SUPREME COURT RULES...MAHAMA WINNER!

President John Dramani Mahama

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Friday, August 30, 2013

The Supreme Court has finally ended the eight month legal tussle over the 2012 electooral dispute after it said John Dramani Mahama of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was ‘validly elected’ as President as declared by the Electoral Commission (EC).

The court dismissed the petition in a rather short judgment which lasted barely five minutes.

What supposed to be in the morning rather took several hours as the Justices met for the last time before the ruling at about 1pm when they arrived in the court room to make their pronouncement.

Following the hotly contested Presidential Election on December 7 and 8, EC Chairman Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, declared the ruling NDC candidate winner with 50.70 % of the valid votes cast.

The EC’s declaration did not go down well with the opposition the New Patriotic Party (NPP) who subsequently filed a petition at the Supreme Court on December 28, 2012, through their flagbearer Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and the party’s Chairman Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey after alleging widespread violations and irregularities.

However, the nine-member panel presided over by Justice William Atuguba after dismissing the petition, asked the legal teams to contact the court’s registry for “our various judgements”, citing “convenience” as the reason for not reading whole judgements.

Discrepancy

Already, some people have started raising issues with the judgment delivered yesterday is gaping holes were created by Justice Atuguba pronouncement.

On one breath, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie is supposed to be part of the six justices that dismissed the claim of voting without biometric verification but in another, he is reported to have granted the same claim.

“Atuguba, Adinyira, Dotse, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo JJSC, dismiss the claim relating to voting without biometric verification.”

“Baffoe-Bonnie JSC, grants the claim of voting without biometric cancels the results concerned and orders a re-run of the areas affected.”

This legal contradiction is raising questions about the true position of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie in the issue of voting without biometric verification.

Judgement permutation

The overall effect of the judgement was that President Mahama was declared validly elected by a 6 to 3 majority while on the issue of a re-run; he won by a majority of 5 to 4.

The breakdown was that over-voting was dismissed by a majority of 5 to 4, voting without biometric verification was dismissed by 6 to 3, absence of signature of Presiding Officers on pink sheets was dismissed by 5 to 4.

Duplicate serial numbers, Duplicate Polling Station Codes and Unknown polling stations were all dismissed unanimously.

Real Judgement
“Upon a scrutiny of the petition, we found that the issues to be determined are set out at page 125 of the counsel for petitioners as follows: Over-voting, voting without biometric verification, absence of the signature of the presiding officer, duplicate serial numbers (that is to say occurrence of the same serial number on pink sheet for two different polling stations), duplicate polling station codes (that is to say occurrence of different serial number on pink sheets for polling stations with the same polling station codes), unknown polling stations (results recorded that are not part of the 26,002 polling stations provided by the 2^nd petitioner for the election).

“We unanimously dismiss the claims relating to duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes and unknown polling stations.

“Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claim of over-voting.

“Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claim relating to absence of signature of the presiding officer.

“Atuguba, Adinyira, Dotse, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo JJSC, dismiss the claim relating to voting without biometric verification.

“Ansah, Owusu and Anin Yeboah JJSC, grant all the three claims that is to say over-voting, absence of signature of the presiding officer and voting without biometric verification and all the votes involved and order a re-run in the affected areas.

“Dotse JSC, grants the claim of over-voting but has provided a roadmap in his judgement as to the figures of votes to be ascertained and cancelled and a re-run of the areas affected.

“Dotse uphold the claim relating to the absence of presiding officers signatures on the pink sheets cancels the results concerned and orders a re-run of the areas affected.

“Baffoe-Bonnie grants the claim of voting without biometric cancels the results concerned and orders a re-run of the areas affected.

“In the circumstances, the overall effect is that the 1^st respondent (JDM) is validly elected and the petition is therefore dismissed.”

Petitioners’ reliefs

The petitioners sought reliefs including “A declaration that “John Dramani Mahama was not validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana.”

They also wanted the court to declare that “Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein, rather was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana,” as well as “Consequential orders as to this court may deem fit.”

Issues determined

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

Polling stations involved

The original number of polling stations that the petitioners were relying on was 11,842 as fully set out in the further and better particulars together with the various infractions so that each polling station was identified together with its infractions.

Subsequent to the 11,842 there had been various reductions and after close of evidence the said they were relying on 10,119 polling stations.

Petitioners request

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

They had insisted that per their analysis, President Mahama’s 5,574,761 as declared by the EC on December 9, 2012 should have been 2,952,210, representing 41.79% since votes totaling 2,622,551 out of the figure announced were invalid.

In the same vein, the petitioners say that the 5,248,898 declared by the Dr. Afari-Gyan for Nana Akufo-Addo should have been 4,0157,12 representing 56.85% since1, 233,186 of the votes were invalid and should be annulled.

Over-voting

The petitioners had claimed that over voting alone totaled 742,492 and 502,013 inured to the benefit of President Mahama with 225,155 going to Nana Akufo-Addo.

NVNV

In the “No Verification No Vote” category, the total votes affected were 810,827 and out of the total, 558,236 people who voted without biometric verification were attributed to President Mahama while Nana Akufo-Addo got 234,161, according to the petitioners.

Unsigned Pink Sheets

On the No signature by Presiding Officers category the total valid votes affected was 659,135 and 447,655 were attributed to President Mahama while Nana Akufo-Addo got 197,628, according to the petitioners.

Duplicate Serial Numbers

On the ‘Duplicate Serial Numbers’ category, the petitioners 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,  the petitioners claimed finally.

Mahama’s Excess Votes

The petitioners had asked the court to look critically at the votes obtained by President Mahama and those attained by NDC parliamentary candidates put together during the election since what Mr. Mahama obtained was far in excess of the total votes of all NDC parliamentary candidates but the court did not consider that claim.

The petitioners had said that could be explained but in the instant case there was no ‘Skirt and Blouse’ phenomenon as it is referred to in local parlance.

Minority Instead of Majority

During the trial Philip Addison, leading the petitioners in evidence had alerted the court that President Mahama garnered 5,574,761 as against 5,127, 641 by all his parliamentary candidates showing a difference of 447,120.

In the same vein, Nana Akufo-Addo obtained 5,248,898 votes and his parliamentary candidates had 5,248,882 which showed a difference of only 16.

According to the petitioners, the NDC majority in Parliament secured 121,221 votes less than the minority (NPP).

The Panel

Justice William A. Atuguba, president of the panel has been at the Supreme Court since May 1998, Justice Julius Ansah (since July, 2004), Justice Mrs Sophia Ophilia Adjeibea Adinyira (since 2006), Justice Rose Constance Owusu (since  June, 2008), Justice Jones Victor Mawulom Dotse (since June, 2008), Justice Anin Yeboah (since June, 2008), Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie (since June, 2008), Justice Sule Nasiru Gbadegbe (since Oct 2009) and Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo (since Oct 2009).

Exhibits

But for a few documents including letters and tape recordings, all other documents used as exhibits throughout the trial were Statement of Poll and Declaration of Results forms popularly called Pink Sheets due to it colour. They were all filed by the petitioners.

Witnesses

The court scuttled a threat by the NDC that they were bringing 11,000 witnesses to testify in the petition and subsequently restricted oral evidence to only the parties.

As a result, only Dr. Bawumia testifying on behalf of the petitioners, Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah for both President Mahama and the NDC and Dr. Afari-Gyan as the Returning Officer for the Presidential Election were the only witnesses that testified.

The court also brought in Nii Amanor Dodoo, Head of Audit Practice and a senior partner of the accounting firm KPMG to testify, after the firm had been chosen by the parties to count the number of pink sheets.

The Legal Teams

The petitioners had Philip Addison as lead counsel, supported by Stephen Dapaah Addo, Ms. Gloria Akuffo, Frank Davies, Alex Quaynor, Akoto Ampaw, Kwame Akuffo, Nana Asante Bediatuo, Godfred Yeboah Dame, Egbert Faibille and Prof. Kenneth Attafuah.

Tony Lithur represented President Mahama with support from Dr. Abdul Bassit Aziz Bamba while James Quashie-Idun (lead), Anthony Dabi, Stanley Amartefio, Freda Bruce Appiah and Stephanie Amartefio came in for the EC.

The NDC has Tsatsu Tsikata as lead counsel with Samuel Codjoe supporting.

Live Coverage

In what can be described as the first of its kind in the history of the judiciary, the court on Tuesday, April 16, agreed to telecast the proceedings live on television and radio, probably taking a cue from what had happened in Kenya in a similar petition.

NANA VRS MAHAMA...SUPREME COURT DECIDES...PARTIES SEEK GOD'S FACE

President Mahama's election victory in December 2012 was challenged by Nana Akufo-Addo below

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Thursday, August 29, 2013

All eyes are on the Supreme Court as the nine-member panel hearing the election petition delivers its verdict today.

Latest by close of work, Ghana and the world will know who actually won the December 7 and 8, 2012 Presidential Election.

The nine-member panel of justices hearing the landmark Presidential Election Petition will either affirm or nullify the Electoral Commission’s declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President of Ghana, a decision that has been challenged by three leading figures of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), including the party’s presidential candidate, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

Ahead of the ruling, anxiety has gripped Ghanaians over the election verdict.

Market women and traders at the Central Business District of Accra have served notice that they won’t open shops and would rather watch proceedings from the house.

Some are also afraid of being caught in crossfire in the unlikely event of violent breaking out.

The police have rolled comprehensive security arrangements across the country particularly the capital city.

Some roads leading the Supreme Court building have closed to traffic with movement to court area highly restricted except people accredited for the landmark ruling.

According to the Judicial Service, accreditation for the judgment day has been restricted only to parties in the case- the bar, media and representatives of the security agencies.

A statement signed by Justice Alex B. Poku-Acheampong, Judicial Secretary, said, the decision was taken to ensure that security at the Court premises and inside the courtroom is not compromised.

The statement said the public is advised to stay away from the premises of the Court on the judgement day and follow the proceedings through television and radio sets.

God’s Intervention

Both the respondents led by President Mahama and the petitioners with Nana Akufo-Addo leading have turned to God to seek his face as the nine Justices deliver. They have been praying unending.

The EC Chairman Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan on Sunday December 9, 2012 declared the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate Mr. Mahama a former Vice President who became substantive President following the sudden death of Prof. John Evan Atta Mills in late July 2012, as President-elect and was subsequently sworn into office on December 7, 2013.

The EC’s declaration did not go down well with the opposition the New Patriotic Party (NPP) who subsequently filed a petition at the Supreme Courts through their flagbearer Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and the party’s Chairman Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey after alleging widespread violations and irregularities.

Petitioners Reliefs

The petitioners sought reliefs are: “A declaration that “John Dramani Mahama was not validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana.”

They also want the court to declare that “Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein, rather was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana,” as well as “Consequential orders as to this court may deem fit.”

The violations

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 who acted as Presiding Officers during the election.

Issues To Be Determined

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

Polling stations Involved

The original number of polling stations that the petitioners were relying on was 11,842 as fully set out in the further and better particulars together with the various infractions so that each polling station was identified together with its infractions.

Subsequent to the 11,842 there had been various reductions and after close of evidence the said they were relying on 10,119 polling stations.

Petitioners Permutations

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

They insist that per their analysis, President Mahama’s 5,574,761 as declared by the EC on December 9, 2012 should have been 2,952,210, representing 41.79% since votes totaling 2,622,551 out of the figure announced were invalid.

In the same vein, the petitioners say that the 5,248,898 declared by the Dr. Afari-Gyan for Nana Akufo-Addo should have been 4,0157,12 representing 56.85% since1, 233,186 of the votes were invalid and should be annulled.

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

Giving a breakdown of the violations, malpractices and irregularities, the petitioners claimed that over voting alone totaled 742,492 and 502,013 inured to the benefit of President Mahama with 225,155 going to Nana Akufo-Addo.

Dr. Afari-Gyan at a point testified 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.”

In the “No Verification No Vote” category, the total votes affected were 810,827 and out of the total, 558,236 people who voted without biometric verification were attributed to President Mahama while Nana Akufo-Addo got 234,161.

Dr. Afari-Gyan insisted that “as far as the EC is concerned everybody who voted was biometrically verified.”

In the “No signature by Presiding Officers” category the total valid votes affected was 659,135 and 447,655 were attributed to President Mahama while Nana Akufo-Addo got 197,628.

Dr. Afari-Gyan again replied that “I have no basis of knowing that.”

On the ‘Duplicate Serial Numbers’ category, the petitioners 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 but again, Dr. Afari-Gyan has testified that “I don’t know that for a fact.”

Mahama’s Excess Votes

The petitioners have asked the court to look critically at the votes obtained by President Mahama and those attained by NDC parliamentary candidates put together during the election since what Mr. Mahama obtained was far in excess of the total votes of all NDC parliamentary candidates.

The petitioners have said that could be explained but in the instant case there was no ‘Skirt and Blouse’ phenomenon as it is referred to in local parlance.

Minority Instead of Majority

During the trial Philip Addison, leading the petitioners in evidence had alerted the court that President Mahama garnered 5,574,761 as against 5,127, 641 by all his parliamentary candidates showing a difference of 447,120.

In the same vein, Nana Akufo-Addo obtained 5,248,898 votes and his parliamentary candidates had 5,248,882 which showed a difference of only 16.

According to the petitioners, the NDC majority in Parliament secured 121,221 votes less than the minority (NPP).

Addresses Drama

At the close of evidence, after about seven months of trial, the court fixed July 30, for all the parties to file their addresses but all parties with the exception of the NDC, the third respondent complied with the court’s order and had to file the next day.

They were then given August 7, to address the court orally after which the nine-member panel, presided over by Justice William Atuguba, fixed August 14 for the judges to seek clarifications from the parties.

Petitioners Final Push

According to the petitioners, they 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 that these violations, malpractices and irregularities had a material effect on the results of the election as declared by 2nd respondent.”

“The petitioners have been able to demonstrate, by the show of a preponderance of evidence of invalid votes, which go to affect the declared results by the Electoral Commission for John Dramani Mahama in the December 2012 Presidential Election,” Mr. Addison told the court on the final day.

Respondents Hit Back

The respondents have also disputed the claim of the petitioners and asked the court to dismiss the petition.

“At least the first and third petitioners have been part of this electoral system for years. Inventing such a claim is, therefore, an act of bad faith. It was an invention by petitioners to bolster their case and should be wholly dismissed as adventurous,” Tony Lithur, counsel for 1^st respondent President Mahama said.

“My Lords we would respectfully submit that the petitioners have failed to prove their case before your Lordships, not one single vote ought to be annulled, they have not justified the annulment of a single vote under any of the categories that they have cited,” James Quashie-Idun, lead counsel for the 2^nd respondent Electoral Commission (EC).

“The petitioners’ claim is factually empty, with no supportable evidence being produced. It is legally pathetic; the petition is poor in arithmetic and extremely poor in logic,” was how Tsatsu Tsikata lead counsel for the 3^rd respondent National Democratic Congress (NDC) described the petition.

The Panel

Justice William A. Atuguba, president of the panel has been at the Supreme Court since May 1998, Justice Julius Ansah (since July, 2004), Justice Mrs Sophia Ophilia Adjeibea Adinyira (since 2006), Justice Rose Constance Owusu (since  June, 2008), Justice Jones Victor Mawulom Dotse (since June, 2008), Justice Anin Yeboah (since June, 2008), Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie (since June, 2008), Justice Sule Nasiru Gbadegbe (since Oct 2009) and Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo (since Oct 2009).

Exhibits

But for a few documents including letters and tape recordings, all other documents used as exhibits throughout the trial were Statement of Poll and Declaration of Results forms popularly called Pink Sheets due to it colour. They were all filed by the petitioners.

Witnesses

The court scuttled a threat by the NDC that they were bringing 11,000 witnesses to testify in the petition and subsequently restricted oral evidence to only the parties.

As a result, only Dr. Bawumia testifying on behalf of the petitioners, Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah for both President Mahama and the NDC and Dr. Afari-Gyan as the Returning Officer for the Presidential Election were the only witnesses that testified.

The court also brought in Nii Amanor Dodoo, Head of Audit Practice and a senior partner of the accounting firm KPMG to testify, after the firm had been chosen by the parties to count the number of pink sheets.

The Legal Teams

The petitioners had Philip Addison as lead counsel, supported by Stephen Dapaah Addo, Ms. Gloria Akuffo, Frank Davies, Alex Quaynor, Akoto Ampaw, Kwame Akuffo, Nana Asante Bediatuo, Godfred Yeboah Dame, Egbert Faibille and Prof. Kenneth Attafuah.

Tony Lithur represented President Mahama with support from Dr. Abdul Bassit Aziz Bamba while James Quashie-Idun (lead), Anthony Dabi, Stanley Amartefio, Freda Bruce Appiah and Stephanie Amartefio came in for the EC.

The NDC has Tsatsu Tsikata as lead counsel with Samuel Codjoe supporting.

Live Coverage

In what can be described as the first of its kind in the history of the judiciary, the court on Tuesday, April 16, agreed to telecast the proceedings live on television and radio, probably taking a cue from what had happened in Kenya in a similar petition.

Anxiety All Over

The whole country is currently gripped by a heightened sense of anxiety as it awaits the ruling of the court.

The Presidential Election Petition is arguably the biggest test for Ghana’s democracy yet was filed on December 28, 2012 by Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and the party’s Chairman Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey.

This is the first time the legitimacy of a Ghanaian president’s electoral victory has been challenged to this level amidst fears of possible violence.

There are reports of mass acquisition of visa for relatives of the political class as people smelling possible escalation of violence are allegedly preparing to leave the country. Traders are also said to have slowed down on their trade in anticipation of the court’s ruling.

There are fears that if the court decides President Mahama of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) should step down, his peeved followers could wreck havoc on the country.

Conversely, there flip side that if the court’s ruling favored the NDC, supporters of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) whose flagbearer, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and two others filed the petition could also spark unrest.

This can be read from the scripts of both parties as the NPP calls for justice before peace; NDC is crying for peace. The ruling of the court would therefore be decisive.

OBJECTION! OBJECTION!! OBJECTION!!! HOW NINE JUDGES RULED IN ELECTION PETITION (FINAL PART)

EC Chairman Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan declared John Dramani Mahama winner in spite of protests from the petitioner’s party.

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu,

Reporting from the Supreme Court,

Accra.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

This is the final part of how the nine justices ruled in terms of votes on interlocutory issues in the yet-to-be-concluded landmark Presidential Election Petition fixed for tomorrow.

Tampered Evidence Envelopes

The court again by a 6-3 majority decision with Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, and Akoto-Bamfo dissenting, overruled an objection by Messrs Quarshie-Idun and Tsikata that Mr. Addison could not proceed to ask questions on tampered evidence envelopes shown to Dr. Afari-Gyan for purposes of identification.

Immediately the court gave Mr. Addison the green light to proceed to ask Dr. Afari-Gyan to identify the tampered evidence envelopes, Mr. Quarshie-Idun objected vehemently that the document was not in evidence but the court again in a majority decision of 8-1 with Justice Atuguba dissenting, overruled the objection.

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013, there were no major objections raised except that the argument over the actual number of pink sheets filed and whether they were served on the respondents delayed the cross-examination.

Pink Sheets Stalls Trial

On Thursday, June 13, 2013, it became apparent that the validity of pink sheets being used by the petitioners to cross-examine Dr. Afari-Gyan was being persistently challenged by the respondents.

The court as a result, adjourned the proceedings until June 24, 2013 for KPMG to conclude its work and submit its report.

KPMG Testifies

On Monday, June 24, 2013 when the court resumed, Justice Atuguba confirmed that KPMG had indeed submitted its report and subsequently invited Nii Amanor Dodoo, Head Audit Practice and a partner of the firm to tender the documents in evidence for Dr. Afari-Gyan’s cross-examination to continue.

It was subsequently agreed that all the lawyers could cross-examine the KPMG representative because the parties were in disagreement over how the firm reached its conclusions.

KPMG Soft Copy

Mr. Addison then requested the court to ask KPMG to furnish the petitioners with a soft copy of the final report but Mr. Dodoo said it was not the policy of the firm to supply soft copies to clients especially third parties. This generated heated argument after the respondents sided with KPMG over the soft copy and the court finally ruled that they were declining Mr. Addison’s request.

Later, by a 7-2 majority decision with Justices Anin-Yeboah and Gbadegbe dissenting, the court adjourned the case until June 26, for the Petitioners’ Motion to Produce Documents served on the EC to be moved after the respondents wanted the court to compel Mr. Addison to go ahead with the cross-examination.

‘Final Touchline’

The court then issued a ‘final touchline’ warning to the public as well as the media and said they were no longer going to entertain any comment that was designed to scandalize the court. This was after the judges had accused some politicians and media houses of running down the judiciary and inciting public hatred against the judges.

Motion to Produce Documents

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Mr. Addison moved an application for the 2^nd respondent to produce documents for inspection and to make copies thereof of Collation Forms for 13 constituencies but the respondents opposed the application.

The court unanimously held that “In view of our ruling on a similar application delivered by this court on the 5^th day of June, 2013, dismissing the same as belated, we adopt the same and accordingly dismiss this application.”

Sammy Awuku in Trouble

The court after the ruling called in Samuel Awuku, a member of the NPP Communication Team, after initially citing him for contempt to explain a comment he had made in the case.

After a give-and-take between the court and Mr. Awuku, the court banned him from further attending the proceedings and also asked him to use the same medium to retract the said comments and apologize to the bench which he did as ordered.

On Thursday, June 27, 2013, the court noted the comments passed by Gabby Asuming, an NDC communication team member but added that they were not going to sanction him because “He is caught by the statute of limitation because our touch line was from Monday 24th June.”

The court before winding up for the day summoned Stephen Atubiga and Kwaku Boahen both members of the NDC as well as Kenneth Agyei Kuranchie, Managing Editor of Daily Searchlight to appear before it and answer charges over comments they purportedly made or published about the proceedings which the court deemed contemptuous.

Addison Grills PKMG Man

Mr. Addison then commenced the cross-examination of the KPMG representative Nii Amanor Dodoo, asking him to explain the reasons why the firm refused to include the petitioners concerns, which came in the form of comments, in the final report.

Just as Mr. Addison started bombarding the KPMG man with figures of pink sheets which he said the firm did include in their final report, the respondents vehemently objected saying they might not have the chance to rebut Mr. Addison’s claims but the court in a majority of 8-1 with Justice Atuguba dissenting on jurisdictional grounds overruled the objection.

The court later by a 6-3 majority with Justices Ansah, Rose Owusu and Anin-Yeboah dissenting, overruled the tendering of the comments compiled by the petitioners and subsequently rejected the document.

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013, Messrs Lithur, Quashie-Idun and Tsikata all took turns to also cross-examine the KPMG representative Nii Amanor Dodoo.

After the KPMG representative had been temporarily discharged by the court the Registrar called out the summons issued to Atubiga and Boahen both members of the NDC as well as Kuranchie, Managing Editor of Daily Searchlight for trial.

Kuranchie, Atubiga Jailed

After the deliberations Messrs Atubiga and Kuranchie were jailed 3 & 10 days respectively by the court while Boahen was discharged because he told the court he was falsely accused by the newspaper.

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, the court had to adjourn proceedings abruptly due to disagreement over which pink sheet to use as Dr. Afari-Gyan’s cross-examination was resumed. The respondents were of the view that the petitioners should go strictly to what had been captured in the KPMG report while the petitioners also argued that those not captured by the report were relevant to their case.

On Thursday July 4, 2013, the court unanimously overruled Mr. Tsikata’s objection that the petitioners were trying to use categories of pink sheets that were outside the ones captured in the KPMG report saying “The objection was preemptive, since no question relating to any category of exhibits had as yet been put by counsel for the Petitioners.” 

Sir John In Trouble

On Monday, July 8, 2013, before actual proceedings started, Justice Atuguba announced that the court was going to investigate fresh allegations that some people including NPP General Secretary Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie aka Sir John had made comments that were prejudicial to the proceedings saying “we are appealing to the public to desist from causing us the pain of having to summon people here.”

The petitioners then informed the court that in view of the persistent objections by the respondents in the use of pink sheets they (petitioners) were using for their cross-examination, they (petitioners) were requesting the court to allow them to use the set in the custody of the court’s registry.

Request for Unaudited Pink Sheets

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, the petitioners moved an “application for leave to remit part of issue to referee for further consideration thereof” and it was unanimously adopted in spite of stiff opposition from the respondents.

The justices made it clear that referee’s report was ‘auxiliary’ to the court adding that “since the materials upon which the petitioners are standing for their case are the same as they themselves filed in this court, they are in a position to demonstrate with these materials, thus say the pink sheets by their own analyses with the aid of the referee’s report the respective heads of alleged malpractices in their case.”

The court also said that “any perceived difficulties still lingering can be cleared through cross-examination of the 2nd Respondent,” and directed that the petitioners list out the 1,545 polling stations which they claimed they had been able to identify despite the un-clarities for the 2nd Respondent to respond to.

Signed vrs Unsigned Pink Sheets

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013, the issue of whether or not some of the pink sheets were actually signed by Presiding Officers of EC was hotly argued before the petitioners tendered additional list outside the 905 polling station which they said were also unsigned.

The court later struck out portions of the evidence earlier given by Dr. Afari-Gyan because Mr. Quashie-Idun had protested that Mr. Addison was making references to a collation sheet in respect of two pink sheets that were not in evidence.

Mampong Register

On Thursday, July 11, 2013, the court allowed Mr. Addison to withdraw a polling station register from Mampong Constituency when Dr. Afari-Gyan insisted that it was different from what was in the custody of the EC after protestation by the respondents that the document should be rejected.

On Monday, July 15, 2013, the court accepted in evidence two different registers (one for the petitioners and another for the EC) supposed to be a polling station at Mampong Constituency.

On Tuesday July, 16, 2013, the court by a majority of 7-2 with Justices Atuguba and Adinyira dissenting “because the particulars on these matters were restricted to three polling stations,” overruled an objection by the respondents that Mr. Addison could not ask questions on discrepancy between the votes announced and the votes as counted as alleged by the petitioners.

Ledzokuku Figures

Mr. Addison withdrew a question put to Dr. Afari-Gyan over figures recorded at the Ledzokuku Constituency and apologized when he told the court that he indeed crosschecked and that the previous figure quoted was not right after Mr. Tsikata had raised a protest. Justice Atuguba commended Mr. Addison for the withdrawal.

A tape recording of Dr. Afari-Gyan’s press conference on December 5, 2012, in the run up to the election was also played before Mr. Addison said he was bringing his cross-examination to a close.

17 Controversial Pink Sheets

Immediately Mr. Addison concluded his cross-examination, Mr. Quashie-Idun who was supposed to re-examine Dr. Afari-Gyan indicated that subject to the tendering of some 17 pink sheets the commissioner promised earlier to bring to the court, he was not going to do any re-examination.

“My lords, yesterday a question arose regarding the accusation of triplicates pink sheets and my ladyship on your Lordship’s left indicated that it has been said that the witness will check and report and that it will not have to be under re-examination. If the witness is ready on that, that will be the only matter pending from our side,” he said.

Mr. Addison protested and insisted that should the documents be allowed in evidence by the court, the petitioners would have the right to cross-examine Dr. Afari-Gyan and after a long argument, the 17 pink sheets were tendered and petitioners given the chance to cross-examine.

Addison’s Second Chance

On Wednesday, July 17, Mr. Addison started another cross-examination of Dr. Afari-Gyan on the 17 pink sheets but there was an objection from the counsels of all the three respondents that one the different pink sheets in respect of a polling station called Apostolic Revelation Society had no exhibit number and could not have been part of the case.

The court unanimously ruled that “the petitioners are restricted to Exhibits X and EC 11, in so far as the issue of serial numbers and other matters connected with the pleadings are concerned.”

The respondents raised another objection, indicating to the court that Mr. Addison was still putting questions to Dr. Afari-Gyan from pink sheets that were not part of the exhibits filed by the petitioners but the court unanimously overruled and said “but we will remind counsel to stay within the borders in that attempt.”

Filing of Addresses

After close of evidence on Wednesday, July 17, 2013, the court ordered the parties to file their addresses by July 30 and report the next day for the court to assess whether the directive was complied with.

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 all the parties except the NDC who had filed their address in the morning of the proceedings after the deadline, complied with the court order. Mr. Tsikata told the court that the NDC could not file on time but had done so in the morning.

Oral Addresses

The court then fixed Wednesday, August 7, for the parties “to be heard orally by way of clarifications and necessary additions.” The court also made it clear that in presenting oral argument, each party is entitled to 30 minutes for a oral addresses.

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013, the court heard oral arguments from all the parties and fixed Wednesday, July 14, for the court to seek clarifications from the parties.

Sir John, Hopeson Convicted

The court also tried and convicted Sir John and Hopeson Adorye of the Young Patriots for criminal contempt. The contemnors were also fined GH¢ 50 and GH¢ 20 respectively or in default go to jail for six and three months respectively.

They were also ordered to sign a bond of good behaviour or face jail for six and three months respectively.