EC GRILLS BAWUMIA

Nana Akufo-Addo and Dr. Bawumia leave the court room after Wednesday's proceedings

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Thursday April 25, 2013.

The Electoral Commission (EC) who is the referee in the December 2012 presidential election finally took over the cross-examination of the star witness, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia at the Supreme Court in Accra.

James Quarshie-Idun, lead counsel for the EC started firing a few salvos regarding the mystery 22 polling stations and the responsibilities of the petitioners polling agents during the election.

Before then, Tony Lithur representing President John Dramani Mahama completed his extended and winding cross-examination of Bawumia.

It had taken Mr. Lithur three and half working days to complete the cross-examination.

Hot Exchanges

A hot exchange ensued at the latter stages of the cross-examination as Dr. Bawumia discounted suggestions by Mr. Lithur that the allegations of violations, irregularities and malpractices were administrative errors on the part of the 2^nd respondent’s (Electoral Commission - EC) officers on duty on the day of election.

Counsel: Dr. Bawumia, I have read your petition and I have read your affidavit and I have listened to your testimony and in not a single case are you accusing any voting of doing anything illegal or irregular, is that correct?

Tony Lithur

Witness: We have probably about 4.3 million cases where we are demonstrating violations, malpractices, irregularities in the conduct of this election.

Counsel: I’m asking you a direct question; you are not accusing any voter of having done anything wrong

Witness: This case is not against any voter, we have brought this petition because the second respondent (the EC) did not conduct these elections in a way that gave them integrity; there were violations, irregularities and malpractices and that is what we have brought to court.

Counsel: So you are not accusing the first respondent (President Mahama) of having done anything wrong, are you?

Witness: No, the first respondent just happens to be the beneficiary of these violations, malpractices and irregularities.

Counsel: You are suggesting he resoundingly won the election?

Witness: With violations malpractices and irregularities.

Counsel: My lords, that would be my cross examination.

Unsigned Pink Sheets

The issue of unsigned Pink Sheets and the issue of whether or not NPP agents also signed the sheets or issued official protests became contentious between counsel and Dr. Bawumia.

Counsel: One of your claims was that in numerous polling stations, presiding officers did not sign the pink sheets?

Witness: That’s true.

Counsel: You are not challenging the results that were declared at those polling stations?

Witness: Oh, yes we are challenging the results, my Lords, because the law requires that those results be signed before declaration to make them valid. It is a constitutional requirement and they were not signed and that is why we are challenging the results.

Tsatsu Tsikata

Counsel: The results that were declared, were not challenged at the polling stations, were they?

Witness: The results that were declared were not valid because they were not supported by a signature as required by the constitution.

Counsel: Did you sign any document challenging the result at the polling stations?

Witness: We are here today to challenge those results.

Counsel: Did you or did you not, Dr, challenge at the polling station level, the results that were declared in those instances?

Witness: I am not aware of any challenges, but our agents all testified to those results. The presiding officer needs to sign before declaration that is the constitutional requirement as I understand it and without that, those results cannot be valid.

Counsel: And you did not challenge those results at the collation centre, did you?

Witness: Those results are being challenged… (Counsel interrupts).

Counsel: You did not challenge those results at the collation centres, did you?

Witness: We did not challenge those results at the collation centre or on the way to the collation centre, but we are challenging them now because they are unconstitutional.

Counsel: And you can confirm that your polling agents signed those results at the polling stations?

Witness: Our polling agents in some of the situation signed again to attest to some of things that went on at those polling stations

Counsel: I am suggesting to you that without exception, all your polling agents signed the Pink sheets at the polling station level.

Witness: Then that would be fine, but the presiding officer did not sign, and that is constitutionally required.

Counsel: Is that a yes or no, do you agree with me or you don’t?

Witness: I can’t remember, but it’s not something I want to argue over, the issue is that the presiding officer, as required by the law, did not sign and that makes it invalid, that’s my understanding by the way.

Nana Akufo-Addo and Hackman Owusu-Agyemang

Justice Atuguba interrupted saying “Can you be a bit more direct, when he poses a question, you don’t elect the version of it that you want…you answer according to the version he has put to you. You see, what he was asking you is that, at the collation centres, all your agents signed the results declared there.

Witness: The agents sign at the polling stations, my lord, and not the collation centres.

Justice Atuguba:  You are saying they sign at the polling stations and not at the collation centres?

Witness: Yes my lord, the law requires that the signature be at the polling station and no other place before the results are declared.

Counsel: At the collation centres, your counting and, or other agents confirmed those results by signing, it that not correct?

Witness: At the collation centres, they may have signed, but we are saying that those results are invalid because the presiding officer did not sign as required by law.

Counsel: Are those stations, exclusive to your claims of presiding officers not signing, you are not complaining that there is over-voting are you?

Witness: No.

Counsel: Nobody went through the process without biometric verification?

Nana Ato Dadzie

Witness: No, we are not complaining….we are only complaining about the constitutional violations (Counsel Interrupts).

Counsel: You are not complaining that nobody went through the process without biometric verification?

Witness: No, we are not complaining.

Irrelevant Question

Counsel: Doctor, are you suggesting that a presiding officer can determine the outcome of an election just by not signing a pink sheet?

Witness: It’s not me; it’s the constitution which determines that.

Counsel: The constitution doesn’t say that but Justice Atuguba interrupted Counsel and said “This is a legal question”.

Counsel: I am suggesting to you that if what you are saying is true, I very well bribe a presiding officer to determine the outcome of an election for me but the judge interrupted again and said “This is still out of gear.”

Justice Atuguba then said “but let me get the relevance and Dr. Bawumia said “The only complaint is the constitutional violation of no signature of the presiding officer or their assistants.”

Counsel: As so that is the reason why you wanted votes of innocents voters wiped out, so you become Vice President but Justice Atuguba did not allow the witness to answer the question.

Counsel: I am suggesting to you that it is not true that in the stations that you have referred to polling stations’ presiding officers in all the circumstances did not sign the pink sheets, or put another way: The presiding officers did in fact sign the pink sheets.

Witness: I don’t think I have any polling station that I’m currently relying on that has a presiding officer who signed.

EC’s Cross-examination

Mr. Quarshie-Idun, taking over from Mr. Lithur bombarded Dr. Bawumia with series of questions.

The EC counsel who intermittently wiped his face as he was drenched in sweat in an air conditioned courtroom first took the witness through the processes that a voter goes through in casting his/her ballot to which Dr. Bawumia responded in the affirmative.

Counsel: Dr. Bawumia, in your Evidence-in-Chief, you took us through the pink sheets, now let us go through the procedure at the polling stations; The voter presents his ID card to the names and list officer, is that not correct?

 Phillip Addison

Witness: That’s correct sir.

Counsel: Now this officer does a quick check of the name of the voter in the name reference book alphabetically?

Witness: That is correct.

Counsel: Then the officer locates the name of the voter and communicates the page number on the register to the verification officer?

Witness: That is correct, that is what is supposed to happen.

Counsel: Then the name list officer, inks the voter with indelible ink.

Witness: That is correct, that is what is supposed to happen.

Counsel: Then the verification takes place. The verification officer verifies the identity of the using the verification device?

Witness: That is what is supposed to happen.

Counsel: They do this by scanning the bar code of the voter on the voters’ ID card with the machine?

Witness: Yes my lords, that is what is supposed to happen.

Counsel: When that happens, the picture of the voter pops up?

Witness: That’s what it’s supposed to be… (Counsel walks the witness through all the processes of voting).

Exalted Observers

Counsel: Dr. Bawumia, the polling or counting agent has the right to call for a recount if he or she wishes?

Witness: That is correct.

Counsel: And the agent also has a right to call for a second recount if he or she has any doubt?

Witness: That is correct.

Counsel: In that case, the presiding officer can refuse if he thinks the request is unreasonable?

Witness: That is correct.

Counsel: In that case, the presiding officer needs to report to the Returning officer of the constituency, if that is done, is it not so?

Witness: Yes my lord…. (Counsel takes the Witness through the functions of a polling agent).

Counsel: Now, you mentioned that the polling agents were mere observers as to what happens at the polling station?

Witness: Yes, I mean they are very much in the position of exalted observers because, they can really-should the presiding officer say so, be excluded from the station. But they are not really even in direct proximity overlooking verification, overlooking identification and so on…. (Counsel cuts in).

Counsel: Dr. Bawumia, you are a witness in the witness box, listen to the question and please answer it to your lordships, no extras. So Dr. Bawumia, you are aware that the Electoral Commission issued a guide to candidates and their agents, you referred to an earlier guide, but this is another guide: a guide to candidates and agents, you are aware of it, are you not?

Witness: I have not seen this one, but I’m sure it exists as you are holding it.

Counsel: It was issued for the 2012 elections… (Counsel of Petitioners intervenes).

Counsel (Philip Addison): My lords I thought they would be tendering their documents through the returning officers, but they choose to tender it through our witness, we have no objection… (Laughter from the court).

James Quarshie-Idun

Counsel: My lords, I wish to tender this document in evidence: The Electoral Commission Guide for Candidates and their Agents for the 2012 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections. Doctor Bawumia, could you kindly turn to page 10 of the document and under the heading, The Importance of Polling Agents, may I request you to read that part?

Witness: (Reads out the portion instructed).

Counsel: Now Doctor Bawumia, in the light of these guidelines, I’m suggesting to you that your evidence to the court that agents are merely exalted to what happened is not accepted.

Witness: Oh yes, they are observers, they have a role to place, as I said, the presiding officer is in charge of that polling station, it’s not the polling agent.

Counsel: (On top of his voice) Mr. Bawumia, you are to listen to the question and answer it…(Witness cuts in).

Witness: I’m answering (general laughter from court)…I’m telling you this election was run by the Electoral Commission….(Counsel cuts in again).

Counsel: Mr. Bawumia, I am suggesting to you that the statement that you made to the court that polling agents are mere observers is not correct.

Witness: No, I said they were exalted observers, not mere observers and I’m saying to you….. (Counsel cuts in).

Counsel: Mr. Bawumia, I’m asking you a question and I expect an answer, you said they are not mere observers but exalted observers, I’m suggesting to you that that is not correct.

Witness: Well, that is your opinion, I disagree.

Collaboration

Counsel: Dr. Bawumia, towards the elections, the EC collaborated closely with the political parties, is that not correct?

Witness: That is correct.

Counsel: For example, the political parties were given a briefing about the printing of the ballot papers, is that not correct?

Witness: That is correct.

Counsel: The political parties were invited and did sent representatives to the printing houses that were engaged to print the ballot papers, is that not correct?

Witness: That is correct, but not duplicate pink sheets.

Ghost Polling Stations

The EC counsel later tendered in evidence through Dr. Bawumia some letters indicating that the petitioner’s party delegated agents to some of the 22 polling stations that they claimed were non-existent.

KPEGAH DODGES NANA

Nana Akufo-Addo 

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Wednesday Aril 24, 2013.

Justice Francis Yaonasu Kpegah took cover yesterday when a case he initiated against Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 2012 New Patriotic Party (NPP) was called in court.

The retired Supreme Court Justice was nowhere to be found when the preliminary objection raised in the case in which he is suing Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for impersonation was heard at the Motions Court in Accra.

Nana Akufo-Addo, was however, present in court and was supported by top-notch team of lawyers most of whom were nurtured by his respected law firm, Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and Co.

Daniel Djentuh, announcing himself as representing Justice Kpegah told the court presided over by Justice Cecilia Sowah of the Court of Appeal that the retired Supreme Court justice who is a leading member of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) legal team had been taken ill suddenly and could not make an appearance.

Interestingly, Justice Kpegah who claimed to be indisposed was heard live on radio running his mouth that he was going to give Nana Akufo-Addo a knockout in the next adjourned date on May 2.

On the processes filed, Justice Kpegah who wants a declaration that Nana Akufo-Addo is “not entitled to practice law in Ghana,” and also wants the authorities to close down the law firm Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and Co, had averred that he was going to do his own case.

“He has suddenly become ill. He fell ill today. It is on health grounds that he is not here,” Mr. Djentuh, who says he works at Providence Chambers when the judge demanded his particulars, told the court.

When the case was called, Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing Nana Akufo-Addo, tried to move a motion asking the court to strike out Justice Kpegah’s action as “frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the court’s process and disclosing no reasonable cause of action,” Mr. Djentuh raised preliminary objection saying “we have not filed any affidavit in opposition because they (respondent/applicant) have not entered any conditional appearance.”

“They are not properly before you,” he argued but the judge cut in to ask “you are aware that appearance has been entered albeit conditional” to which Mr. Djentuh replied “they have not entered conditional appearance to set aside the writ of summons under Order 9 Rule 8.”

The judge then asked Justice Kpegah’s counsel: “where is your brief? I see that the plaintiff said he was entering the case himself,” but counsel replied that “He could have been here personally but he was suddenly taken ill…I am representing him.”

At this moment, counsel requested for a date and Mr. Yeboah-Dame vehemently protested and the judge said “if you are holding someone’s brief you take your brief with you…you do not know what will happen.”

Mr. Yeboah-Dame then took the floor and told the court that they were relying on Order 11 Rule 18 which seeks to set aside Justice Kpegah’s action.

Counsel used Justice Kpegah’s own rulings on conditional appearance to make his point and said “the preliminary objection is totally misconceived.”

The judge then overruled Justice Kpegah’s preliminary objection and asked Nana Akufo-Addo’s counsel to move the motion, seeking to strike out the action.

Mr. Yeboah-Dame said it was appropriate for Justice Kpegah to have regard for the procedure saying “this process cannot be allowed to fester. The defendant continues to suffer abuse in the eyes of the public.”

Counsel argued that it was not worth it for the court to go into full hearing since the action as “frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the court’s process and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.”

He said Justice Kpegah was in the wrong forum as far as the application was concerned and added that per the exhibits attached to the affidavit, the plaintiff has shown no reasonable cause of action.

“We contend that all matters governing legal practice are spelt out in the Legal Profession Act, Act 32 and the proper forum the plaintiff needed to go first should have been the General Legal Council where such matters are addressed before any further action.”

He said Nana Akufo-Addo has attached an exhibit that shows that he signed the Roll Book in 1975 after he had been admitted to the Middle Temple Bar in England and that the name William and Nana well clarifies in the Roll Book.

He said Justice Kpegah’s claim “is just maintainable,” and asked the court to award punitive cost against the plaintiff.

Reacting, Mr. Djentuh who looked ill-prepared said the 1992 Constitution mandates the High Court to deal with all matters but he failed to particularise article(s) or clause(s) to back his case.

He said the signatures signed by Nana Akufo-Addo in the Roll Book were different but Mr. Yeboah-Dame objected because he said the plaintiff’s counsel had not filed any affidavit to be able to make those claims.

The judge then told Justice Kpegah’s counsel that “I am really surprised that in such a case you come without your brief.”

The court fixed Wednesday, May 2, 2013 as the date for ruling.

Kpegah Fires Back

However in a press statement issued last night and copied to Dr Raymond Atuguba, President Mahama’s Executive Secretary via the email, Justice Kpegah said Nana Akufo-Addo’s counsel should not have been given the platform in court yesterday.  

Daniel Djentuh represents Justice Kpegah

“Today the 23rd Day of April, a Judicial sacrilege was occasioned when the presiding Judge at the Fast Track High Court granted audience to Lawyer Godfred Yeboah Dame to move an ill conceived application to strike out the case in the matter involving my humble self Justice Francis Yaonasu Kpegah as plaintiff and NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO -ADDO as Defendant, SUIT NO. AP 94/2013.

“The presiding Judge should not have granted audience to Lawyer Godfred Yeboah Dame since he did not enter appearance to the writ of summons for and on behalf of the Defendant NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO and is therefore not known to the Honourable Court and the parties to the instant suit. The only way he could have been granted audience by the Honourable Court is if he had filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF SOLICITORS.

“My Search at the Registry of the Fast Track High Court indicates that there was no Notice of change of solicitors filed at the Registry of the Fast Track High Court. This was also confirmed by the Registrar of the Fast Track High Court , Mr Rexford Gyimah.

“I was unable to attend Court today in person due to ill health. However, I was duly represented by Mr. Djentuh, a practising Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Ghana. Let me put on record that my not being in Court personally today should not offer any Premature Sanctuary Of Comfort To The Defendant Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo -Addo. I am still going to let the whole world know that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo is impersonating WAD Akufo-Addo who is number 1190 on the ROLL OF LAWYERS IN GHANA”, he said in the press statement.

JUDGES PROTEST 'BORING' CROSS-EXAMINATION

Nana Akufo-Addo arrives in court

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Wednesday April 24, 2013.

The laborious manner in which President John Dramani Mahama’s lawyer, Tony Lithur cross-examines a star witness in the presidential election petition, yesterday attracted what looked like a subtle protest from the nine-member panel of Supreme Court Justices hearing the case.

For almost a whole day, Tony Lithur, lead counsel for President Mahama kept asking the 2^nd petitioner, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia virtually same questions on different categories of over-voting to which the witness appeared to give the same answers on the emerging issues.

However, as the exercise appeared to be boring, one of the panel members, Justice Jones Victor Dotse tried to offer what he said was his ‘personal’ suggestion to Mr. Lithur as to aid expeditious trial.

Justice Dotse: I think we have made some progress but I believe we can make much faster progress….I am not speaking on behalf of the court, I am speaking on my own behalf. I am not meaning to direct you on how to do your cross-examination; for example, there are some areas-like we are dealing with over-voting now, there is also No Biometric Verification, there is also No Signature and also Duplicate Serial Numbers, if you have put your numbers together (Pink Sheets) and to give them (Petitioners) an advance notice so that they check those particular pink sheets before we come to court…this laborious process of picking one [pink sheet] and showing it to them…Some have been deleted but questions are still being asked on them. So in order for us to make some progress-I am not limiting this suggestion only to your cross-examination, but it might be necessary for all other to adopt a similar line, if need be to expedite the process.

James Quarshie-Idun is the Electoral Commission's lead counsel

Mr. Lithur: The pink sheets are not our pink sheets, its their pink sheets and my point really is that if we are giving them the pink sheets….I am telling you (petitioners) what questions I am going to ask….they now go and think through the answers…that destroys the element of surprise which is part of the cross-examination process.

“I think that surprise is an essential part of that process. What I have done with the rest, your suggestions, I will not hesitate to do…. In terms of biometrics, there are fundamental issues around biometrics that I will like to cross-examine on fight before I give the list out…going forward, some of them, I will not hesitate to give the list ahead of time. Some I hesitate because I honestly-and it is my honest opinion, that my cross-examination would be preempted by giving those lists…”

Justice Rose C. Owusu another panel member then came in to ask Mr Lithur “From your list, they wouldn’t know the sort of questions you would be asking, so just let them know that we would be privy to exhibit MBC 10 to 50 then you give them MBC 10 to 50. You see, you will not indicate what questions you will be asking in respect of the pink sheet.

Mr. Lithur said “My lord trust me,” but before he could complete his statement Justice Owusu cut in to say “Before we come here, you will know exactly what you want, and they would know what they are supposed to answer to, otherwise, I cannot imagine when we are going to finish-the rate at which we are going.”

Mr. Lithur then said “My lords, we have tried to respect the court’s directions in terms of expedition, we have. While there is need for expedition, I think that should be balanced against the normal rules that we know and that we are used to operating within.”

Sir John with some NDC executives

Same Old Process

A transcription by Raphael Ofori-Adeniran

Earlier before the judges intervention the laborious exercise continued unabated.

Counsel (Mr Lithur): Doctor let me first congratulate you; I noticed in the papers today that you’ve been asked to return back to your job at the ADB (African Development Bank), congratulations.

Witness (Dr. Bawumia): I think you should stop reading too many newspapers. The answer received spontaneous laughter in the courtroom.

Counsel: Doctor I have in my hands exhibit MB C 34 and the polling station name is Awurata and the polling station code G191103 and this has been exhibited as proof of over-voting. Can you look on the exhibit and tell me whether you can find any basis at all for that conclusion?

Witness:  My lords given that we have deleted over 700 polling stations since we filed the affidavit, it would have been helpful if I could have checked to see if this is still part of our case, but if I have to just answer to it as it is then, yes.

Counsel: Doctor, the evidence is clear on the face of the Pink Sheet, on the face of the pink sheet, is there any basis upon which you arrived at the conclusion that there was over-voting?

Philip Addison with some members of the NPP legal team

Witness: Absolutely my lords, on the face of this pink sheet, we have a lot of basis for classifying this particular polling station as one where over-voting took place. My lords, over-voting, as we have defined it, is the situation where the total votes in the ballot box exceeds the number of ballots given to voters to vote or number of registered voters at the polling station…..

Counsel: I am suggesting to you that there is no basis upon which you concluded and exhibited to this court that this particular pink sheet is proof of over-voting. My lords I have in my custody exhibit MB C18 and the polling station name is Asuoso La Primary Number 2 and the polling station code is F372305, any basis upon which you could have concluded there was over-voting on that exhibit?

Witness: Yes my lord, C 1 (ballot accounting section)  again is blank.

Counsel: And that is proof of over-voting?

Witness: Yes my lords, it is a proof that someone may have been hiding something by not filling C1.

Evidence under protection

Counsel: Your candidate was resoundingly beaten at that polling station, are you suggesting that the EC was trying to favour your candidate by undermining this sheet?

Witness: There was a resounding illegality in this polling station and that illegality is over-voting and if you don’t fill C1, it is the easiest way to hide over-voting and this is why we classify it as over-voting and this is why the second respondent requires that it should be filled out before counting begins so that you don’t go back to change numbers subsequently.

Counsel: You are accusing the EC?

Witness: We are only looking at the face of the pink sheets; it speaks for itself, my lords….My lords we have an exhibit showing the number of polling stations deleted from the different categories which are in evidence; may I be able to refer to it?

Counsel: My lord I haven’t asked any question on the sheet yet, we are just identifying them…(Counsel for petitioners, Philip Addison interrupts ).

Counsel (Mr. Addison): My lords witness is asking leave of the court to refresh his memory on matters that are already in evidence, my lord we are talking of 11,000 plus polling stations, he possibly cannot have all in his head. All he is asking the court is to be able to refer to matters that are already in evidence, we are here for nothing but the truth!

Counsel: My lord, I haven’t even asked a question yet, I haven’t asked any question in relation to the document here, I would like to introduce the document properly before I even ask the questions…(Justice Atuguba cuts in).

Justice Atuguba: Okay, go ahead, you’ve fought enough, go ahead.

Counsel: I didn’t think I was fighting my lord….(General laugher).

Justice Atuguba: But it has a contextual meaning…. (Laughter again).

Counsel: (Goes back into the lengthy individual scrutiny of pink sheets).

Counsel: My lords, I have here exhibit MBC 196 there is absolutely no other detail that is discernible from this sheet, but was labeled in proof of over-voting.

Witness: This again is the same as what you just showed me, there is really no basis, which is why I am telling you that I don’t think this is part of our case. I am sure it should be in one of those that were deleted.

Counsel: You swore to an affidavit exhibiting this sheet, didn’t you?

Witness: Oh we did, and when we came to court, we informed the court that we’ve reduced the number from 11,842 to 11, 138. We also gave court specific information that we had decreased by further 83, so there is nothing here that will speak to trying to mislead the court. Once we recognized that certain pink sheets that we could not sustain, we deleted them, and we deleted about 700 pink sheets so far. If you will only look at what we have in evidence, I think you will find that maybe you may not be making any substantive change to the results that we have presented.

Counsel: It seems to me you used each and every of these pink sheets in your so-called analysis.

Tight security

Witness: Well, my lords that is not true and I would ask counsel to then allow me to tender in all the pink sheets that we used in our analysis and he can see what the truth is, but he seems quite unwilling to do that for some reason.

Counsel: You’ve had your day sir…(he subsequently went on to repeat the same cross-examination).

The Dog Fight

Counsel: (Picking a pink sheet from a polling station, he passed it round the court for scrutiny)…Now Doctor, what is recorded as rejected ballot?

Witness: It’s not very clear, there is a mark in D6 but it is put at 2 in A plus B in rejected ballot down there.

Counsel: Doctor, I can see only one (1) written at the top D 2, I think that was written at the bottom.

Witness: This is what I am saying, that there is a mark, but am not sure exactly whether it is 2 or …..(Interrupted by Counsel).

Counsel: Say what is there.

Witness: What is there is two (2) this is what has been put there, am not sure what the total here is from the D box so we can only go by what is under rejected ballot in section B.

Counsel: Doctor, you have seen mistakes been made on simple addition of rejected ballots. In D2 there is only one (1) so there shouldn’t be two at the bottom that is what I’m suggesting to you.

Witness: Well, it could be the case, it could not be the case so what we are going by is what is on here. I don’t know what the total here is, it is put down here as two (2) so that is what I have to take.

Counsel: What I’m suggesting to you is that what is at the bottom does not reflect on the face of the pink sheet….What is at the top Doctor, just be honest, it’s one (1). There is one (1) clearly written at the top there.

Witness: There is one (1) at the top and if you go down, you will see another one (1) in D3.

Counsel: There is no one (I) in D3.

Witness: Take another look at it.

Counsel: I have looked at it Doctor, there is no one in D3…(back and forth banter between Counsel and Witness. Petitioners Counsel interrupts).

Mr. Addison: My lords, how long will this go on?

Counsel: But I am cross-examining….

 (Mr. Addison): I mean how long will it go on?

Counsel: This interruptions would not help, my lord, they don’t help.

Mr Addison: What is this?  You are accusing the witness of being dishonest.

Nana Akufo-Addo and Dr. Bawumia

Counsel : Am actually suggesting to him, he is being dishonest, it is a direct suggestion, I am not squirming away from that, because I think he is being dishonest, counsel….(Continuous banter between both counsels as court bailiff barks Order! Order!! Justice Atuguba mediates).

Justice Atuguba: Counsel can you finalize that portion? …. (Tempers calmed as Mr. Lithur continues his cross-examination as judges get increasingly impatient at the slow pace. Justice Victor Jones Dotse intervenes)…

Sitting continues today.