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 (1st
respondent) and 225,155 going to Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo (1st
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.”
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment