Petitioners leave the court room
Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Thursday May 2, 2013.
It was all drama at the Supreme Court on
Tuesday when Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia revealed that letters supposedly signed by
1st Petitioner in the case Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and presented to the
court by Counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Tsatsu Tsikata,
were possibly fake.
The day also saw
some notable moments including one where Dr. Bawumia, star witness in the
petition, called on Tsatsu Tsikata to calm down and stop shouting, as that
would not help the counsel to better make his point.
This was after
Tsatsu had, on several occasions, raised his voice in apparent anger and
frustration because the witness refused to follow his line of argument.
The NDC lawyer
had employed fear and intimidation tactics to destabilize the witness, which
did not yield the needed results, necessitating his shouting out of frustration
at the witness.
In his usual
calmness, Dr Bawumia parried Tsatsu’s antics, advising him to stop shouting
because they were not in a shouting race.
While
cross-examining Dr. Bawumia, the NDC lawyer introduced various letters
purportedly signed by Nana Akufo-Addo as Presidential candidate for the New
Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 elections, authorizing certain
polling agents of the party to represent him at various polling stations.
Mr Tsikata had
suggested that these polling stations were the same ones that the petitioners
said were unknown polling stations.
Police presence
However, in his
answer, Dr. Bawumia raised questions about the authenticity of the letters,
revealing that though the letters were dated 5th and 7th of December, 2012,
they were stamped on 3rd December 2012- two to four clear days before they were
written.
This, Dr.
Bawumia indicated, could not be possible and cast doubts on the authenticity of
the letter.
Dr. Bawumia also
said that the signature on the letters was not original, but electronically
generated or scanned and that it would be helpful if the originals of the
letters could be provided for them to be verified.
These
revelations from the 2nd Petitioner who had so far been in the witness box for
eight days, abruptly brought this cross-examination to an end after the exposé.
It was Tsatsu’s
2nd day of cross-examination of Dr. Bawumia during which he virtually repeated
the techniques used by lawyer for the 1st Respondent (John Mahama), Tony Lithur
who had cross-examined Dr. Bawumia earlier in the hearing.
Tsatsu is
expected to continue with his cross-examination of the witness today after
virtually repeating what lawyers for the 1st Respondent, and 2nd Respondent (EC),
James Quarshie-Idun had asked Dr. Bawumia.
Nana Ato Dadzie
NDC
On NVNV
Tsatsu Tsikata,
on Tuesday made it clear at the Supreme Court that the NDC did not go into last
December’s general election with the understanding that voters needed to be
verified biometrically before casting their ballots.
Mr Tsikata
during his cross-examination of the witness, on the use of the biometric devise
for the December 2012 general election stated the NDC’s position.
Counsel
(Tsikata): Dr Bawumia, you are aware, are you not, that CI 75 does not
provide for what happens if there is a breakdown of equipment, you are aware?
Witness: I’m not aware.
Counsel: You are not aware of that, that’s
fine…Are you aware of any guidelines of EC in the event of breakdown of
biometric verification equipment? Are you aware of that?
Witness: What I’ve heard, my lords, is that if
there is a breakdown, voting should stop and the machine should be replaced
before voting continues.
Counsel: Are you not aware that the electoral
register itself is established as a biometric register for this 2012 elections?
Witness: Yes, my lords.
Counsel: In answer to counsel for the second
respondent, you confirmed that when the barcode on the ID card is scanned, the
voter’s picture shows up to the electoral official, you confirm that?
Witness: That is what is supposed to happen, my
lords.
Counsel: So that is a form of verification
against a biometric register, is it not?
Witness: That is what is supposed to happen;
identification is different from verification, the only people who are allowed
to verify by face only are those who are permanently or temporarily traumatized
and that, the barcode would allow identification by the biometric verification
device. That is why all those who have trauma are actually verified.
Counsel: Dr. Bawumia, you still did not answer my
question; I said from the process that you were asked about – the process of
scanning the barcode and the picture of the person with the ID card showing-
from that process, you actually verify the identity of the voter, do you not?
Tsatsu Tsikata
Witness: Yes, my lords, you verify the identity with either the
voters’ ID card or some other form of identity.
Counsel: And you verify that in the context of
the biometric register?
Witness: That is correct, my lords.
Counsel: But you are saying to this court that
when someone says No Verification No Vote (NVNV), your interpretation is that
no verification through the biometric fingerprint device no vote, that’s what
you are saying to this court?
Witness: That’s exactly what the Second
respondent said to everybody…
Counsel: I am asking for what you are saying to
this court, not what the Second respondent said to everybody; what are you
saying to this court?
Witness: We are essentially repeating what the
second respondent said to everybody and therefore saying that the law says that
every voter shall be
biometrically verified and if you are not biometrically verified, you are in
contravention of the law, unless if you are exempted. Even for those who are
exempted, they would be verified, not with fingerprint, but by their face only…
Counsel: The law is what the second respondent
says it is, is that correct?
Witness: The second respondent was quoting CI 75,
I am not a lawyer, but I think section 32 of CI 75 makes it clear by my
understanding.
Counsel: (Smiles) I suppose you are aware that
that understanding may be wrong?
Witness: As I said, I’m not a lawyer, but that
understanding is what all political parties went into the elections with…
Counsel: That is certainly not true; the party that I represent in
this court did not go in with that understanding, so what you are saying cannot
apply.
Witness: I know you have your own special
understandings, but you see that in Nalerugu Gambaga constituency, etc., one
person voted without verification and the results in that whole polling station
were annulled. In Bogni, in the same constituency, one person voted without
verification; the results were annulled. That was the understanding.
Gloria Akufo
Counsel: Now of course you were not at those
polling stations you made reference to, you were not there?
Witness: Yes, my lords, I was not there.
Counsel: And you don’t actually know from your
personal knowledge what actually happened in those polling stations…
Witness: I wasn’t there, but I’ve seen the
collation forms.
Counsel: And so you are not able to tell us what
actually happened, apart from what you claim you saw on the collation form. You
can’t know what discussions took place among those who were involved there, you
can’t?
Witness: Sure I can’t because I wasn’t there, but
evidence is there that they were annulled.
Counsel: According to you?
Witness: According to the evidence, my lords.
Biometrics
Reloaded
Counsel: (Handing over an exhibit to the witness)
Can you tell us the figures in C1 and C3?
Witness: (Tells the counsel what he sees after
straining to decipher the figures). The figure that is in C1 outside the box is
493, probably, and then inside the box, 493 for C3. In the context of C3, it
says for those who do not use the biometric verification device were
493…(Counsel interrupts).
Counsel: It doesn’t actually say that Dr.
Bawumia, can you read what C3 says?
Witness: Yes, my lords, it actually does.
Counsel: Can you read what it says?
Witness: It says that the number of ballots
issued to voters verified by the use of form 1C but not by the use of the
biometric verification device.
Counsel: So those verified by form 1C but not the
biometric verification device, isn’t that what it says?
Witness: Precisely, my lords…
Counsel: Very well, so don’t give us half the
story.
Witness: Actually this is the full story. My
lords, the biometric verification device manual tells us that the device
actually verifies both disabled and the able. So the story that it cannot
verify the disabled is wrong…, it will verify both the able and disabled.
Counsel: And is that on the face of the pink
sheet?
Witness: This is in the user manual, my lords,
page 14 of the user manual for the second respondent in the conduct of this
election, it is very clear.
Counsel: It is not on the face of the pink sheet,
is it on the face of the pink sheet, Dr. Bawumia?
Witness: It doesn’t have to be on the face of the
pink sheet, it is telling you what is verifiable.
Counsel: Is it on the face of the pink sheet or
not?
Witness: On the face of the pink sheet, C3 tells
you the number of voters who were issued ballots and verified by the use of
form 1C which is essentially the laminated portion of their voters’ ID card,
but not by the verification device. If you did not vote through the
verification device, you do not go through; there is no other category of
voters… Everybody who is verified is either able or disabled.
Justice
Atuguba: This forum, we keep on telling you, it is a different forum, don’t
approach it like the presidential debates. It is just a legal exercise here to
seek certain information according to certain procedures. Let us do our work…
Signature
Of NPP Agents
Mr. Tsikata,
after exhaustively cross-examining Dr. Bawumia on Monday on the issue of NPP
agents signing the Pink Sheets at the various polling stations and thus
implying that they certified the results, came again on Tuesday as he said ‘to
test the credibility of the witness’.
Dr. Bawumia told
the court that even if NPP agents failed to sign the pink sheets, that would
not have prevented the EC from declaring the results and at the same time, that
did not also stop the petitioners from seeking redress in the court.
This brought Mr.
Tsikata back to say that “you keep on repeating your answers; it will not make
your case any better,” to which Philip Addison, representing the petitioners
cut in to say that Mr. Tsikata had continuously repeated his questions and that
would not let Dr. Bawumia also change his answers.
NDC executives
Privilege
Information
The witness
confirmed to the court that he was the one tasked by the NPP to chair a team
that tracked the anomalies on the pink sheets leading to the filing of the
petition and they consulted the legal team in the process.
As Mr. Tsikata
pressed hard to know from Dr. Bawumia the kind of information given by the
petitioners’ legal team, Mr. Addison objected to the line of questioning
saying, “I thought that it is privileged information discussed between a lawyer
and his client.”
Mr. Tsikata
however, would not budge and insisted that there had been no attempt to elicit
detailed content of the discussion with the witness’ legal team and as the
give-and-take persisted, Justice Atuguba said “you have already built a
premise…this line of questioning is not necessary.”
Mislabelling
Counsel, after
cross-examining Dr. Bawumia on the biometric verification device, put it to him
that what the petitioners were putting before the court was a belated attempt
to those that were duly counted at the polling stations.
“We were given
21 days to file and we came on time,” Dr Bawumia replied, before admitting that
some of the exhibits they brought to the court were mislabelled but that did
not have any effect on the analysis since each pink sheet was used once.
Counsel: If you don’t pay particular attention
you will not know that the same exhibit has been used more than once.
Witness: Yes.
Counsel: This mislabelling is misleading to
anybody who receives your exhibits.
Witness: Without explanation, it will be
misleading, but once it is explained to you, you will be comforted.
Counsel: You did not provide any explanation
within the context of the affidavit.
Witness: We are providing it here.
Counsel: If it were not for the vigilance of the
respondents in drawing the court’s attention, the court would have been misled.
Witness: Not at all… the analysis on each pink
sheet was not used more than once and there is no way the court would have been
misled.
Errors
In the heat of
cross-examination, Dr. Bawumia found space to jokingly jab Tsatsu Tsikata that
in the calculation of election results errors must not affect somebody’s
presidency.
So far four
different types of errors have been named by the respondents and they might
have contributed to the election dispute at the court.
The respondents
have mentioned clerical error; administrative error; transpositional error and
human error, all accounting for the election of John Dramani Mahama.
+Alidu(Middle)+(1).JPG)
.JPG)