not speak from
the bar without permission.
Justice William Atuguba, chairman of panel then stepped
in and said Mr. Tsikata could proceed to ask another question since that issue
had been addressed.
22
Polling Stations
Mr. Tsikata put it to Dr. Bawumia that contrary to
claims that the NPP did not know about the existence of 22 polling stations,
the petitioners’ party sent polling agents to those polling stations and that
some of the letters was even signed by the 1st petitioner Nana Addo
Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
Dr. Bawumia when shown one of the letters purported
to have been written by the 1st petitioners admitted that the
signature looked like that of his presidential candidate but added that those
polling stations needed to exist ‘legally’ and not ‘physically’.
Tsatsu Tsikata
The use of the word legally incensed Mr. Tsikata who
told Dr. Bawumia that “When it comes to legal matters you have to be a bit
cautious in raising legal issues.”
Councel: As a mere lawyer, on the face of the pink sheet, I am not
able to tell which polling station this is.
Witness: "As a mere economist, I am also not able to tell which polling station it is," drawing spontaneous laughter in the courtroom.
Witness: "As a mere economist, I am also not able to tell which polling station it is," drawing spontaneous laughter in the courtroom.
Dr. Bawumia told the court that the petitioners
needed to match all the polling stations supplied by the EC for the election
and once they did not find the 22 among the list “it becomes unknown to us.”
Polling
Agents & Signature
Mr. Tsikata, put it to Dr. Bawumia that one of the duties
of a polling agent was to avoid impersonation, multiple voting and to attest to
or certify that the election took place with the provisions to which the
witness replied: They signed to attest to what happened at the polling station.”
Mr. Tsikata then said
“I see you like the pink sheets. Sometimes, sorry that I call you Dr. Pink Sheets,” but Dr. Bawumia just giggled before
Mr Tsikata brought out a list of exhibits where he claimed there were anomalies
and said the original pink sheet would give a clearer picture.
Mr. Addison objected to the line of cross-examination and
said the original pink sheets Mr. Tsikata talked about were not in evidence but
the NDC counsel said he was only trying to point out the discrepancies in the witness’
evidence.
The court sustained the objection and asked Mr. Tsikata to
move to another question.
Same
Polling Station Different Signatures
Counsel:
As you indicated on the other polling station sheet, exactly the same names appear
is that not correct?
Witness:
Exactly.
Counsel:
That cannot be correct.
Witness:
That should not be correct, in fact…. (Counsel interrupts).
Counsel:
So there must be an error, would you agree with me?
Witness:
My lord, we brought 35 polling stations under the duplicate polling station
code category and most of these 35 polling stations have this type of problem.
Juaso Court Hall was one such polling station where we have three different
pink sheets from the same polling station, and the presiding officer signatures
were different for the same polling station. A lot of the 35 polling stations that
we brought to this court as having duplicate polling station codes have this
peculiar problem of two different sheets with separate signatures. This is part
of the problems we had in the record of this election.
Gloria Akufo
Counsel:
No, it’s not at all, everything you’ve just said, is not what we are seeing
here, what we are seeing here is an exhibit that you have attached to your
affidavit which you are asking this court to rely upon and you just said to us
that the names and signatures on the back of your two exhibits are the same.
You also acknowledge that should not be the case?
Witness:
Precisely
Counsel:
That should not be the case.
Witness:
That should not be the case, yes.
Counsel:
So clearly, this court cannot rely on those two pink sheets as you have exhibited
them?
Witness:
This court can rely, simply because we are saying that these are anomalies and
these should not be the case, so we are in court with a lot of these sheets
with these types of anomalies.
Counsel:
So are you saying that if we went to the original pink sheets of those two, we
will see the same polling agents signing, is that what you are saying?
Witness:
All that we can say is that the copies that we have will indicate if these
copies are truly made in their correct images, then this will be what have and
this is therefore what we have presented.
Counsel:
You see, Dr. Bawumia, I am suggesting to you that the original pink sheets in
respect of the two polling stations would only have different polling agents
because in reality, there were different polling agents…(Counsel for
petitioners, Philip Addison raises objection to the line of argument of Mr.
Tsatsu Tsikata).
Counsel
(Philip Addison): My lords, we are objecting to this
question, I don’t know what he refers to as ‘Original Pink Sheet’. In any
event, whatever it is that he is referring to; it’s not before the court. What
is before the court are the exhibits that he has shown to the witness and
therefore, he has nothing to compare with.
Counsel
(Tsikata): My lords, with respect, this is a frivolous
objection; I’m showing him their own exhibits. Their own exhibits are what they
have put before your lordships and I’m seeking to undermine the value of those
exhibits. I don’t have any hesitation in telling him what my purpose in
cross-examination is.
Witness:
My lords, if I can refresh my memory by just checking the category of these
pink sheets.
Counsel:
You know checking the category is not going to help, so my lords I’m going to
object to any refreshing of his memory because I am asking a question on the
face of the pink sheet, that what my question is about.
Witness:
I just want to know, my lords, what it is that we are objecting to as far as
these two pink sheets….(Tsatsu interrupts).
Counsel:
It does not matter, I am cross-examining you, and I told you the reason why I
am cross-examining you on this matter, I don’t mind telling you….. (After which
he goes on to repeat the reasons why he asked the question. But Philip Addison
intervenes).
Addison:
My lords, I took an objection to the question by counsel, but I have not heard
from the court and he is badgering him with supplementary questions.
Tony Lithur
Justice
Atuguba: (referring to Mr. Tsikata, counsel for third
respondent) Yes?
Counsel:
(Ignoring the call for him to answer the objection, he pointing to the pink
sheet in Dr. Bawumia’s possession). Have a look also at that stamp,…. (Addison
interrupts again).
Mr.
Addison: Unless, he has withdrawn the question, I made an
objection to a question put to the witness…(Justice Atuguba intervenes).
Justice
Atuguba: Yes, what was your response?
Counsel:
He hasn’t answered the question….(Atuguba interrupts again).
Justice
Atuguba: No, he is objecting to the question, what is your
response to his objection?
Counsel:
My lords, the response is that it is a frivolous objection and I am cross
examining the witness on what they alleged in their affidavits are copies of
pink sheets which they are tendering as evidence in this court to suggest
irregularities etc. and the question that I am asking him is for the purpose of
showing a discrepancy in respect of what they have submitted to this court.
That’s why I asked him whether if we found the originals of those pink sheets,
what he is saying would be borne out by that. That is the purpose of the
question, and my lords, normally; you need not-in cross-examination- disclose
your purpose of cross-examination to the witness….
Biometric
Verification
Counsel:
I am putting it to you Form 1C is issued in respect of those authorized to vote
without their finger having to be put through the verification device.
Witness:
That is not correct at all, that is very wrong.
Counsel: I am putting it to you further that…
(Pauses) Dr. Bawumia, are you now saying that form 1C is each voter’s ID, are
you now saying that?
Witness:
My lords it is ‘Captured Voter Information’ form 1C and every voter fills in
this form. Every person who registers fills in this for biometrically.
Counsel:
You see at the bottom, the line here (showing the line), the line with
‘Disability’, is that the line which will show if there is a disability…
Witness:
It is; if you don’t have a disability, it doesn’t have to be marked.
Counsel:
And so if a presiding officer at the polling stations such as the ones that you
have, you are saying that if he reads the issue in C3 as being a statement of
those who voted without biometric verification, but are authorized to vote, you
will say that he got it wrong?
Witness:
I think if you are authorized to vote without biometric verification, that
information should be captured in C3. The second responded says nobody voted
without biometric verification and the information we have is 535,000 people
voted without biometric verification. Another stage, they say its transposition
error….
Counsel:
Dr. Bawumia, you are saying that if somebody voted without the biometric
verification device, and he was entitled to vote, that would have to be entered
in C3?
Witness:
I agree, that should be entered in C3.
Counsel:
So on the face of the pink sheet, if you see a number in C3, how are you able
to determine whether it is people who are authorized to vote without the device
or people who are not authorized to vote, how would you determine that?
Witness:
My lords, we have a list of the polling stations, these 3,196 polling stations
that were in the register, [categorized] by polling stations and the number of
F.O (Face only) voters at each polling station, so all 3,196, you can see what
the potential voters for each polling station is and really, for the most part,
none of them exceeds two (2); some will be four (4) but it’s one (1) or (2).
This is generally what you see and you compare that to see if more people voted
than what was potentially allowed to vote….
Nana Ato Dadzie
Counsel:
Dr. Bawumia, I want you to appreciate the seriousness of what you just said in
hindsight, because you seem to be saying that by going through these registers,
you could tell where somebody who doesn’t have a finger was voting, is that
what you are saying?
Witness:
By and large, you could see how many people at that particular polling station
–the information is there- are allowed to vote without going through voter
verification in terms of fingerprint.
Counsel:
You are saying that you can see how many people are allowed to vote, and so are
you saying that when you see a bigger number than that, you questioned it, is
that the process that you used?
Witness:
Yeah, I think generally, if you have one person or nobody who is allowed to
vote without verification, and you see 300 people voted without verification
then it’s a problem.
Counsel:
So basically, you really cannot tell just from that number whether those
numbers of people were authorized or not?
Witness:
You can tell by comparing it with the register.
Counsel:
(Showing witness an exhibit of pink sheet from a polling station in the Eastern
Region to confirm voting without biometric verification) what is in C3?
Witness:
C3 is one (1).
Counsel:
Would you agree with me that one person was authorized to vote without his
finger going through the biometric verification device?
Witness:
Definitely not, it means one person voted without going through the biometric
verification device.
Counsel:
And how would you know from just looking at the pink sheet whether that one
person was authorized to vote without the biometric verification device?
Witness:
If you look at the voters’ register, for Eastern Region, we do not have any
F.Os and that means that one person could not have been authorized to vote
without biometric verification.
Counsel:
But that information you have just given us is not on the face of the pink
sheet, would you agree with that?
Witness:
Yes it’s not on the face of the pink sheet.
Counsel:
Very well, very well….
EC concludes Cross Examination
Before Mr.
Tsikata took over the exercise,
James
Quarshie-Idun representing
EC
also completed his extended and winding
cross-examination of Dr. Bawumia.
Godfred Yeboah Dame
It had
taken Mr. Quarshie-Idun two and half working days to complete the cross-examination.
The authenticity of the original Pink Sheet of a
particular polling station became a contentious issue between the EC counsel
and the petitioners counsel.
When Mr. Quarshie-Idun tried to tender in evidence
pink sheets (whose photocopies were already in evidence but the court said they
could only deal with them when the EC was able to produce the originals), Mr.
Addison objected to one of them representing Atebubu Amantin Open Square New
Market Polling Station.
He said the EC was trying to use parliamentary pink
sheet in place of presidential which was not permitted by the rules and also
added that all the writings on the documents were in blue ink but what was
being tendered was in red.
Mr. Quarshie-Idun tried to justify the document by
saying that they were using it to contradict what the petitioners had said in
evidence.
Tony Lithur who represents the 1st
respondent (President Mahama) said the petitioners could seek to prevent
documents which were in the official custody of the EC whose contribution to
the case was crucial.
“Unless they (petitioner) have another document,
they cannot be disallowed.”
The EC then brought out another document for Dr.
Bawumia to answer questions on it but Mr. Addison objected and told the court
that the EC could tender it through its own witness and complained again to the
court about how the EC keeps “springing surprises on us” with documents which
should have been filed before the case started as the court ordered.
Mr. Quarshie-Idun put it to Dr. Bawumia that no
votes exceeded the voters register in any of the polling station but the
witness said “It can’t be true. We have several instances of that.”
Counsel:
Dr. Bawumia,1099 out of 2009 of the pink sheets you claimed had not been signed
had indeed been signed.
Witness:
I disagree.
Counsel:
The number of pink sheets not signed by the presiding officers represent 3.5per
cent of the total number of pink sheets nationwide.
Witness:
included in this list is about 70 per cent of the polling stations which are
not part of the further and better particulars. 1739 were not signed and that
makes it 6.6 per cent and not 3.5 per cent.
Counsel:
Polling agents signed 99 percent of the pink sheets.
Witness:
that was the case.
The witness disagreed with the EC counsel that the
petitioners failed to provide further and better particulars of some of the
polling stations as ordered by the court saying “we indicated every single
polling station in the further and better particulars.
The
over 70,000 voters
Counsel put it to Dr. Bawumia that that the category
of voters who could only be identified by their faces only and not go through
biometric verification (disability) was 70,889 but the witness said “we were
only supplied 3,196 in the register.”
The EC counsel then gave the breakdown as Western
(6,238), Central (3,090), Greater Accra (4,656), Volta (3,916), Eastern (3,807),
Ashanti (4,321), Brong Ahafo (4,117), Northern (18,018) Upper East (18,398) and
Upper West (4,254).
Dr. Bawumia insisted that per the register given by
the EC, the petitioners party only identified only 3,196 in the register as
voters in that category.
He parried suggestion by counsel that the petitioners
sought to use errors in the completion of the pink sheets to “harvest votes for
annulment.”
.JPG)
