One of the boxes containing the Petitioners address
Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw
Owusu,
Reporting from
the Supreme Court,
Accra.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Re-categorization
of Exhibits
By
a 5-4 majority with Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe, Akoto-Bamfo dissenting,
the court overruled an objection by Mr. Tsikata that the petitioners were
seeking to re-categorize some of their exhibits.
The
court in another majority of 5-4 with Justices Dotse, Anin-Yeboah,
Baffoe-Bonnie and Gbadegbe dissenting, sustained Mr. Lithur’s objection that
the petitioners were leading evidence on the issue of padding at the
re-examination stage.
The
court by a unanimous decision sustained the respondent’s objection to the
tendering of a document prepared by the petitioners on the re-categorization of
some of the exhibits due to mislabeling.
Asiedu-Nketiah
in the box
On
Thursday May 23, lawyers for both 1st and 3rd respondents
indicated that Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah, General Secretary of the NDC was to
testify for both parties.
As
the NDC General-Secretary proceeded with his evidence-in-chief, the court by a
majority of 5-4 with Justices Ansah, Owusu, Anin-Yeboah and Gbadegbe,
dissenting, overruled an objection by Mr. Addison that Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah could
not be asked questions by Mr. Tsikata on his (Asiedu-Nketiah) participation in
the election.
The
court unanimously sustained another objection by Mr. Addison that Mr. Tsikata
could not ask Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah further questions on a pink sheet for MA
Primary School Asokwa polling station with Code F191201.
Asokwa Pink
Sheet
The
court again unanimously sustained Mr. Addison’s objection that Mr. Tsikata
could not tender the Asokwa pink sheet in evidence because it was not part of
the 11,842 that were filed as exhibits and subsequently rejected the document.
Mr.
Tsikata had sought to prove widespread irregularities by using the Asokwa pink
sheets showed that the petitioners deliberately selected the strongholds of the
NDC to make a case.
The
court unanimously overruled Mr. Addison’s objection that Mr. Tsikata could not
ask Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah to testify on the allegation that some NPP leaders asked
their members to wear white in the run up to the declaration of the election
results by Dr. Afari-Gyan because victory was beckoning.
Amicus Files for
Review
On
Tuesday, May 28, 2013, just as proceedings were commencing, Benony Toni
Amekudzi came in to move a fresh motion on notice for the court to review its
decision that blocked him from becoming Amicus Curiae and after a protracted
argument, the court unanimously dismissed the application saying “we think that
Article 64 is a unique and special provision as we held in our earlier ruling
and nothing that has been urged on us moves us to change our position to that
effect.”
Abroad Voting
Myth
Following
the dismissal of the Amicus Curiae, the case proceeded with Mr. Addison’s
objection after Mr. Tsikata claimed the petitioners had said that voting took
place abroad and the court in a 6-3 majority decision with Justices Atuguba,
Gbadegbe, and Akoto-Bamfo dissenting, sustained the objection. The court
subsequently expunged that piece of evidence from the records on Mr. Addison’s
request.
Mr.
Tsikata concluded the examination-in-chief of Mr Asiedu-Nketiah and the
cross-examination of the witness by Mr. Addison began.
By
a majority of 5-4 with Justices Ansah, Owusu, Anin-Yeboah and Akoto-Bamfo
dissenting, the court sustained Mr. Tsikata’s objection that Mr. Addison could
not ask Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah whether the non-signature of Presiding Officers on
the pink sheets were an irregularity since it was a question of law.
Juaso Court Hall
Pink Sheet
On
Wednesday, May 29, 2013, the court sustained Mr. Tsikata’s objection that a
pink sheet for Juaso Court Hall from which Mr. Addison was trying to question
Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah was not in evidence.
Akwapim South
Collation Form
The
court by a 5-4 majority with Justices Ansah, Owusu, Anin Yeboah and
Baffoe-Bonnie dissenting, sustained Mr. Tsikata’s objection that Mr. Addison
could not tender the Akwapim South Collation Form through the witness and the
document was subsequently rejected.
Tony Lithur
Reprimanded
Mr.
Addison then handed the respondents a huge document containing particulars of
all the 11,842 polling stations and as the court clerk brought it to Mr. Lithur,
the President’s lawyer threw the document away thereby drawing a reprimand from
the bench and a subsequent apology from Mr. Lithur.
Nii Amanor Dodoo, testified on behalf of KPMG
The
court asked Mr. Addison to rephrase his question on the booklet containing
11,842 polling stations since Mr. Tsikata was objecting to the fact that the
document was not in evidence.
Quashie-Idun’s
Re-examination
After
Mr. Addison had concluded his cross-examination, Mr. Quashie-Idun instead of
also cross-examining Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah as the rules permit rather asked questions
that suggested that he was re-examining the witness.
This
incensed Mr. Addison who protested vehemently at the EC’s counsel’s behaviour
saying: “My lords, this cross-examination is gradually turning into a
re-examination, I mean, questions are being asked on my cross-examination and I
don’t think it is fair. I mean, the man
has given evidence, so cross-examine him on his evidence, not what I have
cross-examined him on because as it is, it is re-examination you are doing.”
The
judges after discussing the matter in chambers returned to rule unanimously
that “The 2nd Respondent is entitled to cross-examine but not to re-examine the
witness. Counsel for the 2nd Respondent,
therefore, should base his questions on the evidence-in-chief of the witness and
questions concerning the version of the 2nd Respondent’s case. To that extent, the objection is sustained.”
Once
Mr. Quashie-Idun was confined by the court to “base his questions on the
evidence-in-chief of the witness and questions concerning the version of the
2nd Respondent’s case,” he threw in the towel and said “my lords, that will be
all for the witness.”
Afari-Gyan in
the box
On
Thursday, May 30, 2013, Dr. Afari-Gyan sat in the witness’ box for the first
time to testify as the Chairman of the EC and the Returning Officer of the
Presidential Election but the petitioners wanted clarification from the court
over the commissioner’s appearance since in the run up to the proceedings he
never deposed to any affidavits in the petition.
“Dr.
Kwadwo Afari-Gyan is representing the Electoral Commission in his capacity as a
party to this case and the Returning Officer to the general elections of
Ghana. He can, therefore, pursuant to
the directives for trial in this case given on 2nd April, 2013 give oral evidence
on behalf of the 2nd Respondent,” the court unanimously held.
Afari-Gyan’s
Lecture
The
court in a majority of 6-3 with Justices Ansah, Owusu and Anin-Yeboah,
dissenting, overruled Mr. Addison’s objection that Dr. Afari-Gyan’s
evidence-in-chief was turning into a ‘lecture.’ This was after the Commissioner
appeared to narrate a history of elections instead of concentrating on what
happened in December 2012.
On
Monday, June 3, 2013, the court in a
majority of 7-2 with Justices Dotse and Baffoe-Bonnie, dissenting overruled Mr.
Addison’s objection that the EC did not plead in their affidavits about where
the Biometric Voters Devices were kept and how they have been used subsequently
and could therefore not testify on those pieces of evidence.
Biometric Device
Print Outs
The
court by a majority of 7-2, with Justices Atuguba and Akoto-Bamfo, dissenting
sustained an objection of Mr. Addison when Mr. Quashie-Idun tried to tender in
evidence through Dr. Afari-Gyan, print outs containing information from the
biometric verification device.
By
a 7-2 majority decision with Justices Atuguba and Akoto-Bamfo dissenting on the
grounds that the parties affected thereby must be heard, the court sustained an
objection by Mr. Addison that Messrs Lithur and Tsikata did not have to
intervene in the petitioners’ counsel objection raised to Mr. Quashie-Idun’s
tendering of a polling station register in the Shai Osudoku Constituency.
However,
Mr. Addison’s objection to the tendering of the polling station register was
overruled.
Tendering of
Registers
On
Tuesday, June 4, 2013, the court by 8-1 majority decision with Justice
Baffoe-Bonnie dissenting, overruled Mr. Addison’s objection that a polling
station in the Nsuta Kwamang Beposo Constituency in the Ashanti Region could not
be tendered in evidence.
The
court once again in a 8-1 majority decision with Justice Baffoe-Bonnie
dissenting, overruled Mr. Addison’s objection that a polling station in the Wa
East Constituency in the Upper West Region could not be tendered in evidence.
Mr.
Quashie-Idun had indicated that there were five registers involved and once the
court had admitted three in evidence with only Justice Baffoe-Bonnie dissenting
in each occasion, Mr. Addison told the court that he was not going to raise
objections on the registers again.
Fight Over
Afari-Gyan
Immediately
Mr Quashie-Idun concluded his evidence-in-chief of Dr. Afari-Gyan, there was a
furore between the 1st and 3rd respondents on one hand
and the petitioners on the other over who should cross-examine the witness
first.
Victor Kojogah Adawudu filed President Mahama's address
After
a back-and-forth argument between Messrs Lithur and Tsikata on one and Mr.
Addison on another, the court unanimously ruled that applying provisions under
Section 69 of the Evidence Act “We have experienced the tendency of when counsel
for the 2nd Respondent was cross-examining the 3rd Respondent to treat the same
as if it were re-examination leading to a sustained objection in that regard by
counsel for the petitioners.”
“To
avoid such a pitfall we are of the view that counsel for the 1st and 3rd
Respondents should first cross-examine the witness 2nd Respondent per Dr.
Afari-Gyan before the cross-examination by counsel for the petitioners.”
Lithur
Cross-Examines Afari-Gyan
On
Wednesday, June 5, 2013, Mr. Addison objected vehemently to Mr. Lithur’s
attempt to cross-examine Dr. Afari-Gyan on a document that had been filed in
the court and was even yet to be moved by EC’s counsel, describing the move as
‘professional misconduct and unethical.’
The
court unanimously held that as to the rights of counsel for the Petitioners to
object to the propriety of the 2nd Respondent’s supplementary affidavit
introducing the attached documents into evidence as his clients are thereby
affected, he had the right to raise the said objection.
The
court however, overruled Mr. Lithur’s preliminary objection about whether or
not counsel for the Petitioners should be allowed to raise an objection during
his cross-examination.
Tsatsu
Cross-Examines Afari-Gyan
Mr.
Tsikata took over the cross-examination of Dr. Afari-Gyan and it went on
successfully without any objection.
Addison Grills
Afari-Gyan
Mr.
Addison wanted Dr. Afari-Gyan to testify on the Electoral Commission of Ghana
Voter Registration Form 1A but Mr. Quashie-Idun objected saying it was not in evidence.
However, upon Mr. Addison’s insistence that he did not intend to tender the
document, the EC counsel withdrew the objection.
KPMG Writes To
Court
Justice
Atuguba then announced that they were truncating the proceedings to deal with
the KPMG matter which was bubbling. The judge told the packed court that they
received a letter from KPMG “seeking classifications on matters arising from
the orders we made,” and this sparked a heated argument between the petitioners
and respondent’s counsel in spite of the fact that the issue had been discussed
in chambers earlier according to the justices.
Atuguba’s Set
Mr.
Tsikata in the course of the argument requested that to make the report
acceptable by all, there was the need for some form of ‘control mechanism’ and
suggested the use of the set served on the president or other members of the
panel to track the counting exercise.
After
the parties had agreed to the request by the 3rd respondent’s
counsel, the court held: “It is therefore ordered that for the avoidance of
doubt and in line with the consent agreement reached over the modality for the
count of the pink sheets with the parties counsel in chambers on 9th May, 2013.
The Referee do use the set of exhibits of pink sheets of the Presiding Justice
of this panel to crosscheck and finalize count of the said pink sheets.”
Smooth
Cross-Examination
On Thursday, June 6, 2013, the
cross-examination flowed without any major interruption since the only
objection raised was subsequently withdrawn by Mr. Quashie-Idun when Mr.
Addison offered to reframe his question to Dr. Afari-Gyan.
On Monday, June 10, 2013, the court did
not have to rule on any objection since those raised were subsequently
withdrawn. The court closed quite early for the parties to meet representatives
of KPMG over the counting exercise.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2013, the court
unanimously sustained Mr. Quashie-Idun’s objection that Mr. Addison could not
ask the EC to produce the Adaklu Constituency Register.
By a majority of 6-3 with Justices
Atuguba, Ansah and Gbadegbe dissenting, the court overruled Mr. Quashie-Idun’s
objection that Mr. Addison should not ask Dr. Afari-Gyan to explain how the
pink sheets were brought to Ghana.
The court by another 6-3 majority
decision with Justices Dotse, Baffoe-Bonnie and Akoto-Bamfo dissenting,
sustained Mr. Quashie-Idun’s objection that Mr. Addison’s question to Dr.
Afari-Gyan on whether tampered evidence envelopes had numbers, was being
repeated.
No comments:
Post a Comment