Tuesday, April 30, 2013


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.

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.”

Friday, April 26, 2013


Dr. Bawumia after his testimony

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Friday April 26, 2013.

Yesterday hearing of the election petition at the Supreme Court was characterized by heated arguments over attempts by the Electoral Commission (EC) to ‘smuggled’ in pink sheets as evidence.

The EC through its counsel, James Quarshie-Idun had tried to tender what it claimed to be an original pink sheet used in the December 2012 general election in evidence when the Supreme Court refused to admit the document.

The commission was seeking to use a particular pink sheet from the Juaso Court Hall polling station to prove a point that the special voting that took place ahead of the general election also had pink sheets with special codes.

However, the star witness in the election petition, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, insisted during cross examination by Mr Quarshie-Idun that there is no polling station code for special voting because there are no pink sheets.

Surprise Pink Sheet
Counsel (Quarshie-Idun): Do you have the Juaso Court Hall with you?

Witness (Dr Bawumia): Yes my lord, I have it.

Counsel: So Dr. Bawumia, you have in your hands three documents?
Witness: Yes my lords.

Counsel: One is MBT 2; can you tell us the polling station name?

Witness: Juaso Court Hall, F262901

Counsel: The second one is MBY 15

Witness: Yes, that’s also Juaso Court Hall

Counsel: And code

Witness: F262901

Counsel: So that is duplication?

Witness: No, it isn’t duplication, my lords we presented these three pink sheets during my Evidence-in-Chief as an example of duplicate polling stations codes and Juaso Court Hall happens to have three pink sheets and we mentioned that this is one of the irregularities that we are pointing to. The pink sheets have different presiding officers and signatures of the agents for the same polling station…(At this moment, the bench reminded the counsel that he did not mention the third pink sheet)

Counsel: We have MBT.

Justice Atuguba: MBT what?

Counsel: MBT only, my lord. What is the code (referring to the witness).

Witness: F262901. It is the same polling station code for all three separate pink sheets.

Counsel: The one which you have is the one which has total number of valid votes as 124?

Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel: (Pulling out a pink sheet and on the verge of presenting it to the witness) My lord, I have the original of the pink sheet…or before that, I am suggesting to you, Dr. Bawumia, that MBT was Special Voting.

Witness: My lords, I do not agree.

Tsatsu Tsikata

Counsel: Very well.

Justice Atuguba: You are saying all these MBTs relate to Special Voting?

Counsel: One of them relates to special voting.

Justice Atuguba: Okay.

Counsel: MBT (ordinary) is the one that has total votes of 124 is that not so?

Witness: It is, but a special voting should not have a code like this.

Counsel: And the other two have a total vote of 292.

Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel (Pulling out a pink sheet) I have in my hands the original pink sheet of the Juaso Court Hall for the special voting…(Justice Atuguba interrupts).

Atuguba: This MBT series, are they not exhibited to his affidavit?

Counsel: Yes my lord.

Atuguba: If they are why another process of tendering….?

Counsel: Because the original has special voting written on it.

Justice Atuguba: The original?

Counsel: Yes my lord, but the photocopy from the petitioners has blotted that out. It’s easy to see if you look at the two, my lord.

Justice Atuguba: Okay, so...

Justice Rose Owusu: The special voting has separate pink sheet?

Counsel: Some of them subsequently were used for the general voting on the 7th of December, but the special voting took place on the 4th of December.

Justice Owusu: Do they have a separate pink sheet (emphasizing the word Separate).

Counsel: Absolutely my lord.

Justice Owusu: For special voting?

Counsel: Definitely my lord, definitely because they are counted in the same way as the general voting according to the CI. They are counted in the same way, but at the collation centre, so they have pink sheets.
Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey - 3rd Petitioner

Counsel (Addison): My lords, we object to the tendering of this pink sheet. First of all, every writing on the face of this pink sheet is in blue ink, except the special voting, which has been done in red ink and it is of recent vintage. It has been put there after everything here has been filled out, that is why special voting does not appear on any of the three pink sheets we have tendered in this court. But my lords, we made a categorical statement in our affidavit in paragraph 59 that the witness swore as follows: That there were three polling stations where exclusive instances of the irregularities and malpractices polling stations with same polling codes and different results occurred and they can be found on the pink sheets. The combined effects of these infractions vitiated 687. Attached herewith and marked as exhibit MBT, MBT 1 and MBT 2 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred.

Addison: Here was a specific mention of these pink sheets, and what was the response of the second respondent [EC], he responds in paragraph 14 (reading from the EC’s response to the petitioners’ Affidavit):  Paragraph 36 to 68-blanket; 38 to 68 contains inconsistencies and are denied. The second respondent says that the petitioners are fastening onto errors committed in the completion of pink sheets by presiding officers that did not benefit any particular candidate or affect the number of valid votes cast at the polling stations. Not a single statement about this being special voting -not a word of it! My lords, yesterday, counsel tendered through the witness their own guide to election officers and directed the witness to read page 7, paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. Clearly stated there is no provision for pink sheets…(He reads the paragraphs)…so my lords there it is; on the collation forms, it does not say the pink sheets….(Counsel tries to interrupt).

Addison: Please exercise some patience. My lords the EL 23 B is the presidential results collation form which is done at the collation centre; completely different from the pink sheets we are talking about, which is also the polling station declaration of results. My lords, on form number 23 B, it is stated as number one, Special voting results, and that is embossed on the form and that is where the collation officer enters the results of the special voting after counting it at the collation centre. This is what it is said in their own guidelines… (Counsel for first respondent [President Mahama] Tony Lithur interjects).

Gang Up
Tony Lithur: My lords, is this an objection or an address?

Addison: My lords, the pink sheets statement of polls and declaration of results for the office of President is form number EL 21 B and the declaration which is the signature side is form number EL 22 B, so quite clearly, this are completely different forms from form number 23 B and 23 A which are collation station results. My lords, we question the authenticity of this document that has just been sprung on us.

Tony Lithur: My lords, we have no objection [to the tendering of the EC’s pink sheet], and I’m completely amazed that the official custodian of a document comes to court and says that what you have there, I have the original; there is no original anywhere. If there is any other body that handles official election documents, they can say it….The official custodian comes and say I have the original and I will like you to compare it with what is there and the objection is that you doubt the authenticity? Those are official documents and they are fundamentally relevant to this matter…how do we know that it wasn’t blotted out in photocopying, how do we know that? It’s a serious allegation …these are official original documents.

Addison: My lords, I need to take an objection to this kind of [support from counsel for first respondent on behalf of the counsel for the second respondent]. My lords, the objection, my lords, I do not think the counsel for first respondent can respond to the objection, in a way as if he is representing the second respondent. My lords we need some directions in this respect, this has been going on for some time, and we do not think that it’s proper…(Counsel for the third respondent, Tsikata joins).

Tsatsu Tsikata: The third respondent is a party to this suit and material is being tendered in evidence, it is in relation to evidence in this suit which affects the conduct of the case of the third respondent and indeed other parties. It is therefore appropriate for parties to be heard in respect of these matters….We have been joined as parties for good reason….

Addison: My lords, I will like to bring to the notice of the court the fact that there was no challenge to these exhibits; no challenge to the authenticity of these exhibits which we exhibited, I have referred your lordships to the particular paragraph in our affidavit. In their response, there was no challenge to it. Now, second respondent is saying that there was some writing on it that somehow did not appear on the ones that we served them with. Why did he not raise it in his affidavit; we cannot conduct this case in this manner; springing these things [pink sheets] at every turn.

Tony Lithur: We have challenged a host of exhibits they have brought to this court and the legitimate way of challenging it is by this method. I can’t see any other way of challenging those exhibits. We have indicated duplicated, quadruplicated sheets and those are exhibits in this case, we have challenged them…so it is not correct to say that we have not challenged the pink sheets that have been brought to this court….
Nana Akufo-Addo and his entourage
Addison: My lords are three people going to respond to one objection, what is your locus in this (referring to Counsel for both first and third respondents)... (Justice Atuguba intervenes).

Justice Atuguba: Let’s look at the substance of the matter.

Addison: No my lords this things are important, they keep on doing it.

Atuguba: That doesn’t solve the problem at stake …. In this case, it will be most unrealistic to compartmentalize…its one entire case; this way or that way. Now let’s put it another way: Assuming this type of evidence goes and it is something that affects the decision, are you saying that when they appeal, they can’t take a point?...It affects them, they have an interest, as for that, they are affected by the evidence being led and I think that is sufficient standing….well, that’s my view, but if it is contentious, we can retire and consider and come out and rule.

Bawumia’s Polling Station
The court in a 6-3 majority decision dismissed attempt by the EC counsel to tender in evidence pink sheet of the polling station where Dr. Bawumia cast his ballot during the election.

The rejection followed an objection raised by Mr. Addison over the tendering of the document by the EC since he said it had no relevance to the issues in evidence.

He argued that no proper foundation was made in tendering the pink sheet for Dr. Bawumia’s polling station and also said it amounted to ‘ambush litigation’.

“We attached 11,842 pink sheets, the 2nd respondent (EC) did not attach a single pink sheet as exhibit in their affidavit and yet they want to rely on something that is not known to us per the rules set for this trial.”

Mr. Addison said that the petitioners have not even complained about Dr. Bawumia’s polling station and it is not part of the polling stations being contested saying “I do not see the relevance here.”

However, Mr. Tony Lithur, counsel for President Mahama supported the EC saying he did not oppose to Mr. Quarshie-Idun’s move.

Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the NDC also associated himself with the EC, saying  that it is open to a party during cross-examination to produce document to surprise a witness.

Mr. Quarshie-Idun also argued that Dr. Bawumia was able to identify the pink sheet out of the 26,002 as the place he cast his ballot and they wanted him to clarify the evidence he led.

Justices Atuguba, Sophia Adinyira and Vida Akoto-Bamfo had ruled that the EC should tender Dr. Bawumia’s polling station pink sheet while Justices Julius Ansah, Jones Victor Dotse, Rose C. Owusu, Annin-Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and Sulley N. Gbadegbe ruled that the EC could not tender the document.

Padded Votes
Dr. Bawumia told the court that padding of votes as they alleged in the petition came in the form of over-voting, voting without biometric verification or duplicate serial numbers.

The EC counsel then pulled out a document which he said was which indicated how the commission announced the results but Mr. Addison objected and said Dr. Bawumia could not testify on a document the petitioners did not  generate.

Justice Atuguba then asked Mr. Quarshie-Idun to bring the primary pink sheets that were used to tabulate the figures that was being sought to be tendered.
The court said it was ‘provisionally’ accepting the document on condition that the EC would supply the court with the original copy.
Nana Ato Dadzie
Throughout the cross-examination, any error that occurred during the election has been described by Mr. Quarshie-Idun and Tony Lithur as ‘trans-positional or clerical errors’ and ‘administrative errors’ respectively but Dr. Bawumia has always parried all those suggestions.

EC Counsel: I suggest to you that out of the 26,002 you could provide only one polling station which we say is trans-positional or clerical error?

Witness: We have supplied 11,138 pink sheets of polling stations where we have detected discrepancies in the figures declared by the 2nd respondent.

As counsel persistently put it to Dr. Bawumia that the petitioners did not raise any protest on the counting day, the witness said “we complained to the chairman of the 2nd respondent and he told us to go to court.”

“My Lords there are many ways to kill a cat,” he added drawing spontaneous laughter in the courtroom and said that most of the votes that are under contention inure to the benefit of President Mahama.

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie even jokingly asked Dr. Bawumia to acknowledge that somebody (NDC Chairman Dr. Kwabena Adjei) owns the patent of the catch phrase.

Dr. Bawumia disagreed with the EC that the 14,158,890 voter register used in announcing the presidential results was an error and pointed out that there was a difference between the total number of votes in declaring the presidential and parliamentary votes put together.

Disability Issue
Counsel: Under cross examination, you insisted that biometric registration was only fingerprint, is that not correct?

Witness: This is what the CI 75 defines it as… (Counsel interrupts).

Counsel: In your evidence in Chief, you insisted that biometric registration is only fingerprint

Witness: It does, but the law also makes exceptions for people without fingers or people whose fingers could not be captured. That is in the law, but the equipment is for fingerprint verification.

Counsel: The photograph is also part of the details in the biometric register?
Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel: And so are the other details of the registrant; the person being registered.

Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel: So there are data other than the finger print that will enable you to be biometrically verified?

Witness: Yes my lord, on the register there are data that is capturing people who would be identified by their face only so in the register under their names, the initials “F.O” appear. The total register that we have looked at, there are 3,196 such people and they are distributed across three regions in Ghana: You have 2,657 in the Volta Region, 170 in….. (Interrupted by a counsel who was astounded by the witness’ ability to commit those figures to memory).
Gloria Akufo
Counsel: My lord, I respectfully submit that the answers that he is giving, he is going beyond the question that I gave my lord…

Witness: No, not at all, I’m just fully giving the answers knowing the data that supports the question and the answer therefore….
Sitting continues on Monday April 29, 2013 after counsel called for a break.