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.