.JPG)
Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr. Bawumia and Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey leave the courtroom
Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Wenesday May 1, 2013.
The ongoing landmark election petition at the Supreme Court
seems to be witnessing an increasing number of women attending the proceedings.
Besides female lawyers for the opposing sides of the case, female political
leaders are storming the courtroom in their numbers to give moral support to
the parties.
On the side of the petitioners, the New Patriotic Party (NPP)
can boast of Otiko Afisah Djaba, Women’s Organiser; Cecilia Abena Dapaah,
former MP of Bantama; Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey, MP for Anyaa Sowutuom and
Akosua Frema Osei Opare, former MP for Ayawaso West Wuogon, with Jemima Anita
De Soosoo, NDC Women’s Organiser on the side of the respondents.
Meanwhile, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, star witness in the ongoing
landmark election petition at the Supreme Court, yesterday exposed lead counsel
for the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), Tsatsu Tsikata over a
document the Electoral Commission (EC) tendered at the trial.
The document, which is a letter purportedly signed by Nana Addo
Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the First Petitioner in the presidential petition, assigning
New Patriotic Party (NPP) agents to polling stations, which the petitioners are
claiming were unknown to them, had been tendered by the EC through Dr Bawumia
during the commission’s first day of cross-examination.
After exhaustively asking Dr. Bawumia questions on the document
on Monday, Mr. Tsikata picked up the same letter again yesterday trying to
discredit the witness on his earlier testimony.
Mr. Tsikata’s point was that since Nana Akufo-Addo swore an
affidavit on February 8, 2013, claiming initially that the NPP could not locate
28 polling stations out of the 26,002 permitted by the EC when he (Nana) knew
very well that he had signed a letter on December 5, 2012 assigning party
agents to the same polling stations the petitioners claimed were non-existent,
Dr. Bawumia needed to explain it to the court.
However, when handed back the exhibit (letter), the Economist
and NPP vice presidential candidate for the 2012 elections, carefully
scrutinised the document and said “Mr Lords, this letter is rather a curious
one.”
Tsatsu Tsikata
“A careful observation shows that the letter was written on
December 5, 2012 but the returning officer acknowledged receipt of the letter
on December 3, 2012 which is strange because the dates are inconsistent,” Dr.
Bawumia pointed out.
He said although the letter might bear the signature of the NPP
presidential candidate “it is inconsistent as far as dates and receipts are
concerned”.
The Exposure
Counsel: Take a look at Exhibit 3E
Witness: Can I have exhibit 3E again, please? Yes my lords, this
letter is a rather curious one that is why I wanted to see it. … (Counsel
interrupts)
Counsel: Is it signed by the first petitioner?
Witness: Yes, my lords; that is why it is curious. It (the letter allegedly
authorising polling agents to the unknown polling stations) is dated 5thDecember 2012, but the returning officer received
it and dated it 3rdDecember 2012. It is
inconsistent.
Counsel: But it was signed by the first petitioner?
Witness: Yes, my lords, it is electronic signature, so one would
like to really see the original of this letter, but I’m saying that it was
dated 5th of December 2012, but the receipt by the
Returning officer is dated 3rdDecember
2012….they are inconsistent. And plus, my lords, the letter that you see does
not refer to the polling station code. Even if the dates were consistent, we
say that these polling stations are unknown because the codes on the pink sheet
are inconsistent with what is in the EC listed 26,002. This letter needs
further explanation; it is inconsistent, as far as the dates of sending and
receipt are concerned, my lords.
Counsel: (Smiling uneasily) It still bears the signature of the
first petitioner.
Witness: Yes, it does and this is why it is curious.
Counsel: You know, you recall that when these series of exhibits
were being tendered by counsel for Second Respondent, I think from where you
were sitting, when this letter was sent to your lawyers, it was reviewed by
them and it was sent all the way back to the First Petitioner, do you recall
seeing that…
Witness: To the First Petitioner? No, I don’t recall seeing that.
Counsel: (Stretches hands to retrieve the letter). Let me just have
it… (Murmuring in court as counsel takes a closer look at the letter). Is this
also the letterhead of the New Patriotic Party by any chance, or it’s not?
NDC executives
Witness: It looks like it, yes.
Counsel: It looks like it is the letterhead of the New Patriotic
Party… (Pauses for several minutes). And each of those other exhibits in exhibit
3 series are also apparently on the letterheads of the New Patriotic Party?
Witness: Yes, each of them was sent 7th December
2012-the day of the election-and received on the 3rd December,
2012. It’s just not consistent.
Counsel: Have you cared to ask your colleagues about these problems
that you have seen on the face of the letter, or you are just seeing them in
the witness box now?
Witness: No these were tendered [by First and Third respondents]
and we have asked questions. The issues that have come up are the dates on
these letters.
Counsel: Very Well.
Initial Petition
Earlier, a tug-of-war ensued between Mr. Tsikata and the
petitioners’ lead counsel, Phillip Addison, over the initial petition filed by
the petitioners which they said they no longer relied on but Mr. Tsikata also
insisted he had the right to conduct cross-examination on that piece of
evidence.
Counsel: The original affidavit of the First Petitioner verifying
was in respect of allegations about 4,709 polling stations, is that correct?
Witness: Yes, my lords.
Counsel: Did you provide in your affidavit any explanation in
respect of that earlier number and your change to a higher number?
Gloria Akufo
Witness: There is no explanation; we had an amended petition where
we moved up to a higher number.
Counsel: I am going to show you the First Petitioner’s verifying
affidavit….(Mr. Addison interrupts)
Mr. Addison: My lords, Counsel is referring to the original petition
and affidavit in verification. We are no more relying on that, it’s been
amended. The amended petition and the affidavit is the one presently before the
court.
Counsel: This is an affidavit that is before this court and I’m
showing it to you (Passes the affidavit around the court room for all to
scrutinise. Philip Addison intervenes)….
Mr. Addison: My lords, we have raised an objection to this document
being tendered through the witness for question being asked on pleadings that
have been abandoned. We have before the court now, an amended
petition….(Justice Atuguba clears the air)
Justice Atuguba: Sometimes we just look on because when
you intervene, there are all sorts of misconceptions. When a pleading is
amended, the first one is phased out, that’s the effect of an amendment…
Counsel: There’s a sworn affidavit that is part
of this proceedings and I am going to cross-examine the witness in respect of
this amended petition, by a reference that I am going to make to that affidavit
that they earlier swore. The First Petitioner swore to an affidavit which is
before this court, and the fact that they have amended their pleadings does not
mean that I cannot refer to their affidavit and their earlier pleading in this
case, especially as we have indicated in our answer. We have indicated quite
clearly the inconsistencies that there have been in the case along the way.
There is absolutely no reason why I cannot refer to that in cross-examination.
Atuguba: I see this is a hybrid situation; normally pleadings are
not required to be verified by affidavit, but in an action like this they are.
I see the point you are making relating to affidavit, but in fairness, one has
to construe the amendment procedure Mutatis Mutandis also
in respect of the affidavit, so that when the amendment is made, it’s not just
the pleadings, but the new affidavit supporting the amended petition deemed to
have amended the earlier one….
Nana Ato Dadzie
Counsel: Now, my lords, indeed, as has been famously said, there
are many ways in killing a cat and I will refer to the affidavit that is filed
with the amended pleadings; the second amended pleadings. The affidavit
attached to that is dated 8th February 2013 and that is actually also sworn to
by the First Petitioner and I will just refer you to that. Paragraph 26 of the
affidavit which is on page 7 (He hands the affidavit over to Dr. Bawumia to
read. The paragraph is in reference to 28 unknown polling stations.
Bawumia reads it). Now by the time that the first petitioner
deposed to that affidavit on oath, he had written the letter, Exhibit 3 E and
signed the letter to the second respondent [EC]; is it not?
No comments:
Post a Comment