Once upon a time, NDC supporters flooded the court with canes in the full glare of the police.
Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
William Yaw
Owusu,
Reporting from
the Supreme Court,
Accra
Monday, August 26, 2013
Privilege
Information
Mr.
Tsikata wanted Dr. Bawumia to explain the manner in which the Commissioner of
Oath’s stamps were endorsed on the pink sheets and whether the petitioners
exhibits were prepared in the presence of the petitioners legal team. In the
process, Mr. Lithur jumped in to offer support for the NDC counsel but Mr.
Addison objected and asked whether Mr. Lithur was now acting as counsel for the
NDC.
The
court unanimously ruled that “the intervention of Tony Lithur regarding the
objection of the petitioners to Tsatsu Tsikata’s question on grounds of
relevancy is disallowed.”
However,
the court sustained the objection of Mr. Addison “in so far as questions
relating to which of their legal team members were present” at the time the
Commissioner of Oath was endorsing the exhibits since Mr. Addison was able to
argue that the 3rd respondent counsel’s questions bothered on
lawyer-client relationship.
On
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 Mr. Addison objected to Mr. Tsikata’s persistent attempt
to ask Dr. Bawumia to identify documents that counsel said was not emanating
from the witness but the court after a lengthy argument overruled the
objection saying “we have considered the
objection raised and have come to the conclusion that the question posed by the
3rd Respondent’s counsel is covered by Section 74 of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD
323 and paragraph 27 of the 3rd Respondent’s amended answer dated 26th February
2013.”
Before
Mr. Tsikata proceeded, Justice Atuguba said “we wish to make one thing clear
that the questions relating to polling agents signing, they were present and
all that, those questions have been sufficiently covered and the documents also
evident them, so let’s leave out those lines of questions and proceed,” this
was after Mr. Tsikata repeatedly asked the same set of questions.
Bad Faith
The
court again overruled an objection by Mr. Addison on the question of a pink
sheet which Mr. Tsikata introduced to prove a case of bad faith against the
petitioners. He had argued that the pink sheet in question was replete with
irregularities and that the petitioners deliberately left it out because it was
in the stronghold of the NPP but Mr. Addison rebutted saying that the pink
sheet in question was not part of 11,842 pink sheets they brought and that Mr.
Tsikata was trying to set up “entirely new case.”
“Insofar
as the question objected to, seeks compositely to portray that there are other
pink sheets with malpractices of the kind in respect of which the witness has
testified that they should be annulled, the objection is overruled. However,
beyond such composite questions, the questions cannot be allowed in as much as
the 3rd respondent’s turn to testify along this line is yet to come,” the panel
held.
On
Wednesday, May 8, 2013 the court sustained Mr. Addison’s objection to the
extent that composite questions allowed the 3rd respondent “does not involve
any list of documents to be put to the witness.”
The
court overruled Mr. Addison’s objection that Mr. Tsikata was trying to ‘trick’
Dr. Bawumia to answer how many polling stations the petitioners analyzed since
the witness had previously answered that they worked on 24,000 pink sheets even
though there were 26,002 polling stations.
Addison Punches
Tsatsu
There
was a fierce argument when Mr. Tsikata called Dr. Bawumia dishonest in the
course of putting it to him that “if you were honest in examining the 24,000
polling stations that you claim you examined, you would have found numerous
instances of practices that you are now claiming are malpractices.”
Mr.
Addison did not take kindly to the NDC counsel’s tag of the witness as
dishonest and said “My lords I do not know why counsel cannot ask questions
without using words like honesty; it is quite surprising coming from him
talking about honesty. This kind of words that he has been using, we have said
that we do not want to reply in kind. He should choose his words carefully. There
was no need at all to address the witness that he has been dishonest. Coming
from him is quite rich.”
Justice
Atuguba intervened saying “Let us try to be impersonal, professional in this
matter. The question he is putting has nothing to do with his personal, he is
not the witness. So his particular this thing is not in issue.”
Nana Akufo-Addo & Dr. Bawumia, leaving the court
Pink
Sheet Count Ordered
On Thursday, May 9, 2013, the issue of
how many pink sheets were actually filed by the petitioners as exhibits came up
strongly once again in the cross-examination and the court had no option but to
appoint an independent referee for the exercise. The court with the consent of
all the parties then appointed KPMG, an international accounting firm to count
what had been filed at the court’s registry.
KPMG
Terms of reference
The referee was tasked to “make a true
and faithful count to all the said exhibits of pink sheets according to and
under the various categories of alleged electoral malpractices in issue before
this court as follows: The said allegations as appearing contained and
specified in paragraphs 44 - 67 of the affidavit of the 2nd Petitioner relating
to the Presidential Election Petition pending in this court filed in the
registry of this court on the 7th day of April 2013.”
They were to look out for each pink
sheet, the polling station name and its code number and exhibit number, (if
any) in the presence of two observers each from the parties.
On
Monday, May 13, 2013, Mr. Addison objected to an attempt by Mr. Tsikata to ask
Dr. Bawumia a question on pleadings that had been abandoned by the petitioners
saying “it is just to find a way to ask questions about the original petition.
This court has ruled on that, he cannot go back there” and the NDC counsel
backtracked.
Mr.
Quashie-Idun at a point also cut in to object to Dr. Bawumia’s use of the word
“lie” to describe the actions of the EC
and Justice Atuguba said “The problem is until the evidence enfolds, you cannot
know that what he is saying is correct or not.”
Respondents to
Call Petitioners’ Witnesses
On
Tuesday, May 14, 2013, series of applications filed by the respondents to call
some witnesses including an MP (Freda Prempeh of Tano North) who swore
affidavits for the petitioners, flooded the court.
No Bukom Blows!
At
a point, Mr. Tsikata once again called Dr. Bawumia “dishonest” in trying to put
a question to him that the petitioners also made mistakes in compiling the
exhibits but the witness reacted saying “there is an error but there is no
dishonesty. If you want to be honest with the court let us put down my
analyses. If you are not afraid of the truth and show me one repeated polling
station.”
Justice
Atuguba then said “just state your answer without any Bukom Blows!”
Jake’s Letter
By
a majority decision, 8 – 1 with Justice Anin Yeboah dissenting, the court overruled an objection by Mr. Addison
that Mr. Tsikata could not tender in evidence and follow up with questions on a
letter purportedly written by Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, the 3rd
petitioner to the EC about the impending declaration of the election results.
The court again unanimously sustained
Mr. Addison’s objection that Mr. Tsikata was repeating questions in respect of
the same serial number category.
Bad
Faith Again
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 the court
overruled the previous day’s objection raised by Mr. Addison when Mr. Tsikata
again introduced a case of bad faith against the petitioners but the petitioners’
counsel said it had not been pleaded.
In the same ruling the court said
“however, in so far as the said question stands to re-plough grounds previously
covered by the 3rd Respondent’s cross-examination, the objection is sustained.”
Unknown
Polling Stations
The court sustained an objection by Mr.
Addison that once the 22 polling stations the petitioners’ claim are unknown which Mr. Tsikata was seeking to
tender in evidence were not in dispute per Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah’s affidavit,
“there is no residue of relevancy to which the tendering of the same can
relate.”
Application
to Recall Witnesses Heard
On
Thursday, May 16, 2013, the series of applications filed by the respondents to
call the petitioners witnesses to testify were called simultaneously and moved
accordingly before the petitioners opposed the moves.
The
court unanimously refused the respondents application saying “we think that
these and any further evidence will suffice to enable us assess the various
factual matters involved without the protraction involved in the
cross-examination of the witnesses covered in these applications.”
The
court deferred the tendering of a document the 3rd respondent had
prepared in respect of same serial numbers and which Mr. Addison had insisted
the petitioners had already provided information on.
NDC gurus! Dr. Kwabena Adjei, Yaw Boateng Gyan & Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah
“The
witness, it is said by Ansah, Owusu, Anin-Yeboah and Gbadegbe JJSC, can identify
the document and tender it later, Adinyira, Dotse, Baffoe-Bonnie and
Akoto-Bamfo JJSC, the witness can tender it during re-examination. Atuguba, JSC
- the court has power under Section 69 of the Evidence Decree to annul the
tendering of the document at this stage. Per Anin Yeboah, JSC, the court must
have the document or else the cross-examiner cannot proceed any further,” the
court held.
On
Monday, May 20, 2013, when Mr. Addison objected to Mr. Tsikata’s tendering of a
list of 32 exhibits relating to same serial numbers, the court unanimously
overruled counsel saying “if the evidence relating to it, is already on record
the list there too which is merely an index to the pink sheets covered by it is
mere facilitatory of tracking the evidence already so covered.”
Immediately
the court admitted Mr. Tsikata’s document he sought to ask questions on the
ones he did not tender and when Mr. Addison objected he was again overruled.
Pink Sheet Count
Controversy
On
Tuesday, May 21, 2013, even before proceedings commenced, Mr. Tsikata followed
by Messrs Lithur and Quashie-Idun took turns to claim that the boxes containing
the exhibits to be counted by KPMG had increased from 24 to 31 while Mr. Lithur
even said it had moved from 24 to 33. Mr. Tsikata at a point indicted the
court’s registry when he imputed ‘criminality’.
Mr.
Addison hit back saying “it is obvious that somebody has sinister agenda to
deprive the petitioners the opportunity to fully put forward their case. That
is the only reason that explains this strenuous attempt to derail a process we
have all agreed upon. The order of this court was a consent order agreed to by
the parties. It started well, except for some people it did not start well. The
representative for the EC is said to have remarked that they were expecting
shortages but what they started experiencing was overages.”
The
court then asked the respondents to put before the referee any concerns they
had for the referee to incorporate in its report. Mr. Tsikata then said that
subject to the KPMG final report on the count, he was ending his
cross-examination of Dr. Bawumia.
Bawumia
Re-Examination
On
Wednesday, May 22, 2013, when Mr. Addison tried to re-examine Dr. Bawumia,
there were persistent objections from all the respondent’s counsel and the
court in each case had to rule on the emerging issues.
The
first objection was sustained while in the second, a majority decision of 7-2
with Justices Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dissenting, again overruled the
objection.
704 Polling
Stations & CD Rom
A
list of 704 polling stations that the petitioners said they are no longer relying on was tendered in evidence while the
tendering of a CD Rom containing the electronic version of all the exhibits was
vehemently opposed by the respondents . The court sustained the objections.
The
court overruled an objection by the respondents when they tried to prevent Dr.
Bawumia from tendering a list as regards the category section which he said was
to counter a previous list Mr. Tsikata had tendered as Exhibit NDC 32.
The
court by a majority of 6-3 with Justices Ansah, Owusu and Anin Yeboah,
dissenting, sustained Mr. Lithur’s objection of “there was no ambiguity in Mr.
Addison’s question.”
The
court again overruled a question by Mr. Addison when Justice Atuguba said “it
came in the form of question under cross-examination.”
To
be continued on Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment