Nana Akufo-Addo arrives in court
Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Wednesday April 24, 2013.
The laborious manner in which President John Dramani
Mahama’s lawyer, Tony Lithur cross-examines a star witness in the presidential election
petition, yesterday attracted what looked like a subtle protest from the nine-member
panel of Supreme Court Justices hearing the case.
For almost a whole day, Tony Lithur, lead counsel
for President Mahama kept asking the 2nd petitioner, Dr. Mahamudu
Bawumia virtually same questions on different categories of over-voting to
which the witness appeared to give the same answers on the emerging issues.
However, as the exercise appeared to be boring, one
of the panel members, Justice Jones Victor Dotse tried to offer what he said
was his ‘personal’ suggestion to Mr. Lithur as to aid expeditious trial.
Justice
Dotse: I think we have made some progress but I believe we
can make much faster progress….I am not speaking on behalf of the court, I am speaking
on my own behalf. I am not meaning to direct you on how to do your
cross-examination; for example, there are some areas-like we are dealing with
over-voting now, there is also No Biometric Verification, there is also No
Signature and also Duplicate Serial Numbers, if you have put your numbers together
(Pink Sheets) and to give them (Petitioners) an advance notice so that they
check those particular pink sheets before we come to court…this laborious
process of picking one [pink sheet] and showing it to them…Some have been
deleted but questions are still being asked on them. So in order for us to make
some progress-I am not limiting this suggestion only to your cross-examination,
but it might be necessary for all other to adopt a similar line, if need be to
expedite the process.
James Quarshie-Idun is the Electoral Commission's lead counsel
Mr.
Lithur: The pink sheets are not our pink sheets, its their
pink sheets and my point really is that if we are giving them the pink
sheets….I am telling you (petitioners) what questions I am going to ask….they
now go and think through the answers…that destroys the element of surprise
which is part of the cross-examination process.
“I think that surprise is an essential part of that
process. What I have done with the rest, your suggestions, I will not hesitate
to do…. In terms of biometrics, there are fundamental issues around biometrics
that I will like to cross-examine on fight before I give the list out…going
forward, some of them, I will not hesitate to give the list ahead of time. Some
I hesitate because I honestly-and it is my honest opinion, that my
cross-examination would be preempted by giving those lists…”
Justice Rose C. Owusu another panel member then came
in to ask Mr Lithur “From your list, they wouldn’t know the sort of questions
you would be asking, so just let them know that we would be privy to exhibit
MBC 10 to 50 then you give them MBC 10 to 50. You see, you will not indicate
what questions you will be asking in respect of the pink sheet.
Mr. Lithur said “My lord trust me,” but before he
could complete his statement Justice Owusu cut in to say “Before we come here,
you will know exactly what you want, and they would know what they are supposed
to answer to, otherwise, I cannot imagine when we are going to finish-the rate
at which we are going.”
Mr. Lithur then said “My lords, we have tried to respect the court’s directions in terms
of expedition, we have. While there is need for expedition, I think that should
be balanced against the normal rules that we know and that we are used to
operating within.”
Sir John with some NDC executives
Same
Old Process
A
transcription by Raphael Ofori-Adeniran
Earlier before the judges intervention the laborious
exercise continued unabated.
Counsel
(Mr Lithur): Doctor let me first congratulate you; I
noticed in the papers today that you’ve been asked to return back to your job
at the ADB (African Development Bank), congratulations.
Witness
(Dr. Bawumia): I think you should stop reading too
many newspapers. The answer received spontaneous laughter in the courtroom.
Counsel: Doctor I have in my hands exhibit MB C 34
and the polling station name is Awurata and the polling station code G191103
and this has been exhibited as proof of over-voting. Can you look on the
exhibit and tell me whether you can find any basis at all for that conclusion?
Witness:
My lords given that we have deleted over 700
polling stations since we filed the affidavit, it would have been helpful if I
could have checked to see if this is still part of our case, but if I have to
just answer to it as it is then, yes.
Counsel: Doctor, the evidence is clear on the face
of the Pink Sheet, on the face of the pink sheet, is there any basis upon which
you arrived at the conclusion that there was over-voting?
Philip Addison with some members of the NPP legal team
Witness:
Absolutely my lords, on the face of this pink sheet, we have a lot of basis for
classifying this particular polling station as one where over-voting took
place. My lords, over-voting, as we have defined it, is the situation where the
total votes in the ballot box exceeds the number of ballots given to voters to
vote or number of registered voters at the polling station…..
Counsel:
I am suggesting to you that there is no basis upon which you concluded and
exhibited to this court that this particular pink sheet is proof of
over-voting. My lords I have in my custody exhibit MB C18 and the polling
station name is Asuoso La Primary Number 2 and the polling station code is F372305,
any basis upon which you could have concluded there was over-voting on that
exhibit?
Witness:
Yes my lord, C 1 (ballot accounting section)
again is blank.
Counsel:
And that is proof of over-voting?
Witness:
Yes my lords, it is a proof that someone may have been hiding something by not
filling C1.
Evidence under protection
Counsel:
Your candidate was resoundingly beaten at that polling station, are you
suggesting that the EC was trying to favour your candidate by undermining this
sheet?
Witness:
There was a resounding illegality in this polling station and that illegality
is over-voting and if you don’t fill C1, it is the easiest way to hide
over-voting and this is why we classify it as over-voting and this is why the
second respondent requires that it should be filled out before counting begins
so that you don’t go back to change numbers subsequently.
Counsel:
You are accusing the EC?
Witness:
We are only looking at the face of the pink sheets; it speaks for itself, my
lords….My lords we have an exhibit showing the number of polling stations deleted
from the different categories which are in evidence; may I be able to refer to
it?
Counsel:
My lord I haven’t asked any question on the sheet yet, we are just identifying
them…(Counsel for petitioners, Philip Addison interrupts ).
Counsel
(Mr. Addison): My lords witness is asking leave of the
court to refresh his memory on matters that are already in evidence, my lord we
are talking of 11,000 plus polling stations, he possibly cannot have all in his
head. All he is asking the court is to be able to refer to matters that are
already in evidence, we are here for nothing but the truth!
Counsel:
My lord, I haven’t even asked a question yet, I haven’t asked any question in
relation to the document here, I would like to introduce the document properly
before I even ask the questions…(Justice Atuguba cuts in).
Justice
Atuguba: Okay, go ahead, you’ve fought enough, go ahead.
Counsel:
I didn’t think I was fighting my lord….(General laugher).
Justice
Atuguba: But it has a contextual meaning…. (Laughter again).
Counsel:
(Goes back into the lengthy individual scrutiny of pink sheets).
Counsel:
My lords, I have here exhibit MBC 196 there is absolutely no other detail that
is discernible from this sheet, but was labeled in proof of over-voting.
Witness:
This again is the same as what you just showed me, there is really no basis,
which is why I am telling you that I don’t think this is part of our case. I am
sure it should be in one of those that were deleted.
Counsel:
You swore to an affidavit exhibiting this sheet, didn’t you?
Witness:
Oh we did, and when we came to court, we informed the court that we’ve reduced
the number from 11,842 to 11, 138. We also gave court specific information that
we had decreased by further 83, so there is nothing here that will speak to
trying to mislead the court. Once we recognized that certain pink sheets that
we could not sustain, we deleted them, and we deleted about 700 pink sheets so
far. If you will only look at what we have in evidence, I think you will find
that maybe you may not be making any substantive change to the results that we
have presented.
Counsel:
It seems to me you used each and every of these pink sheets in your so-called
analysis.
Tight security
Witness:
Well, my lords that is not true and I would ask counsel to then allow me to
tender in all the pink sheets that we used in our analysis and he can see what
the truth is, but he seems quite unwilling to do that for some reason.
Counsel:
You’ve had your day sir…(he subsequently went on to repeat the same
cross-examination).
The
Dog Fight
Counsel:
(Picking a pink sheet from a polling station, he passed it round the court for
scrutiny)…Now Doctor, what is recorded as rejected ballot?
Witness:
It’s not very clear, there is a mark in D6 but it is put at 2 in A plus B in
rejected ballot down there.
Counsel:
Doctor, I can see only one (1) written at the top D 2, I think that was written
at the bottom.
Witness:
This is what I am saying, that there is a mark, but am not sure exactly whether
it is 2 or …..(Interrupted by Counsel).
Counsel:
Say what is there.
Witness:
What is there is two (2) this is what has been put there, am not sure what the
total here is from the D box so we can only go by what is under rejected ballot
in section B.
Counsel:
Doctor, you have seen mistakes been made on simple addition of rejected
ballots. In D2 there is only one (1) so there shouldn’t be two at the bottom
that is what I’m suggesting to you.
Witness:
Well, it could be the case, it could not be the case so what we are going by is
what is on here. I don’t know what the total here is, it is put down here as
two (2) so that is what I have to take.
Counsel:
What I’m suggesting to you is that what is at the bottom does not reflect on
the face of the pink sheet….What is at the top Doctor, just be honest, it’s one
(1). There is one (1) clearly written at the top there.
Witness:
There is one (1) at the top and if you go down, you will see another one (1) in
D3.
Counsel:
There is no one (I) in D3.
Witness:
Take another look at it.
Counsel:
I have looked at it Doctor, there is no one in D3…(back and forth banter
between Counsel and Witness. Petitioners Counsel interrupts).
Mr.
Addison: My lords, how long will this go on?
Counsel:
But I am cross-examining….
(Mr. Addison):
I mean how long will it go on?
Counsel:
This interruptions would not help, my lord, they don’t help.
Mr
Addison: What is this?
You are accusing the witness of being dishonest.
Nana Akufo-Addo and Dr. Bawumia
Counsel
:
Am actually suggesting to him, he is being dishonest, it is a direct
suggestion, I am not squirming away from that, because I think he is being
dishonest, counsel….(Continuous banter between both counsels as court bailiff
barks Order! Order!! Justice Atuguba mediates).
Justice
Atuguba: Counsel can you finalize that portion? …. (Tempers
calmed as Mr. Lithur continues his cross-examination as judges get increasingly
impatient at the slow pace. Justice Victor Jones Dotse intervenes)…
Sitting continues today.
No comments:
Post a Comment