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 31st of July.
Justice Atuguba: Very
well.
Tony Lithur (1st 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 (2nd
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 (3rd
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 31st
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment