News Headlines
Home » Headlines » Day 4 @ The Supreme Court and View From Afar…
Nana Addo to Mahama... I am warning you!

Day 4 @ The Supreme Court and View From Afar…

Day number 4:

Lead counsel for the President John Mahama left it late in Day four of substantive hearing on the election petition to grill a gritty witness in chief for the petitioners who had all day affirmed to the court that duplicated pink sheets were accidentally sent to the respondents as exhibits but that figures in those pink sheets were only entered once in the analysis.

Tony Lithur, who had varied his mode of cross examination, albeit with a “heavy heart” again got the witness, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia to admit that there have been pink sheets which contained figures for parliamentary candidate mixed in the exhibits brought as evidence of irregularity for the presidential candidate.

He suggested to the witness that the petitioners deliberately mixed the list of irregularities with figures from Parliamentary candidates to make up the numbers, a suggestion which was quickly rebutted by Dr Bawumia. Whilst he could not explain how the parliamentary pink sheet got mixed up with the presidential exhibits, Dr Bawumia stated emphatically that the figure contained in the Parliamentary pink sheet was not analysed.

Lithur who gradually warmed himself into the cross examination sought to discredit the witness on the evidence of over voting, ghost polling station, and the role of polling agents in the 2012 general elections.

Role of Polling Agents; Tilapia thieves

The counsel for the first respondent averred strongly that the petitioners had polling agents who were statutorily mandated to watch keenly every turn of the voting process and that if they failed to carry out their duty, petitioners had no business running to the court and calling for the annulment of votes.

Bawumia retorted saying the counsel erred in that logic. In an analogy, the witness in chief of the petitioners said if a thief escapes the notice of a sleeping watch man and succeeds in stealing “tilapia”, the owner of that tilapia still has a right to enforce the law and to ensure that his tilapia is returned to him. It will not be said that because his watchman slept on the job, his right of ownership of the tilapia has been taken away from him, he added.

Over voting in Beautiful Quaye Polling Station

Tony Lithur presented a pink sheet exhibit representing a polling station called Beautiful Quaye in which there has been allegation of over voting by the petitioners. The counsel for the first respondent questioned the witness what for him constituted over voting.

Bawumia explained that over voting is in two forms. He said when the total number of votes cast in a polling station are more than the total number of ballots issued there is an over voting. Secondly there is over voting when the total number of votes cast exceeds the total number of people on the voters register at a particular station.

Tony Lithur found it intriguing how petitioners will be calling for annulment of total votes in 22 ‘ghost’ polling stations merely because those polling stations could not be identified on the EC’s own list of polling stations.

He argued if voting publicly took place with polling agents present in those polling station, the petitioners had no right to demand for annulment of those votes.

Bawumia retorted saying the petitioners are only demanding for illegal votes to be annulled. He said merely because voting is done in public does not make it legal. He insisted that details of those 22 polling stations were not available in the over 24,000 polling stations provided all the parties before the elections.

Counsel in Face off; calls for referee

The counsel for both the petitioners and the respondents were engaged in thrilling exchanges over the total number of pink sheets tendered as exhibits before the court.

Tony Lithur early on suggested that the total number of pink sheets submitted to them was 8,600 far below the allegations of 11,138 being trumpeted by the petitioners.

He said the duplications were only an attempt by the petitioners to shore up figures. He then called for recounting of the individual pink sheets and a referee to oversee the recount.

Tsatsu Tsikata counsel for the third respondent as well as Quarshie-Idun counsel for the second respondent all agreed to a recount.

Philip Addison, who had initially accused the respondents of deliberately photocopying exhibits to deceive the court also agreed to the recount but said the figures from those individual pink sheets must be audited as well.

The requests for a recount forced the court to go on recess and when the judges returned with decision, they ruled that recount was not needed at that material moment even though the option for a recount was still open as hearing progresses.

The case has been adjourned to Tuesday, April 23, 2013.

Interestingly however, the portion which indicates the total number of registered voters on the pink sheet for Beautiful Quaye was blank. So Lithur asked the witness how he arrived at the conclusion that there has been over voting in Beautiful Quaye?

Bawumia explained that information on the total number of voters is a prerequisite on the pink sheets and if the presiding officer failed to fill that portion, he has abdicated on his responsibility. He said zero is still a figure and the petitioners had every right to use the figure zero in their analysis of over voting. He was quick to add that pink sheets which had blank spaces for total number of votes represents a tiny minority of the total number of over votes they had presented to the court.

Opinions:
Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

The 4th day’s proceedings at the Supreme Court may  have yielded very interesting issues for us to ponder.
1. The rally ground talk by Bawumia isn’t going to help the cause of the petitioners, if they have any cause at all for being at the Supreme Court.
2. Tony Lithur has succeeded in puncturing deep holes in the body of evidence that th NPP petitioners and their… entire NPP family is relying on to sway the proceedings.
4. Tony Lithur has succeeded in eroding the credibility of Bawumia as far as his admission of the nu outs instances of duplication of pink sheets is concerned. This is a crucial element because not only will it establish that the so-called evidence is fraudulent but it will also prove that the evidence is not trustworthy to warrant any ruling as is being sought by the petitioners. Doubts matter a lot in legal matters.
5. By forcing Bawumia to admit that pink sheets for the Parliamnetary elections have been included in the quantum for the Presidential elections, Bawumia has worsened the case for the petitioners. That is why it is important to allow Tony Lithur to bring out everything about those pink sheets.
6. Clearly, the firm statement by the Presiding judge that the bulk of pink sheets given the respondents is 8,621 and not the over 11,000 that the NPP petitions are using to fight their case is a further deterioration of credibility for the petitioners.
7. The issue of negligence of the NpP’s polling agents is a definite reality that the Court will buy into. After all, whose fault would it be if the NPP’s own agents took part in the processes grading the elections and signed those very pink sheets to confirm the validity of the results? The NPP petitioners have a tall order here.
MY COMMENTS
So far, so interesting. It is clear that Bawumia is deeply ignorant of court procedures/processes/norms/conventions, etc., which is not good for him. The slight that he is not to indulge in rally ground talk is a huge indictment, which is already making the headline news in the country.
Bawumia’s ignorance manifests at another level, especially his insistence on using his so-called ANALYSIS as a leeway. He doesn’t know that the court is interested in nothing but hard evidence, not opinions.
His analysis is nothing but his opinion, which doesn’t matter to the court. In fact, the court has disregarded all that plea from him just as it has already done the request for CD-ROM and PowerPoint presentations.
The court is interested in the hard copies that he used during the examination-in-chief through which Philip Addison had led him. So, why not learn not to include this talk of ANALYSIS in answering questions pertaining to the duplication of pink sheets and the inclusion of pink sheets for the Parliamentary elections in what is solely meant to fight the case concerning the Presidential elections?
At the end of the day, this recourse to “Bawumetrics” turns out to be the sticky point and will return to haunt the petitioners. A good day so far for Tony Lithur.
Those ignorant NPP followers who are wasting their time accusing him of not attacking the evidence don’t know what is about to hit them. By discrediting the quantum of evidence, Tony Lithur is making the task for the respondents very easy. He doesn’t have to ask questions other than those that will erode the credibility of the witness, the evidence, and the petitioners’ cause.
In the end, Bawumia may even be accused of perjury because he is giving evidence under oath and there is falsehood already in terms of the quality of the bulk of evidence, the pink sheets.
By M Bokor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.