NPP FILES 16 BOXES...TSATSU FAILS NDC

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Wednesday, July 31, 2012

All parties in the landmark Presidential Election Petition except the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) yesterday filed their addresses as ordered by the Supreme Court at the close of evidence on July 18, 2012.

Victor Kojogah Adawudu, a member of the NDC legal team who was at the Supreme Court to file the address on behalf of 1^st respondent in the petition, President John Dramani Mahama told DAILY GUIDE that the NDC, led by its lead counsel, Tsatsu Tsikata had not filed.

He did not give any indication when the 3^rd respondent will file its address.

A member of the NDC’s legal team, Abraham Amaliba told however told Radio XYZ Tuesday evening that vehicular traffic may have been the cause of the party’s delay in filing its address with the Court.

However, sources say the NDC will file the address first thing this morning before the court sits.

The three petitioners led by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) presidential candidate in the December 2012 election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo were the first to comply with the court’s order when it representatives arrived at exactly 2:35pm at the court’s registry with 16 boxes with Written Address of Counsel for Petitioners written on them.

It was filed through Alex Quainoo and Kwaku Asirifi who are part of the petitioners’ legal team.

Then came President Mahama whose address was filed at exactly 4:40pm by Kojogah Adawudu in a single box.

Mr. Adawudu had kept another batch of the documents in his car and after filing President Mahama’s copy, he descended to the car park and brought another box containing documents at 5:06pm.

It was initially thought the new documents were the address of the NDC but he said it was rather part of President Mahama’s documents.

Just as President Mahama’s address was being filed, the 2^nd respondent, Electoral Commission (EC) arrived at the registry to also file their copies.

The EC team was led by Joseph Asamoah who is the Head of Audit at the commission arrived at exactly 5:03 to file.

It was unclear how respondents were going to pay for the processes filed since the banks at the premises had all closed.

The petitioners address was contained in one volume with attachments all in16 boxes, accompanied by an electronic version on a CD Rom.

The EC’s had 19 copies of 15 pages each while President Mahama’s address had 106 pages in 175 paragraphs, accompanied with 20 copies.

The lawyers for the parties are filing their addresses in line with the court directive. Three New Patriotic party (NPP) stalwarts, including the party’s 2012 presidential candidate, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo are challenging the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President in the December 7 & 8, 2012 presidential election by Electoral Commission (EC) Chairman, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan.

Other petitioners are Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, running mate to the NPP presidential candidate and Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, NPP National Chairman.

The respondents are President Mahama, the EC and the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

After close of evidence on Thursday, July 18, the nine-member panel presided over by Justice William Atuguba ordered the parties to file their addresses on or before today, July 30 and come to court the next day, July 31, for the court to determine whether or not the directive was complied with.

It was clear that each party was keeping, as much as possible, the contents in their addresses to their chests.

It was expected that today, the court will most likely move to fix a definite date for judgement on the validity of the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President in the December 7 & 8, 2012 presidential election by EC Chairman Dr. Afari-Gyan.

However, the anxious wait of Ghanaians will probably be prolonged as the late filing might affect services on the parties.

Per the court’s rules, once a party files a document, contending parties are entitled to copies and considering the timing for the filings, the court’s bailiffs might not be able to execute services to enable the court to fix the judgement date today.

The lawyers at today’s sitting might be allowed to respond to some of the emerging issues raised in the respective addresses when there is confirmation that the addresses have indeed been filed and successfully served on them.

The Issues

The court will specifically look at whether or not statutory violations, irregularities and malpractices occurred in the conduct of the election and whether they affected the outcome.

The violations being complained about by the petitioners include over-voting, voting without biometric, same serial numbers on pink sheets as well as unsigned pink sheets by Electoral Commission (EC) officials.

Votes in Contention

The petitioners specifically want the court to strike out 3,916,385 votes due to what they say are statutory violations, irregularities and malpractices.

At the close of evidence Mr. Addison, put it to Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, who was winding up his cross-examination, that President John Dramani Mahama was the ultimate beneficiary of the violations, malpractices and irregularities complained about.

 16 Boxes

Counsel for the petitioners buttressed their case that the 1^st petitioner, Nana Akufo-Addo of the New Patriotic Party, should have been rightfully declared as winner of the December polls and not John Mahama, the candidate of the ruling National Democratic Congress.

The petitioners’ address spanning some 176 pages, cites over 60 authorities and spells out the case for the petitioners.

The case of the petitioners is mainly on the facts and figures on the pink sheets, the official document that the Electoral Commission relied on to declare the results of the presidential polls held on 7^th and 8^th December. They have also grounded their case on clear breaches of the Constitution and other electoral laws and practices in Ghana.

The address reiterates the six main categories of irregularities, malpractices, violations and omissions in various combinations, which affected the results of the election in 11,842 polling stations.

To prosecute their case, the petitioners are relying on 10,119 pink sheets, “which spoke to the nature of the violations, malpractices, and irregularities grounding the petition.” 

The true result of the 2012 presidential election after it is cured of all the infractions through the necessary annulments, the address explains, should see Nana Akufo-Addo earning 56.85% with the first respondent, John Mahama, obtaining 41.79% of the valid votes cast.

To underline the strength of their case, according to the issues laid down by the court, the address has shown in clear terms that most of the six categories, can on their own, show that John Mahama, the presidential candidate of the NDC, who was declared winner by the EC on December 9, was not validly elected, which requires over 50% of the valid votes cast.

Nana Addo Winner

The petitioners are therefore asking the court to declare that John Mahama was not validly elected and that the court should invoke its constitutional and statutory powers to declare Nana Akufo-Addo as the validly elected president of the Republic.

The address also noted that the “respondents failed or refused to file any pink sheet, except the 17 pink sheets 2^nd Respondent was compelled to tender in evidence on the penultimate day of trial, in an attempt to rebut damaging evidence led against it.”

It also notes that “beyond reliance on inconsequential reports of election observers, the respondents, in effect, tendered no evidence of substance of their own,” as they “all sought to whittle down and reduce the number of pink sheet exhibits petitioners had filed on grounds of defects in labelling of the pink sheets.”

The petitioners believe that the final decision of the Supreme Court will have fundamental and far reaching consequences for the future of democracy in Ghana, as “it will either affirm the commitment of citizens to our democratic journey and bolster their confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law, or undermine their belief in political and legal institutions of the nation.”

The concluding section of the address states: “The petitioners have shown by the sheer depth and weight of the evidence adduced at trial and the force of legal arguments advanced in this address that there were indeed, substantial constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the 2012 presidential election and these violations, malpractices and irregularities had a material effect on the results of the election as declared by the 2^nd Respondent.”

PINK SHEETS SIGNATURE IMPORTANT - AFARI-GYAN

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Monday, July 29, 2013.

Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC) has emphasized the importance of presiding officer signature on the pink sheets before the declaration of results at the polling station.

The EC boss admitted that the failure to sign pink sheets by the Commission’s presiding officers engaged for the December 2012 presidential election “is an irregularity.”

He however, told the Supreme Court hearing the landmark Presidential Election Petition which is challenging the validity of the EC’s declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President that, “even though that failure to sign is an irregularity, it will not affect the validity of the results.”

He also conceded the importance of the signature when he said some of the presiding officers who did not sign had to do it at the collation centre at the prompting of the returning officers contrary to the law at the time the polling agents had all gone home.

Flashback

In early April, during the preparatory stages of the proceedings EC’s Director of Finance and Administration Amadu Sulley had sworn an affidavit to counter the petitioners claim that 2009 pink sheets were not signed by the presiding officers.

The EC claimed that after being served with further and better particulars, it conducted an examination and analysis which showed that out of the 2,009 pink sheets that the petitioners claimed were unsigned, 1,009 were in fact signed by the Presiding Officer at the polling station or, at the instance of the Returning Officer, at the Collation Centre.

It further said 905 were unsigned, representing 3.5 per cent of the total number of pink sheets nationwide, and 1,989 pink sheets representing 99 per cent of the number claimed to be unsigned, were signed by the polling or counting agents of the candidates.

“Thus the 2nd respondent maintains that the request by the petitioners that votes cast at the said polling stations are invalid and should be deducted is without merit and should be refused," the EC said in its amended answer.

“It should be noted that when several pages of papers impregnated without a carbon are used in order to have several copies of each page, it could happen that if the person signing or writing thereon does not press hard enough on the paper, the signature or writing could appear faint or illegible on some of the pages," it added.

Evidence-in-chief

In his evidence-in-chief on Tuesday, June 4, 2013, led by James Quashie-Idun the Electoral Commission’s lead counsel, Dr Afari-Gyan told the court that those presiding officers who could not sign the pink sheets might be due to the fact that they (presiding officers) had so much to do on Election Day and could have forgotten to sign.

However, the law says that presiding officer should authenticate the voting before announcing the results at the polling station.

Mr. Quashie-Idun: You are aware that the petitioners are claiming that votes should be annulled on the grounds that the presiding officers at some polling stations failed to sign the declaration of results form. Do you have any comment on that?

Dr. Afari-Gyan: Well, we have examined that claim, if I remember correctly, originally the number of pink sheets said to be involved was 2,009. Now I see that the number has been scaled to about 1,800 and something.

When the number stood at 2,009, our analyses show that in fact, the ones that were not signed were 905, that when the numbers stood at 2,009 and this 905 represented 3.5% of the pink sheets and that would indicate that more than 96% of the presiding officers signed the sheets.

We also noted that about 99% of all agents signed the pink sheets. Incidentally, my lords, we have no officer called Assistant Presiding Officer. So when mention is made that it was not signed by the presiding officer or his assistant, there is no officer called assistant presiding officer. So it is only the presiding officer who can sign. Apart from the presiding officer, it is the candidates’ agents who can sign.

These are the only two people who can sign. So nobody could sign on behalf of the presiding officer. I think we should also bear in mind that the presiding officer has a lot of work on Election Day.

He performs a lot of duties, signing the pink sheet is only one, he supervises the election all day, he is the one who makes the entries on the pink sheet, he is the one that will count the ballots in open public and he is the one that announces the results.

Mr. Quashie-Idun: And these results are for?

Dr. Afari-Gyan: The candidates. He will sort out the candidates and announce the results as to who has won or not. So the presiding officer has a lot of duties, signing is only one of them. So we as the Commission, take a view, we acknowledge the fact that some of the pink sheets were not signed and have given you an indication of the contents. But we take the view that when he has performed all these other duties and the form has been signed by the candidates, even though that failure to sign is an irregularity, it will not affect the validity of the results and therefore from the point of view of the commission where the presiding officer has not signed, but the agent has signed, we accept the results.

Addison Vrs Afari-Gyan

During cross-examination on Wednesday, July 10, 2013, when Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners suggested to Dr. Afari-Gyan that there were more than 905 unsigned pink sheets, the EC boss insisted it was 905, prompting Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo, a member of the nine-member panel to intervene and asked the parties to put it in their address.

Dr. Afari-Gyan: My lords I have one observation, you may recall that I did say that some of the pink sheets were signed at the collation center at the instance of the Returning Officers.

Justice William Atuguba (presiding): Signed at the collation center at the instance of whom?

Dr. Afari-Gyan: The Returning Officer.

Mr. Addison: My lords, our case is that they have admitted 905 and we say that more than 905 pink sheets are unsigned and this is the evidence we are providing to the court. Each of these pink sheet are unsigned   that is our case and if he disputes it we will put the pink sheets to him to see that there is no signature.

Justice Akoto-Bamfo: And Mr. Addison, I think you can address on this issue, your case is that these pink sheets were never signed, he is saying well some were signed later so the weight we have to attach whatever weight.

Afari-Gyan on Errors

Mr. Quashie-Idun: You mentioned in your evidence some of the errors that were committed by presiding officers in completion of the pink sheets. Do you have a general comment on that?

Dr. Afari-Gyan: My general comment will be that the errors must be looked at very closely in order to be able to reveal their true meaning. I must say that at the end of the day, it is the Electoral Commission that appointed these people, these officials and we are prepared to take responsibility for their actions. But errors are to be distinguished from intentional wrong doing.

A mistake is something that can be detected and corrected and we all make mistakes. So why we take responsibility for their actions, so that we will keep in mind, may be all of us make one mistake or the other in the course of our work, but I will also hope that the candidates will take responsibility for the agents they appoint.

NDC Admits Unsigned Pink Sheets

When Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah, NDC general secretary testified on behalf of President Mahama and his party, he also admitted that some of the pink sheets were not signed by the presiding officers.

Led in evidence by NDC lead counsel Tsatsu Tsikata he said even though some of the EC officials did not sign the pink sheets, the party’s agents all wrote their names and in some cases, they signed the document.

Mr. Tsikata: You are also aware that reference has been made to pink sheets on which there is no signature of the presiding officer at the polling station?

Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah: Yes my lord I am aware of that allegation.

Mr. Tsikata: What is your response to that?

Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah: My lord it is true that we are all trained by the 2nd Respondent that at the close of poll after sorting and tallying votes to the candidates you have all the party agents including the presiding officers who must sign then there is a declaration then after the declaration each party agent is given a copy of the pink sheet and the presiding officer has a duty of conveying the results at the polling stations to the collation center. So my lord I am aware that there is a requirement that the presiding officer must sign.

My lord after we received the petition we studied the petition but re realized that a lot of polling stations where these lack of signature was been alleged we found out that the agent actually wrote their names; in other polling stations they actually signed but yet there were other polling stations the polling agents did not sign and where the presiding officers did not sign, but my lord in all these places the polling agents actually certified that work of the presiding officer and I cannot contemplate a situation where you are engaged in doing a duty and after that duty you present it to witnesses who certify that you have done well and then you refuse to stand by your own words and my lords these signatures must be obtained before the declaration and in all the polling stations that are in contention declaration actually took place and the presiding officers also took place with their duties of transmitting the results so declared to the collation center and my check has revealed that collation has taken place  unchallenged in all these cases so I do not think that in fact on the form you will also see that whenever an agent is dissatisfied with any aspect of the work the law allows the agent to protest. I don’t see any column on the pink sheet where if the presiding officer is dissatisfy with his own work he has to lodge a complaint again himself and if our system were to allow the giving or withholding signatures to determine the validity of votes in particular towns and villages in this country then the presiding officer will be the person to decide whether all the votes in the village should count or should not count and I do not think that that is the intention of our electoral system.

AFARI-GYAN FAKED PINK SHEET - ADDISON

 Philip Addison

Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Friday, July 19, 2013

Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners in the landmark Presidential Election Petition at the Supreme Court on Wednesday accused the Electoral Commission (EC) of ‘altering’ pink sheets that it tendered in evidence.

“The EC’s pink sheet surprisingly is in pink with alterations in blue ink,” Mr Addison alerted the packed court and EC Chairman Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, testifying said “Yea, I see some alterations in blue ink.”

The nine-member panel presided over by Justice William Atuguba has already taken evidence from all parties after 47 days of hot exchanges in cross-examination and the parties are expected back in court on July 31, 2013.

How Things Unfolded

Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the EC spent 14 days in the witness box under cross-examination while Dr. Bawumia and NDC General Secretary Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah spent 13 and two-and-half days respectively in the box.

Mr. Addison should have concluded his cross-examination on Tuesday but for a last minute pink sheets brought in by the EC trying to disprove the petitioners allegation of ‘duplicate’, ‘triplicate’ and ‘quadruplicate’ in the same serial number category with pink sheets in the custody of the Commission which some turned out to be ‘manufactured’.

Dr. Afari-Gyan had promised to cross-check and report to the court when the allegations were put to him by Mr. Addison but never presented his findings until the petitioners counsel had indicated he was ending his cross-examination.

Mr. Quarshie-Idun instead of re-examining his witness, tried to tender the sets of pink sheets and in the process generated heated arguments before the court stepped in to say that the pink sheets should be put in evidence and for Mr. Addison to again cross-examine Dr. Afari-Gyan on the documents.

What was supposed to be a short cross-examination the following day, Wednesday was beset with series of objections from the respondents led by Mr. Quarshie-Idun and that took the whole day.

Mr. Addison had serious issues with Dr. Afari-Gyan over each set of pink sheets that were brought by the EC chief to disprove ‘duplications’ ‘triplication’ and ‘quadruplications’ of serial numbers already exhibited by the petitioners.

In the course of the exercise, it emerged that some of the polling stations had the same name, same code but different serial numbers and in others, apart from the anomalies the writings as well as how they were filled were also different from the ones the petitioners presented.

The EC pink sheets had been filed as Exhibit EC11 while the petitioners pink sheets were titled MB.

The Alteration

Counsel: Could you call us polling station name, code and exhibit number

Witness: The exhibit number is MBH79, the polling station name is Katamanso Presbyterian Primary A on the exhibit and the serial number is 0025200. On Exhibit EC11D (1), the polling station is Presbyterian Primary School Katamanso, the code is C140601A and it is the same as on the exhibit and the serial number is 0025199.

Counsel: I am suggesting to you that the official polling station name is Katamanso Presby Primary A and has the polling station code C140601A.

Witness: Yes.

Counsel: And it is in exhibit of MBH79.

Witness: Yes.

Counsel: Can we go onto the next one.

Witness: The Exhibit number is MBJ000097, the polling station name is Assembly of God Church, Ataa Sackey B and the code is C141401B, the serial number is C0025200. On Exhibit EC11D (2) the polling station is Ataa Sackey B, the code is C141401B and the serial number is 0024702.

Counsel: We have a situation where there is the same polling station name, code but different serial numbers.

Witness: There are other difference too.

Justice Rose Owusu: Dr. Afari-Gyan, answer the question before you point out the differences.

Witness: Counsel please repeat the question.

Counsel: We have a situation where there is the same polling station name, code but different serial numbers.

Witness: Yes.

Counsel: And you are saying that there are other differences…please tell the court what they are.

Witness: In the case of the MBJ000097, the entire column C is not filled at all and in the EC11D (2) there are figures filled in column C.

Counsel: From D1 to D4 in the petitioners pink sheet has a dash throughout but the EC’s pink sheet is blank.

Witness: I disagree, the D has four dashes in here then the last two columns have 16 and 16 and it is the same on the other.

Counsel: Dr. Afari-Gyan am saying that from D1 to D4 there are dash…dash…dash whereas on the EC’s it is simply blank.

Witness: Yes it is simply blank.

Counsel: Now, the EC’s pink sheet surprisingly is in pink with alterations in blue ink.

Witness: Yea, I see some alterations in blue ink

Counsel: But the writing generally is in pink which shouldn’t be the case.

Witness: The rest of the writing is in pink…that is correct.

Counsel: Which should not be the case?

Witness: I am not going to…

Counsel: Am sorry? Counsel cuts in

Witness: Do I expect everything in red?

Counsel: Am sorry, I didn’t hear you?

Witness: I said I would expect everything to be in red.

Counsel: You expect everything to be in what?

Witness: Red.

Counsel: I thought that the original is written in blue ink.

Witness: You are saying part of it is written in red and another part in blue ink and I’m saying once part of it is written in red I would expect all of it to be in red.

Counsel: But for the EC’s copy which is the original, all should be in blue ink.

Witness: You are right, the original must be in blue ink.

Counsel: Sorry?

Witness: The original must be in blue ink, you are right.

Counsel: Thank you…Now let’s go to the differences. If you look at the results for the UFP and PNC, we have the zero in figures and zero in words in the petitioners pink sheets but it is blank in the EC’s.

Witness: Yes, it is blank in both words and column in the EC’s but it is zero in the votes obtained column and z-e-r-o written in words on the petitioners pink sheet.

Counsel: And the same for the results for the independent candidate…there is zero in figure and zero in words but on the EC’s copy is blank.

Witness: Yes.

Counsel: Also, when you come to total valid votes, there is 675 and also in words for the petitioners but it is totally blank for the EC.

Witness: Total valid votes is blank, yes.

Counsel: Again when you come to the total votes in ballot box, there is 691 in figures for the petitioners but it is totally blank for the EC.

Witness: Yes, you are correct.

Counsel: For the petitioners, the name of the presiding officer is A-w-u-z-u Mark Christian and there is no signature, no date, no time but the EC has A-m-u-z-u Mark C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-a-n, with a signature and date but no time.

Witness: Let me tell you what I see. The petitioners you have Amuzu Mark Christian and date 7/12/2012. For the EC you have Amuzu Mar Christian and a signature but no date.

Counsel: Dr. Afari-Gyan, the Christain is it spelt the same? The EC has C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-a-n.

Witness: Christiaan is spelt on the EC form as C-h-r-is-t-i-a-a-n and on the other one as C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n.

Counsel: The Presiding Officer’s name on the petitioners is not A-m-u-z-u, it is A-w-u-z-u.

Witness: Awuzu in the case of the petitioners and Amuzu in the EC’s. I am used to reading Amuzu that’s why I mispronounced it.

Counsel: When you come to the polling agents, there are five names on the petitioners pink sheet with no signature but on the EC’s there are six names with five signatures.

Witness: That is correct.

Counsel: I am suggesting to you that the pink sheets are not the same.

Witness: Ostensibly in respect of same polling stations but they together are different. My Lords, the polling station name is the same or abbreviated in one case and in the other, the polling station code is different, the serial numbers are different and there are differences in the execution on the pink sheets.

Counsel: Am suggesting to you that the official polling station and code is the one given by the petitioners which is the Assembly of God Church, Ataa Sackey B with polling station code C141401B.

Witness: Yes, but it can be abbreviated.

Next Sitting

On July 31, the Supreme Court is expected to then fix a date for judgement on the validity of the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President in the December 7 & 8, 2012 presidential election by EC Chairman Dr. Afari-Gyan.

The court subsequently ordered all the parties to file their written addresses by July 30 and report to court the next day for the court to assess if the order has been complied with.

The court will specifically look at whether or not statutory violations, irregularities and malpractices occurred in the conduct of the election and whether they affected the outcome.

The parties in the petition are Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 2012 presidential candidate of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), his running mate Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and the party’s Chairman Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey as petitioners while President Mahama, EC and the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) are the respondents.

NPP WANTS 4M VOTES CANCELLED

 Philip Addison

Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Monday, July 22, 2013

The petitioners in the landmark Presidential Election Petition are calling on the Supreme Court to cancel nearly 4 million votes in the December 2012 presidential contest.

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) presidential candidate in the election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and the party’s Chairman Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey specifically want the Supreme Court to strike out 3,916,385 votes due to what they say are statutory violations, irregularities and malpractices.

The violations being complained about by the petitioners include over-voting, voting without biometric, same serial numbers on pink sheets as well unsigned pink sheets by Electoral Commission (EC) officials.

At the close of evidence last week Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners put it to Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission who was winding up his cross-examination, that President John Dramani Mahama was the ultimate beneficiary the violations, malpractices and irregularities complained about.

He said out of the 3,916,385 votes the petitioners are seeking to annul, 2,612,788 went to Mr. Mahama whom the ECC boss, Dr. Afari-Gyan declared winner while Nana Akufo-Addo, the lead petitioner got 1,228,229.

Dr. Afari-Gyan in response said “I have no basis in knowing this.”

Giving a breakdown of the violations, malpractices and irregularities, Mr. Addison said out of a total of 10,081 polling stations, over voting alone totaled 742,492 but Dr. Afari-Gyan replied that “Unless I know the specific polling stations, it will be difficult to say yes or no.”

Mr. Addison continued that out of the number of over-vote of 742,492 that was affected, 502,013 inured to the benefit of President Mahama (1^st respondent) and 225,155 going to Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo (1^st petitioner).

Dr. Afari-Gyan further replied that “I don’t know the basis for this. It can’t be…if there is an over-vote there no way you can say it belongs to one candidate…it is wrong to say because someone won an election he is the beneficiary…I can’t answer that question.”

Mr. Addison pressed further, alerting the court that in the “No Verification” category, the total votes affected was 810,827 but Dr. Afari-Gyan insisted that “as far as the EC is concerned everybody who voted was biometrically verified.”

Counsel said in that category alone, 558,236 of people who voted without biometric verification were attributed to President Mahama while Nana Akufo-Addo got 234,161 but the commissioner again said “I can’t answer the question.”

Mr. Addison said that in the “No signature” category the total valid votes affected was 659,135 and 447,655 were attributed to President Mahama while Nana Akufo-Addo got 197,628 and Dr. Afari-Gyan replied that “I have no basis of knowing that.”

On the issue of duplicate serial numbers, Mr. Addison said that 3.499,308 valid votes were affected and 2,338,993 were attributable to President Mahama while 1,093,661 were given to Nana Akufo-Addo and Dr. Afari-Gyan again said “I don’t know that for a fact.”

Mr. Addison: The major beneficiary was the 1^st respondent.

Dr. Afari-Gyan: That is not correct

.

Mr. Addison: Do you have figures to the contrary.

Dr Afari-Gyan:  I announced the results of the election as presented by the various retaining officers and those figures have already been made public.

Mr Addison: But it is precisely those results that you announced that are being challenged in this court?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes my Lords.

Mr Addison: So I am asking you do you have any other figures apart from the ones I have just quoted to you? 

Dr Afari-Gyan: I’m saying that I have no basis to change the results as announced.

Mr Addison: My question was not whether you had the basis or not.

Dr Afari-Gyan: I don’t have any figures other than the ones that I announced.

Mr Addison: I have given you a set of figures and I also followed that by saying that the first respondent is the major beneficiary of these violations. What do you have to say to that?

Dr. Afari-Gyan: And I said that I denied the first respondent is the beneficiary.

COURT NOT EASY ... ATUGUBA TELLS AFARI-GYAN

The petitioners leaving the courtroom

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Thursday, July 18, 2013

“I hope you have seen that telling somebody ‘go to court!’ ‘go to court!' is not an easy thing. It is not such an easy thing to say.”

These were the words of Justice William Atuguba to Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC) when he drew the curtain on the Supreme Court hearing of the landmark Presidential Election Petition yesterday. 

The court has adjourned sitting to July 31, for fixing a date for the ruling by which time the parties would had filed their written addresses.

Discharging Dr Afari-Gyan from the witness after grueling 14 days cross examination in the hands of the petitioners’ lead counsel, Philip Addison, where he went through hell, Justice Atuguba told the EC boss that court is not an easy place so he should not run his mouth with go to court! go to court! 

It would be recalled that when the petitioners said they had evidence that some of the results of the December 2012 Presidential Election that were being announced were not accurate and requested the EC to postpone the final declaration of the results, Dr. Afari-Gyan declined the request and rather asked them to go to court if they had any issues.

It was when Dr. Afari-Gyan was finally discharged from the witness box that Justice Atuguba passed the “Go to court!” comment, drawing a spontaneous laughter from the packed court.

The nine-member panel presided over by Justice Atuguba subsequently ordered all the parties to file their written addresses by July 30 and report to court the next day for the court to assess if the order has been complied with.

“At long last, the battle of evidence has ended,” Justice Atuguba who is noted for his hilarious comments especially when tensions are high, said.

The D-Day

On July 31, the Supreme Court is expected to then fix a date for judgement on the validity of the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President in the December 7 & 8, 2012 presidential election by EC Chairman Dr. Afari-Gyan.

The court will specifically look at whether or not statutory violations, irregularities and malpractices occurred in the conduct of the election and whether they affected the outcome.

There appeared to be a huge sigh of relief from the anxious audience when the petitioners lead counsel, Philip Addison brought his cross-examination of Dr. Afari-Gyan to an end after 14 days of grilling.

Appreciation

Immediately the court set the rules for the parties in the subsequent sittings, Mr. Addison took the floor to express his gratitude to the court for engaging them for “seven months.”

Mr Addison: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, we would like to say a big thank you to Lords for indulging us over the past 7 months. It has been quite hectic we are all happy that today it has come to an end of it. We look forward to meeting your Lordships on the 31^st of July.

Justice Atuguba: Very well.

Tony Lithur (1^st Respondent President Mahama): I think it is appropriate to say that we share counsel’s sentiments and actually we are planning that when this is over, we all get drunk and forget about the differences we have. Thank you very much my Lords.

James Quarshie-Idun (2^nd Respondent EC): A rare occasion where we are all in agreement my Lords and share the sentiments that have been expressed my Lords.

Tsatsu Tsikata (3^rd Respondent NDC): My Lords I have nothing more useful to add.

Justice Atuguba: Very well we appreciate the expression of gratitude to us, we also appreciate the cooperation we have had from you the witnesses. So we meet on 31^st July.

Duplicate, Triplicate & Quadruplicate

Mr. Addison should have concluded his cross-examination on Tuesday but for a last minute pink sheets brought in by the EC trying to disprove the petitioners allegation of ‘duplicate’, ‘triplicate’ and ‘quadruplicate’ in the same serial number category.

Dr. Afari-Gyan had promised to cross-check and report to the court when the allegations were put to him by Mr. Addison but never presented his findings until the petitioners counsel had indicated he was ending his cross-examination.

Mr. Quarshie-Idun instead of re-examining tried to tender the sets of pink sheets and in the process generated heated arguments before the court stepped in to say that the pink sheets should be put in evidence and for Mr. Addison to again cross-examine Dr. Afari-Gyan on the document.

What was supposed to be a short cross-examination the following day was beset with series of objections from the respondents led by Mr. Quarshie-Idun and that took the whole day yesterday.

Mr. Addison had serious issues with Dr. Afari-Gyan over each set of pink sheets that were brought by the commissioner to disprove ‘duplications’ ‘triplication’ and ‘quadruplications’ of serial numbers already exhibited by the petitioners.

In the course of the exercise, it emerged that some of the polling stations had the same name, same code but different serial numbers and in others, apart from the anomalies the writings as well as how they were filled were also different from the ones the petitioners presented.

Chief Bello Islamic School

Mr Addison: Dr Afari-Gyan take a look at exhibit X. When you were confronted with the list of triplicates and quadruplicate serial numbers in exhibit X, you said it was not logical, do you recall?

Dr Afari-Gyan: I said they produced the booklets in duplicates so it was difficult to understand why there would be triplicate.

Mr Addison: Now you also said that you will cross check with the printer?

Dr Afari-Gyan:  No I didn’t say so my Lords.

Mr Addison: Take a look at the pink sheets that you tendered yesterday. We start with the first set, exhibit EC 11A. Take a look at exhibit X, what is the first polling station on exhibit X?

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords, it is Chief Bello Islamic School Zenu A.

Mr Addison: So the first station has the same polling station name has exhibit EC 11, it is also Chief Bello Islamic School Zenu A.

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes.

Mr Addison: Now you have in your hand exhibit MBP 3246 which is the petitioner’s pink sheet for Chief Bello Islamic School.

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords it is the same as the exhibit Chief Bello Islamic School

Mr Addison: Can you tell the court the serial numbers on both.

Dr Afari-Gyan: The one o 11a is 0025195 and the one on exhibit MBP3246 is the same number 0025195

Mr Addison: So they both have the same serial number?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes my Lord.

Mr Addison: So to all intent and purposes, they are the same pink sheet? 

Dr Afari-Gyan:  Yes, they have the same serial numbers. That is what I can confirm at this moment.

Mr Addison: But take a look at C5, can you tell us what is in C5 in both pink sheets?

Mr. Quarshie-Idun: My Lords, I believe that cross examination was on the serial number which are the headings of both exhibits X and exhibit EC11 and that your Lordships gave permission for cross examination to take place on the serial numbers. That was the purpose of the tendering and the discussions that took place resulting in permission for further cross examination to take place. So I’d like guidance on that from your Lordships.

Justice Atuguba: But are they not interlinked?

Quarshie-Idun: Exhibit X was tendered as evidence of triplicate serial numbers, the witness said he was surprised but he needed to check and report back and he has reported back that there were no triplicates, only duplicates. So my understanding was to be on serial numbers, anything else should be a matter of address my Lord.

Mr Addison: He should say so and stop camouflaging it as seeking guidance. These documents are in evidence and therefore we on this side has every right to cross examine the witness on the document. To limit us to serial numbers I think will be grossly unfair especially when they have tendered in pink sheets allegedly having different serial numbers from what we have tendered. There are serious issues on those documents and you are telling me that we should limit ourselves to just serial numbers? No.

Justice Atuguba: Well proceed.

Mr Addison: I’m not grateful. Look at C5 on both documents and tell us what is there.

Dr Afari-Gyan: C5 my Lords read ‘what is the total number of unused ballots.’ On the exhibit, MBP 3246. On that pink sheet, it looks like 366. On the EC11a, it looks to me like 369.

Mr Addison: Now the C5 in exhibit MBP 3246 indicates 377.

Dr Afari-Gyan: Well I see 366 but there is something that looks like a 7.

Mr Addison: Dr Afari-Gyan, you have agreed that the figures in C5 are different on both pink sheets?

Dr Afari-Gyan: As far as I can see, they look different.

Mr Addison: But the petitioner’s pink sheets are suppose to be duplicate of the originals and so it should be the same?

Dr Afari-Gyan: This is a photocopy of the pink sheets that you should have.

Mr Addison: Are you suggesting the original is different?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Well I’m not saying so but I’m saying that it is a photocopy, it can look blurred when it is photocopied.

Mr Addison: Dr Afari-Gyan do you see a difference between the original and the photocopy?

Dr Afari-Gyan:  I must make an observation. This one is even more difficult to read, there is a 377 that you can see but also you have 68 in the same column.

Mr Addison: Do you see a difference between the photocopy we gave you and the original?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes I do.

Mr Addison: What is the difference?

Dr Afari-Gyan: The difference is that there is only one number on the exhibit EC11a in that column. 

Mr Addison: I am talking about the petitioner’s pink sheet.

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes I can see a difference between this and the photocopy.

Mr Addison: Yes can you tell us what it is?

Dr Afari-Gyan: The difference is that on your copy, I can see 377 and something that looks like 368 on the photocopy, I cannot see that. 

Mr Addison: You don’t see any figure at all?

Dr Afari-Gyan: No I see a figure I’m saying that figures look different. The photocopy figure looks different from the one on this one.

Mr Addison: I’m suggesting to you that they are the same. The original and photocopy are they same.

Dr Afari-Gyan: Well I don’t see them to be the same.

Apostolic Revelation

The same problem appeared to persist in the Apostolic Revelation polling station which brought about heated arguments from both camps.

Mr Addison: Let us look at the second on that set of triplicates which is the Apostolic Revelation. Can you give us the polling station name and code and exhibit number?

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords, exhibit X, the polling code on this particular sheet is given as C141102A, the polling station code on 11A1 is also C1411202A, the polling station name is Apostolic Revelation Kakasunakan number 1. On the exhibit X and the polling station name is Apostolic Revelation society on exhibit 11A1.

Mr Addison: Right so there is a difference? Now you tell us the serial numbers?

Dr Afari-Gyan: The serial number on exhibit X is 25195. The serial number on 11A1 IS 26746.

Mr Addison: So that they have different serial numbers?

Dr Afari-Gyan: They are different serial numbers.

Mr Addison: And is it your case that exhibit EC11A1 is the same as exhibit MBP3238?

Dr Afari-Gyan: The same polling station code to have the same serial number. In both cases, the polling station code is the same and since a serial number answers to a polling station, there should be only one serial number so if they are different, this is the original one. Ours is the original one.

Mr Addison: Now the serial number for the original is suppose to be in black, is yours in black?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Well it is not in black but yours is not in black either.

Mr Addison: We are not claiming to have the original. Now there are several differences in the two pink sheets so they cannot be the same.Take a look at A1, there is a cancelation in the EC pink sheet which is not in that of the petitioners.

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords that is correct but the same number 825.

Mr Addison: Now if you look at C4, there is a cancelation in the EC’s but not in the petitioners.

Dr Afari-Gyan: That is correct.

Mr Addison: Now if you look at the result for the NDC, the first respondent, you will see that the words are written differently from the petitioners.

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes my Lord, it is the same figure, 423 written in both instances but they are written differently. On this one, the 3 is in red in the middle on the line, this one is red as the left edge on the line. That is the difference.

 

Mr Addison: If you look at the results of the GCPP, you will see that in the petitioners pink sheet, there is a zero in the figure and the word zero but the EC’s has two dashes.

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes this one is dash and dash.

Mr Addison: What is this one?

Dr Afari-Gyan: I’m talking about the EC pink sheet, there is dash dash. On the exhibit MBP3238, you have votes obtained written is 0 in words spelt out zero.

Mr Addison: Take a look at C down there, the results total votes in ballot box and tell us.

Dr Afari-Gyan: Total votes in ballot box is 579.

Mr Addison: Which pink sheet are you looking at?

Dr Afari-Gyan: No both pink sheet 579 except that on the exhibit MBP 3238, nothing is written in the votes obtained in words. In the EC pink sheet you have 579 written also in words.

Mr Addison: Right so there is a difference there, you have it in words in the EC pink sheet but not in the petitioners. Now lets look at the polling agents, there are no signatures in the petitioner’s pink sheets but you have signatures on the EC’s? 

Dr Afari-Gyan:  That is correct, the petitioner’s pink sheet is not signed, the EC pink sheet is signed.

Mr Addison: I’m suggesting to you that exhibit  EC11A1 is a different pink sheet exhibit MBP 3238?

Dr Afari-Gyan: You are right, well there are differences.

Mr Addison: They in fact have different names?

Dr Afari-Gyan: They have the same polling station code that is the most critical element. 

Mr Addison: They have different names.

Dr Afari-Gyan: In fact so far as the pink sheet is concerned, the names are the same.

Mr Addison: Dr Afari-Gyan, there are actually 4 other pink sheets in evidence by the name Apostolic Revelation society. Take a look at these pink sheets.

As the give-and-take between counsel and witness continued, Mr. Quarshie-Idun cut in to say that one of the exhibits on the being used by the petitioners was not in evidence and Mr. Lithur also vehemently opposed the petitioners move and accused them of trying to set up entirely new case.

Mr. Tsikata even went to the extent of accusing the petitioners of ‘generating’ new pin sheets and said that “So none of these pink sheets are being shown to the witness at the moment are actually related to their own exhibit in respect of which they have been granted leave to cross exam after the witness brought in new documents.”

Mr Addison came back strongly saying the objections were premature adding “They should have waited for us to ask our questions. We are confronted with a situation where the second respondent has introduced a pink sheet having a different serial number and claiming that is a proper pink sheet for that polling station and we are trying to demonstrate to him that there are a number of pink sheets bearing the same names that do not have even that serial number.”

“We have demonstrated that there are 5, none of them have the serial number that they have introduced, that is what we are seeking to demonstrate because my Lord we are challenging the authenticity of this pink sheet that has been introduced  having a different serial number from the one that we have put in evidence. Ours have been in evidence from day one having the post polling station code that has been indicated,” he fumed.

The court unanimously ruled that the petitioners were restricted to asking question on exhibit X as far as the matter was connected to the pleadings.

After the break, a similar give-and-take ensued once again over who had the right pink sheets resulting in more objections and rulings from by the bench.

Composite Questions

Justice Atuguba: Before we rose, you were going through the residue of the serial numbers and we said that those that were not in controversy, you don’t need to go over them so you departed from there and then we said alright then you stared dealing with the shaded ones because those are the ones in disagreement between the 2 sides -your list and his list- so I’m saying that instead of taking the rest one by one and asking whether they are the same or not, can’t you ask him whether as regards the rest I think Adelakope Somanya because we presume you finished the entire series on the PBC Cocoa Shed? 

Mr Addison: My Lord we were on that.

Justice Atuguba: Yes alright so if you finish that, couldn’t you use the composite method in respect of the residue of the shaded controversial areas whether he is maintaining his position as against you indicated positions in respect of those shaded pink sheets then if it does that solves it instead of going one by one.

Mr Addison: My Lord in the event that he still insists on what he has done, then what next?   

Justice Atuguba: No you would have had your answer but you are trying to convince him that your side of it is the correct version and he is also holding on to his side and all we are saying is that you will expedite the whole thing instead of putting it to him one by one. 

Mr Addison: My Lord I will endeavor to expedite it, I will try and make it as short as possible.

 

Justice Atuguba: Very well.

Mr Addison: Dr Afari-Gyan before we broke I suggested to you that both pink sheets have the same serial number in respect of exhibit EC 11B2 and exhibit MBQ 000858?

Justice Atuguba: Yes I thought that was what you dealt with and he has talk to 18706 as the correct serial number for that exhibit.

Mr Addison: I’m suggesting to him that both have the same serial number 18708?

Quarshie-Idun: My Lords the question has been asked and answered. 

Dr Afari-Gyan: The one on our pink sheets ends on 06 not 08.

Mr Addison: Are the contents of both pink sheets the same?

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords yes.

Mr Addison: Expect that there is no name and signature in the petitioners pink sheet whereas there is in the pink sheet.

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords if you are talking about the Cocoa Shed Ntensere, there isn’t on your, let me check ours and see. There is a presiding officer’s signature on ours but none on yours.

Mr Addison: Dr Afari-Gyan if the petitioners pink sheet is suppose to be a duplicate of the original, should that also have a signature?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Well there is a difference between should and what is. It should have a signature but it doesn’t.

Mr Addison: I’m suggesting to you that the signature appearing on the EC’s pink sheet took place after the pink sheets have been handed to the petitioner.

Dr Afari-Gyan: That is not correct.

Mr Addison: I’m finally suggesting to you that in respect of the set of three that you have DC JHS Prampramase, DC Primary School Adeashin and PBC Cocoa Shed Ntensere, they all have the same serial number 18708.

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords I disagree, the PBC Cocoa Shed, Ntensere, the case of the station our record show that correct serial number is 18706.

Mr Addison: You have the petitioners evidence there. Comparing your exhibit, 11c1 Adelakope Somanya with the petitioners pink sheet which is also Adelakope Somanya.

  

Dr Afari-Gyan: Adelakope that is the polling station name, the exhibit number is MBP 002226 and the polling station code is E041302 and the name and the polling station codes are the same one on the EC pink sheet. On exhibit MBP002226.On the EC exhibit is 0005874.

 

Mr Addison: Now can you tell the courts whether the pink sheets are the same in terms of content?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes my Lords.

Mr Addison: So Dr Afari-Gyan if the contents are the same , can you explain why we have different serial numbers that there is a difference of one digit?

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords, I’m not the one to do the explanation. The original one is 5874. How it becomes 5374 is not for me to explain.

Mr Addison: I am suggesting to you that you are reading the figure 3 as 8.

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords on our sheets, it is clear that is 5874.

Mr Addison: My Lords the issue with this one has to do with one figure so if it is 3 then we have a triplicate if it is 8 then it is a duplicate.