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 2nd 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 5th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment