Dr. Bawumia at the Supreme Court? Yes I do.
In any court procedure, the plaintiffs, the defendants and their witnesses are cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defence lawyers at the appropriate times. A witness for say, the plaintiff will first be cross-examined by the plaintiff’s lawyer after he, the witness, has narrated his side of the story. This will be followed by a cross-examination from the defence lawyer, that is, the lawyer for the defendant. It is the same procedure in vice-versa for the defendant’s witness.
It was nothing new for Tony Lithur, the Counsel for President John Dramani Mahama to cross-examine Dr. Bawumia, a Petitioner and at the same time the principal witness for Nana Akufo Addo & Co. However, being needlessly intimidating, going in circles, being unnecessarily repetitive and showing much ado about nothing was the character assumed byTony Lithur. In effect, he scored no point and could not punch holes in the allegations of electoral violations levelled against the Electoral Commission and President John Dramani Mahama.
To expatiate on my point made with certainty as stated above, Tony Lithur kept on asking if Dr. Bawumia was aware of “pink sheet” (Statement of Poll) referenced number this, number that, and so on and so forth. He kept going back and forth showing to Dr. Bawumia to confirm if he is or was aware of “pink sheet” number this or number that. Tony Lithur was accusing him of having referenced differently the same pink sheet a number of times or more than once. He meant to accuse Dr. Bawumia of a similar allegation he, Dr. Bawumia, and his colleague-petitioners have levelled against the Electoral Commissioner and President Mahama, thus, using the same serial-numbered pink sheets more than once but at different polling stations.
I would like my readers to note the following. The Petitioners (Nana Akufo Addo, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, and Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey) allege there were electoral malpractices, irregularities, omissions and scandalous fraud in Election 2012. All these alleged instances constitute statutory violations. The petitioners allege the violations were committed in the areas stated below.
1. Over-voting… (Where both valid and invalid ballot papers in the ballot box exceed the total number of votes cast)
2. Under voting… (Where both valid and invalid ballot papers in the ballot box are less than the total number of votes cast)
3. Unsigned Statement of Poll (Pink sheets)… (Results not certified by EC Returning officers)
4. Non compliance with biometric verification… (Where some voters cast their votes without going through the biometric machine)
The Wise One from Kumawu/Asiampa who is used to referencing documents as “Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, etc. when dealing with minimal sorts of litigious (exchange of) correspondences with offices, explains as following:
Dr. Bawumia could have referenced the same pink sheet more than once, thus, making two or three copies of same pink sheet and assigning each copy a different “Exhibit” reference number. This does not go to tell he was trying to inflate the number of the alleged fraudulent pink sheets. Even though he explained himself and insisted Lawyer Tony Lithur had better refer to, or go to study the CD-Rom, a softcopy of the corrected version of issues as alleged, as adamant as Tony was, he was only more interested in exposing what in the end turned out to be his total ignorance and much ado about nothing; and that was exactly what he involved himself in.
Let me stop doing Tony Lithur, similarly going in circles without hitting the nail right in the head.
Dr. Bawumia used, or could use the same pink sheet two or three times with each copy bearing a different “Exhibit” reference number as discovered and fondly dwelt on by Lawyer Tony Lithur.
Presuming in the same polling station Over voting, Unsigned pink sheet and Non compliance with biometric verification took place, one would need three copies of the same pink sheet but assign to each a different “Exhibit” number. For what reason, a person unfamiliar with administrative duties and correspondences especially when related to litigation, may ask?
A) One of the copies must be referenced as say, “Exhibit BW1” to prove Over voting occurred when discussing issues or allegations relating to over voting.
B) One of the copies must be referenced as say, “Exhibit BW200” to prove a point of Unsigned pink sheet
C) One of the copies must be referenced as say, “Exhibit BW104 Jacob” to prove that Non compliance with biometric verifications took place.
How would you be able to prove all instances of say, over voting, if you have nothing to tender in evidence in a hardcopy during grouping of documents relating to over voting as it is in the voluminous instance before the Ghana Supreme Court? How do you prove a case of Unsigned pink sheet when assembling all unsigned pink sheets? How do you prove a case of Non compliance with biometric verification when gathering all the paper proofs relating to that particular issue? Do you have to ruffle through all the alleged 11, 200 or so sheets to pick up a sheet or sheets relating to each instance of the case when it comes up for discussion? Will it be easier doing that than grouping them case by case and giving them reference numbers accordingly?
It is feasible but highly unreasonable and time consuming to reference one copy to be used to justify that three instances of electoral irregularities took place in the same particular polling station. Assuming reference number prefix “Exhibit BWS” precedes all documents pertaining to Overvoting, “Exhibit BWT” for Unsigned sheets, “Exhibit KWA” for non compliance with biometric verifications and “Exhibit ABA” for under-votes, how do you reference only one copy to tell that three instances among the four mentioned cases occurred in the same polling station? Tell me.
The reference “Exhibit” numbers could be different for each copy of the same pink sheet in each case scenario. This is all because it will depend on which count it falls when grouping all the sheets on say, over voting or non compliance with biometric verification hence, “Exhibit BW1, BW200 & BW104 as stated above.
Nonetheless, when it comes to totalling the overall affected or violated votes, we count all the three copies in the enumerated case-instances as one. We do not count them as three thereby tripling the figure for votes to be looked into and subsequently cancelled as being sought by the petitioners.
Even though Dr. Bawumia attempted several times to explain the situation, Lawyer Tony Lithur will have none of that. In the end, all discerning Ghanaians have realised how he turned out to be a BIG FLOP, wasting all the four to five hours he had to cross-examine Dr. Bawumia.
I think I have no need to re-run through the salient points or explanations given above. Anyone who finds it difficult appreciating my explanations should please contact his or her friend who may better understand them to explain them to him or her.
I ONCE MORE ADMONISH ALL DISCERNING GHANAIANS WITH NPP FAITHFUL INCLUSIVE TO REMAIN RESOLUTE IN THEIR SUPPORT FOR NANA AKUFO ADDO AND CO. AS REVEALED BY GOD TO KOFI BASOAH OF ASANTE-JUABEN. THE BATTLE IS STILL THE LORD’S AND HE HAS WON IT FOR US ALREADY. AMEN
I dedicate this write-up to Maa Akosua, Abaawa Fabrics, Kwame Owusu-Ansah, Rhoda & Family, Obaa Yaa, Obaa K3k33, Obaa Tuntum (Brussels), Kwame Homerton, Kwame Peckham, Kofi Tottenham, Nana Peter Antwi Boasiako, Lawyer Adreba and all NPP Faithful and discerning Ghanaians.
For further explanation on this issue, and to be at breast with Ghanaian politics, please tune in to Sources radio UK Fm 96.3 or locate the station online via modernghana.com
NANA AKUFO ADDO, DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA AND JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY SHOULD PLEASE NOT LOSE EVEN A NIGHT’S SLEEP OVER THE CASE AS THE ALMIGHTY GOD IS IN CONTROL. ALL THAT THEY SHOULD DO ALONG WITH ALL DISCERNING GHANAIANS IS TO REMAIN RESOLUTE IN PURSUING JUSTICE FOR THE GHANAIAN ELECTION 2012 VOTERS.
Written on Friday, 19 April 2013.