Sunday, June 30, 2013

Bench warrant for arrest of former NIB Boss


 Published on www.graphic.com.gh on June 19, 2013 
 
THE Accra Fast Track High Court on June 19, 2013 issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Daniel Charles Gyimah for failing to appear before the court on two consecutive occasions.
Gyimah was absent when a criminal case against him was called at the court’s sitting in Accra today. This is the second time that he has been absent in court.
Realising the accused person and his lawyer were nowhere to be found when the case was called, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, prayed the court to issue the bench warrant for his arrest.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, accordingly issued the warrant for the arrest of Gyimah and adjourned the case to June 27, 2013.
Gyimah and the Managing Director of Eland International, Arvind Kumar Bhatnagar, have been charged with conspiracy, attempting to defraud NIB and forgery. Arvind is currently being tried in absentia.
Gyimah who is on a GH¢500,000 bail bond has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
He has been standing trial at the Fast Track High Court since December 21, 2011.

Gyimah was alleged to have used the bank as a guarantor without the Board of Directors’ consent and issued 30 promissory notes valued at $60 million dollars in May, 2007 to a private business, Eland International (Ghana) Limited.
The bank had brought another witness to testify in the case but the court had to adjourn proceedings because Gyimah was absent.
Accused persons and their lawyers are usually required under the rules of court to be present when witnesses are called to testify.
So far a former Deputy Managing Director of the NIB and a former Head of the International Banking Department of NIB have given evidence in the case.
The Facts of the Case
On February 13, 2009, Gyimah was first arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court charged with wilfully causing financial loss of $60 million to the state but the charges were substituted later at the Fast Track High Court.
He allegedly committed the offence in May, 2007 when he unilaterally used the bank as a guarantor for Eland International (Ghana) Limited, a private company, by signing 30 promissory notes, all valued at US$60 million.
A promissory note is a signed document containing a promise to pay a stated amount of money before a particular date.
According to the prosecution, after the accused person had signed the promissory notes, Eland, for its part, contracted US$45 million from Iroko Security Company Limited.
Iroko Security was expected to deduct the US$45 million from the US$60 million on January 1, 2009 but that did not materialise because Eland’s accounts had not been credited with the US$60 million.
The company, therefore, enquired from the NIB to confirm whether or not Eland’s accounts had been credited.
According to the prosecution,  Gyimah allegedly ordered the International Banking Section of the NIB to confirm payment, which was done.



Supreme Court issues summons to Kuranchie, Boahen & Atubiga

June 29, 2013 (Page 3)

Stephen Atubiga, a member of the government communication team has been summoned by the Supreme CourtStephen Atubiga, a member of the government communication team has been summoned by the Supreme CourtTo demonstrate its resolve to nip prejudicial statements and any form of media articles that could undermine the work of the judiciary in the bud, the Supreme Court has issued written summons to three persons to appear before it on Tuesday, July 2, 2013 to answer contempt of court charges.
The three, Mr Kenneth Agyei Kuranchie, Editor of the Daily Searchlight newspaper, Stephen Atubiga, a member of the communication team of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), and Kwaku Boahen, the Ashanti Regional Youth Organiser of the NDC, are said to have made prejudicial statements on the ongoing presidential election petition.
Three separate summons all dated June 27, 2013 and signed by the presiding judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, and acting Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr James Mensah, have been issued accordingly to direct the affected persons to appear before the court and answer for their utterances.
After their explanation, the court would then take a decision on whether or not disciplinary action should be taken against them.

The “Wanted” Three
Mr  Kurankyi, Mr Atubiga, and Mr Boahen are said to have acted in contravention of the Supreme Court’s June, 24, 2013 order which directed all persons to desist from making prejudicial comments and distorting facts in the ongoing presidential election petition.
They were directed to appear before the court barely 24 hours after the court barred the Deputy Communications Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Sammy Awuku, from attending the hearing of the case until the final determination of the matter, after he had made inappropriate comments in connection with the court’s June 24 order.

The Offences
Atubiga is said to have warned that the NDC would not accept the verdict of the court if the first petitioner and 2012 presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, was declared the president of the country.
Mr Kuranchie is being summoned before the court for a front page comment he published in the Thursday, June 27 edition of his newspaper.
For crossing the court’s final touchline which warned lawyers, journalists, political activists and social commentators to desist from making prejudicial comments about the election petition with effect from June 24, 2013, the three are expected to be before the court by 10 am on July 2, 2013.
The court will determine their fate on that day, according to Mr Justice Atuguba, who issued the warning on behalf of his colleagues, namely, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

Content of Kwaku Boahen’s Summon
“It having come to the notice of the Court as per a publication in the “Issue No. 4 15 ISSN: 39/11 Thursday June, 27, 2013” of the newspaper known as “THE NEW STATESMAN” that Kwaku Boahen reportedly, on the 25th day of June, 2013, on “Angel F.M.”, Kumasi made certain utterances touching and concerning the Presidential Election Petition pending in this Court, which appear to be contemptuous of this Court; it is ordered that the said Kwaku Boahen do appear before this Court on the 2nd day of July, 2013 at 10 o’clock in the forenoon to answer to the said utterances; for a determination thereon by this Court.”

Order to appear in court – Ken Kuranchie
“It having come to the notice of the Court that the newspaper known as “The Daily Searchlight Vol. 10 Number 111 - Thursday 27th day of June, 2013”, published on its front page, continuing on page 2 thereof news items headed: “Is There Justice In The Land?”
“The Loose Talkers Supreme Court did not see or hear! as well as its “Front Page Comment, Can We Comment On Decisions Of The Supreme Court Hearing Or Not?  Their Lordships Should Come Clean”
According to the court, the newspaper’s comment touched and concerned the court, and also appeared to be contemptuous of the court.
“It is hereby ordered that Ken Kuranchie, Editor-In-Chief of the said The Daily Searchlight, do appear before this Court on the 2nd day of July, 2013 at 10 o’clock in the forenoon to answer to the said utterances; for a determination thereon by this Court,” the summons stated.

Stephen Atubiga’s Summons
With regard to Mr Atubiga, the court’s summons stated that “it having come to the notice of the Court as per a publication in the “Issue No. 4 15 ISSN: 39/11 Thursday June, 27, 2013” of the newspaper known as “The New Statesman” that Stephen Atubiga, reportedly, on “Asempa F.M.,”on the 25th day of June, 2013 and on “Boss F.M., Kumasi on the 26th day of June, 2013, made certain utterances touching and concerning the Presidential Election Petition pending in this Court, which appear to be contemptuous of this Court;
“It is ordered that the said Stephen Atubiga do appear before this Court on the 2nd day of July, 2013 at 10 O’clock in the forenoon to answer to the said utterances; for a determination thereon by this Court,” the court’s summons indicated.
Story: Mabel Aku Banaseh / Daily Graphic
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh
Sheet
•    The Supreme Court has issued several warnings to lawyers, journalists, social commentators and political activists to desist from making prejudicial statements concerning the ongoing presidential election petition.
•    Observing that the orders were not being heeded to, the court brought out its “legal whip” and smoked out the Deputy Communications Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) from attending the election petition hearing until the final determination of the petition.
•    Although, Mr Awuku has apologised on different platforms, the Supreme Court says his apology appears to be calling for a “rematch”.
•    The Supreme Court on Thursday, June 27, 2013, said although the New Statesman  in its June 27, 2013, edition attributed a story to a member of the NDC Communication team, Mr Gabby Assumeng, as saying the NDC will not accept the decision of the Supreme Court when it went against the party, the court has been “stopped by statutory limitation.” That, according to the court, was because its final touchline warning took effect from June 24, 2013, but Mr Assumeng’s comments were made earlier.
•    The petitioners in the ongoing presidential election petition are the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey.
•    The respondents who are: President John Dramani Mahama; the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), are praying the court to dismiss the petitioners’ claims of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets and some polling stations having the same serial numbers.

Final audit of pink sheets at centre of cross examination

 June 28, 2013 (Page 19)

Nii Amanor DodooNii Amanor DodooThe issue of whether or not the international audit firm, KPMG, left out salient issues in its final report on the audit of pink sheets, which are at the centre of the presidential election petition, featured prominently at the Supreme Court sitting in Accra yesterday.
Lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, sought to suggest to a Partner of KPMG and Head of Tax Audit, Nii Amanor Dodoo, that the KPMG failed to take into account, the full comments of the petitioners’ response to the draft of the audit report before issuing its final report.
But Mr Dodoo maintained that the firm worked with exhibits submitted to it by the Supreme Court Registrar, and the secretary of the president of the nine-member panel hearing the election petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential poll.

The Issues
During cross-examination of Mr Dodoo, Mr Addison maintained that some exhibits used by the respondents in cross-examining the star witness for the petitioners, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, were not taken into account in the final audit report.
He also suggested to the witness that some sets of pink sheets which were part of the presiding judge’s set of pink sheets were not captured in the audit report.
Mr Addison again pointed out that the KPMG failed to include in their  final report, the unique polling station codes which were captured by the petitioners in response to the draft audit report.
The witness explained that the firm dealt with exhibits submitted to it by the Supreme Court Registrar and Secretary to Mr Justice William Atuguba.
On the issue of whether or not exhibits used by the respondents in cross-examining Dr Bawumia were inculcated in the final audit report, Mr Dodoo explained that such matters were not part of the terms of reference of the KPMG.

The Scope of Work
According to the final report, it was agreed by all parties that the procedures to be carried out shall be as follows:
A count setting out the total number of all pink sheets filed at the registry by the petitioners according to the manner in which they had been set out under paragraphs 44 to 67 of the affidavit of Dr  Bawumia, filed at the registry of the Supreme Court on April 7, 2013. (Paragraphs 44 to 67 generally give the breakdown of the specific combinations of constitutional and statutory violations, irregularities and malpractices) and providing the exhibit number, if any, of  the polling station name and code and number of pink sheets filed at the Supreme Court’s registry.

Mr Addison’s Figures and Inventory
According to Mr Addison, the petitioners noticed in the draft report 171, entry errors for polling station codes in the data provided by the KPMG and queried if the KPMG took that into account in its final report.
In answer to that question, Mr Dodoo explained that his firm clarified those issues and it emerged that the information KPMG had captured reflected what had been captured on the pink sheets supplied to it by the court.
Dissatisfied with Mr Dodoo’s answer, Mr Addison insisted, “there were 171 entry errors, and it was for you to clarify.”
In response, Mr Dodoo said in cross-checking the documents, the KPMG found that 34 of the said errors were committed by the petitioners, adding that, “the rest were not errors.”
He also informed the court that he did not recall if the respondents had filed any pink sheets, adding that there were 13,926 pink sheets in the custody of the registrar.
Mr Dodoo explained that the pink sheets were identified by exhibit numbers and polling station codes.
Asked if he knew polling station names could be uniquely identified by polling station codes, the witness answered, “Yes. I will guess so because it was not within our mandate to identify by polling station names and codes.”
He pointed out that the audit was restricted to what was seen on the pink sheets.

Remarks on 1,545 Pink Sheets
Mr Addison suggested to the witness that there were remarks on 1,545 pink sheets. Out of that, 850 of the pink sheets could clearly be identified by polling station codes to which Mr Dodoo conceded, and explained that the firm extracted information based on what had been given to it by the court’s registry.
Lead counsel for the petitioners then suggested to the witness that he declined to take into account information provided by the petitioners on the said 850 pink sheets.
Responding, Mr Dodoo expounded that the audit firm restricted itself to the task given to it by the court.

Jurisdictional Issues
Mr Addison pressed on and asked the witness if his firm did not deem it fit to include the petitioners’ comments on the said 850 pink sheets in its report, but Mr Dodoo said it was not part of KPMG’s terms of reference.
“It did not form part of our terms of reference so we limited ourselves to the order,” Mr Dodoo maintained, but Mr Addison retorted, “you just threw our comments away.”
Mr Justice Atuguba at that point intervened and reminded counsel that the witness was raising jurisdictional issues, but Mr Addison answered that the petitioners thought the issues were important, and it would have been fair for  such issues to be brought to the attention of the court.
Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira then advised counsel to add those issues to his address but Mr Addison said the issues related to count.
Mr Addison later insisted that 655 pink sheets out of the 1,545 polling stations could be identified and queried if KPMG added the petitioners’ comments on the 655 pink sheets to which Mr Dodoo replied in the affirmative but stated that the details on the 655 pink sheets were not eligible.

 Unique Polling Stations
Mr Addison then suggested to the witness that out of the said 1,545 pink sheets, 1,186 were identified as having unique polling station codes (no duplications) but Mr Amanor said, “I am not sure how to answer the question.”
His response drew laughter from the court.
After the laughter, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegebe, told Mr Addison the issue he had raised was for the address stage.
Appearances in Registrar’s Set
Asked how many unique pink sheets were in the registrar’s set, Mr Dodoo said he did not understand what counsel meant by unique pink sheets but stated that if counsel was talking about pink sheets appearing only once there were different scenarios of some exhibit numbers, polling station codes and names appearing either once or more than once.
After taking the court through numerous figures, Mr Dodoo finally answered Mr Addison’s question after it was repeated and said, 8,675 polling station codes appeared only once.
Asked if the figures included the 1,545 supplied by the petitioners in their comments, Mr Dodoo said no with the explanation that those were not eligible.
Mr Addison’s Figures
Mr Addison said the petitioners comments provided that 4,089 pink sheets were used to cross examine Dr Bawumia adding that 1,097 out of the 4.089 used by the President and the NDC were not part of the registrar’s set.
Mr Dodoo explained that he did not have any basis to confirm that assertion because there were no checks to that effect.
Mr Addison continued and stated that 2,230 out of the 4,089 pink sheets used in cross examining Dr Bawumia were not part of Mr Justice Atuguba’s set.
Mr Jones Dotse said the witness was not in a position to know that because his mandate was limited but Mr Addison stressed that the petitioners were invited to add their comments adding, “that is why we are bring it to the court’s attention.”
Relevance and Prejudice Objection Overruled
Dissatisfied with Mr Addison’s line of cross examination, counsel for the President and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Tony Lithur and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, respectively, objected to the figures raised by Mr Addison.
According to them they were not accurate, irrelevant and prejudicial to their case but the court in an 8-1 majority decision dismissed the objection.
Mr Addison Continues
According to Mr Addison, out of the 4,079 pink sheets, 648 were neither in the registrar nor the President’s set but Mr Dodoo said he was not in a position to confirm that adding, “it did not form part of our mandate.”
No Inventory was Taking
Questioned if his firm took inventory of pink sheets, Mr Amanor answered in the negative and further indicated that to the best of his understanding, it was the petitioners who
Mr Amanor earlier told the court the KPMG took into account comments from the petitioners that were pertinent and included them in the final report.
Confusion over Packaging
After a complex explanation on how exhibits were packaged for the audit and how some exhibit numbers overlapped during labeling in the “P” series – Mr Dodoo took the court through the appendixes in the audit report and what each of them stood for.
Mr Dodoo said the test highlighted polling station codes and not names because some of the names adding that he did not have a full list of polling station names and codes.
Asked if he counted all the pink sheets in the registrar’s set, Mr Dodoo said the audit was based on one lot of the registrar’s set of pink sheets and informed the court that the registrar told him that the labeling and packaging of the exhibits was done by the petitioners.
Mr Dodoo said he was not in a position to state which pink sheets were not counted in the president of the court’s set.
Mr Addison suggested to the witness that he had said the registrar gave him one set while his report said there was more than one set.
Lead counsel for the petitioners did some arithmetric and stated that if figures captured in the petitioners comments were added to the total figure of unique polling stations, the figures will match up to the petitioners 11,842 polling stations where electoral irregularities allegedly occurred.
However, Mr Dodoo said he was not in the position to confirm that.
Tendering of Analysis and Comments Refused
Mr Addison then sought leave of the court to tender hard copy analysis and comments of what in the petitioners estimation had been left out in the report but the court in 6-3 majority decision refused the move.
Risk Management
Mr Addison refuted Mr Dodoo’s assertion that soft copies of audit reports were not given out to clients but Mr Dodoo explained there were exceptional circumstances which normally rested on contractual arrangements.
Mr Justice Atuguba interceded and reminded Mr Addison that he had earlier been overruled over his request for a soft copy of the report.
Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie informed Mr Addison that, “you have done marvelously well without soft copy,” to which Mr Addison later announced he had completed his cross examination, thanked Mr Dodoo and resumed his seat.
Mr Lithur is expected to cross examine Mr Dodoo on Tuesday, July 2, 2013.







THREE IN BIG TROUBLE - They face disciplinary action at Supreme Court

June 28, 2013 (Lead Story)

 











The Supreme Court is on the heels of three persons for allegedly making prejudicial statements on the ongoing presidential election petition.
They are: Mr Kenneth Agyei Kuranchie, Editor of the Daily Searchlight newspaper; Stephen Atubiga, a member of the communication team of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), and Kwaku Boahen, the Ashanti Regional Youth Organiser of the NDC.
The three have been ordered to appear before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, July 2, 2013 to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against them.
Barely 24 hours after barring the Deputy Communications Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Sammy Awuku, from attending hearing of the case until the final determination of the matter, the court issued the new directive following utterances made by the three persons, which the court did not deem appropriate.

The offences
Mr  Atubiga is said to have warned that the NDC would not accept the verdict of the court if the first petitioner and 2012 Presidential Candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, was declared the president of the country.
Ken Kuranchie is being summoned before the court for a front page comment he published in the Thursday, June 27 edition of his newspaper.
For crossing the court’s final touchline which warned lawyers, journalists, political activists and social commentators to desist from making prejudicial comments about the election petition from June 24, 2013, the three are expected to present themselves before the court by 10 am on July 2, 2013.
The court will determine their fate on that day, according to Mr Justice Atuguba, who issued the warning on behalf of his colleagues after they had returned from break.

Rematch
Prior to the commencement of the court’s business for the day, Mr Justice Atuguba announced that the court had heard Mr Awuku’s apology but noted that from the content of Mr Awuku’s apology, it appeared he wanted, “a rematch” but added, “we will let that pass for now.”
The court held that it had observed that there was some resilience on the part of some persons to its numerous warnings for decorum to prevail and cautioned that so far as the judiciary was concerned, all those irresponsible utterances and behaviours would be nipped in the bud.
Mr Justice Atuguba said the court would continue to stamp its authority to ensure that sanity prevailed in the country, “until this nonsense is totally eradicated.”

Gabby Assumeng saved by statutory limitation
The court made reference to a story in the June 27, 2013 edition of the New Statesman attributed to a member of the NDC communication team, Mr Gabby Assumeng, who said the NDC would not accept the decision of the Supreme Court when it went against the party, but said it had been “stopped by statutory limitation.”
That, according to the court, was because its final touchline warning took effect from June 24, 2013 but Mr Assumeng’s comments were made earlier.

We respect everybody
Reminding Ghanaians of the seriousness of the court to protect the interest of the country, the court said it respected everybody but  indicated that no group or groups of people “should think they must have their way at all cost.”
“That will not happen as far as we are concerned,” Mr Atuguba gave the warning before a partner and the Head of Audit Tax of KPMG, Nii Amanor Dodoo, mounted the witness box to testify on its audit of the pink sheets, which are at the heart of the presidential election petition.
Other members of the panel were: Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose C. Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah,  Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

The final warning
The Supreme Court, on June 24, 2013, descended heavily on lawyers and media houses that do not give accurate accounts of what transpires in the ongoing presidential petition.
Sounding a last caution, especially to journalists, the President of the court, Mr Justice William Atuguba, expressed the court’s rage over “the spins and twists” by a section of the media in the petition hearing and warned that the court would henceforth not countenance any such actions.
Making reference to misguided comments by some lawyers and distortion of facts by some media houses, Mr Justice Atuguba, on behalf of the court, specified the court’s preparedness to crack the whip on anyone whose action undermined the authority of the court.
“We have taken the position that any person, be in the media or not, who crosses the final touchline of proper coverage and reportage on the court proceedings will be met with the appropriate response from the court,” he said.
The court reminded Ghanaians of the powers vested in the Judiciary to protect the sanctity of the state and said the court was not prepared to let down the authority and powers of the state which he described as “paramount.”

The case
The petitioners who are the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi Lamptey, want more than four million votes annulled because some persons voted without undergoing biometric verification; some presiding officers did not sign pink sheets and some polling stations have the same serial numbers and over-voting.
The President and the NDC have argued that there is no logical, arithmetical or other basis upon which the petitioners came to the conclusion that the four  million plus votes cast in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election should be annulled.
The Electoral Commission (EC) has denied any wrongdoing in the polls and maintains that the elections were generally free, fair and transparent.

KPMG presents report to Supreme Court (Page 23)



Mr Justice William Atuguba, President of the nine-man panelMr Justice William Atuguba, President of the nine-man panelInternational audit firm, KPMG, on June 25, 2013 tendered in evidence hard copies of a report on its audit of the pink sheets at the centre of the election petition challenging President John Dramani Mahama’s legitimacy.
A Partner and Head of Tax Audit of KPMG, Nii Amanor Dodoo, was led by Mr Justice William Atuguba to tender in evidence five volumes of the huge report.
Mr Philip Addison, Mr Tony Lithur, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, the lawyers for the petitioners, President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), respectively, did not object to the tendering of the document in evidence.
It was, therefore, marked as a court exhibit by the Supreme Court Registrar, Mr James Mensah, and labelled as exhibits 1, 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D.
Before the tendering of the document, Mr Tsikata had prayed the court to allow the report into evidence through the normal court procedure, but Mr Justice Atuguba initially held a different view, on the grounds that the parties knew and had consented to the source of the documents.
The president of the court said the court was treating KPMG “gingerly” because the sacrifice it had made in carrying out the auditing for free was unprecedented and also the report was not in dispute.

Five Volumes and 15 Copies
Mr Dodoo initially appeared nervous and without a clue on courtroom procedure, but Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a panel member, helped him to relax by directing him on how to proceed with the tendering of the report.
Mr Justice Atuguba then moved in and led Mr Dodoo to tender the report, which had been expected by the public for days.
Mr Dodoo, who testified as a court witness, informed the court that the report comprised a main body, with accompanying appendices, and five volumes which had been prepared into 15 copies.
Each of the nine Supreme Court justices, as well the parties in the petition, the registrar and the Judicial Secretary, has a copy.

Snippets of the Final Audit Report
At a press briefing, a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akufo, disclosed extracts of the final report and stated that the quantity of pink sheets with the Supreme Court Registrar was 13,926.
She said duplicates of 3,593 pink sheets were recorded, with unique 10,333 pink sheets (there were no duplications in this category).
According to her, the report indicated that the counting of Mr Justice Atuguba’s pink sheets revealed a total of 9,860 pink sheets, while 871 of the pink sheets in Mr Justice Atuguba’s sets were not included in the registrar’s.
“This clearly shows there is a mix up,” she said, adding that her team had also observed that the 1,097 pink sheets the respondents used in cross-examining Dr Bawumia were not part of the registrar’s set.
She further pointed out that there were cartons of pink sheets at the registry that had not been counted, adding, “So the count is not complete.”
Asked if she had checked why the said cartons of pink sheets had not been counted, she said the petitioners would find out from KPMG in due course whether or not the pink sheets they audited were all that they found at the registry.

Reaction by counsel for the President and the NDC
Reacting to Ms Akufo’s assertions that some cartons of pink sheets were not counted, a member of the legal and communications team of the NDC, Mr Victor K. Adawudu, said the court made a specific order which was complied with.
He declined to delve into details of the final report and Ms Akufo’s statement, adding, “We will leave that to the court to seek the necessary answers from the registrar.”

Request for Soft Copies of Report Rejected
Mr Addison, after informing the court that his clients needed two days to study the audit report to be sure the responses of the petitioners had been adequately captured, prayed the court to allow his clients get soft copies of the report.
“We need soft copies of the report. We will pay for them,” he prayed the court.
But his request was vehemently opposed by Mr Lithur, who said the audit firm had made it clear before the commencement of the audit that it would not make  soft copies of the report available.
“KPMG said they will keep it under lock and key,” Mr Lithur pointed out in reference to soft copies of the final audit report.
But Ms Justice Rose Owusu opined, “It can always be under lock and key” and urged Mr Lithur to leave the issue on the provision of soft copies or otherwise to KPMG to handle.
“The court took a position not to get into this exercise. It was by consent,” Mr Lithur pointed out.
But Ms Justice Owusu answered, “Let the referee say that.”
Not swayed by Ms Justice Owusu’s intervention, Mr Lithur continued that the parties agreed to KPMG’s terms before the exercise began and indicated that there was the risk of soft copies which were not part of the original report being flown about.

Company Policy on Soft Copies
Mr Dodoo said it was a company policy not to give out soft copies of final report to clients from a “risk management perspective” and further conceded that the company had not made it clear to the parties at what stage the soft copy would not be made available.

Public Document
Dissatisfied with the response from KPMG’s representative, Mr Addison then enquired if the document was not a public document now and also if KPMG was not “imposing its rules on us”, but Mr Dodoo stood his ground and expressed the company’s readiness to take the parties through the process the company used in preparing the report.
In a 7-2 majority ruling, the court refused the petitioners’ request for soft copies of the final audit report.

Prayer for adjournment
Mr Addison prayed the court to adjourn the hearing of the petition to Thursday, June 27, 2013 to enable his team to study the final report.
He explained that the draft report was in four volumes, but the final report was currently in five volumes, for which reason the petitioners needed ample time to study it to be sure that the substantial responses in the draft had been captured.
“We need time to go through and satisfy ourselves that our response was inculcated in the final report,” he said, adding, “We will be the last persons to delay the case,” in apparent reply to Mr Lithur’s opposition to the two-day adjournment.
Mr Lithur had indicated that two days were too many and suggested that the petitioners should, in the meantime, be made to move their motion praying the EC to make available the collation forms for 13 constituencies for the petitioners to make photocopies.
Adding his voice to Mr Lithur’s, Mr Tsikata said nothing much had changed in the final report, for which reason there was no justification for the proposed two-day adjournment.
Mr Addison stood his ground and insisted for the two-day adjournment and further indicated that there was no need for the court to resume sitting today because the petitioners would move the motion for the collation forms on the proposed adjourned date.
Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie moved in and stated that from his understanding, the petitioners would have problems with the report if their comments were not inculcated into the final report but stated that the two days being requested by Mr Addison were too many.
Mr Tsikata said the essence of the cross-examination of the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, would be lost if it did not continue in that format, but Ms Justice Owusu intervened and explained to counsel that the procedure was that if there was cross-examination of a witness, it usually followed.
She also stated that the procedure was that documents were usually tendered in evidence to enable parties to cross-examine witnesses on them if the need arose.
For his part, Mr Justice Dotse stated that the case was adjourned to enable Mr Addison to complete his cross-examination of Dr Afari-Gyan, especially on allegations by the respondents that some pink sheets had not been supplied, adding that with the completion of the audit report, Mr Addison could now conclude his cross-examination provided those pink sheets had been identified in the report.
The court eventually adjourned proceedings to Wednesday, June 26, 2013.

KPMG Praised
KPMG was commended by Mr Justice Atuguba, while parties in the case also congratulated the firm on its work which it performed for free.
Mr Justice Atuguba described the commendation as “temporary” and indicated the court’s readiness to inculcate its full congratulatory message to KPMG in its final judgement.

By Mabel Aku Baneseh
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.

Newer news items:
Older news items:


Petitioners thrown out over collation forms

June 27, 2013 (Page 16)

Philip Addison, Counsel for PetitionersPhilip Addison, Counsel for Petitioners 











A request for an order directed at the Electoral Commission (EC) to furnish petitioners with collation forms for 13 constituencies was on June 26, 2013 turned down by the Supreme Court.
Making reference to its June 5, 2013 blockage of the Electoral Commission (EC) from introducing printouts from biometric verification machines used in 50 polling stations to refute allegations that persons voted without undergoing biometric verification, the court described the petitioners request as “belated”.
It, therefore, unanimously dismissed the petitioners’ request for collation forms for Ledzokuku, Lower Manya Krobo, Tamale South, Techiman North, Yilo Krobo, Akuapem North, Berekum West, Kintampo South, Upper West Akim, Mporhor, Yendi, Ketu North and Oforikrom.
The court accordingly adjourned proceedings to today to enable lawyers for parties in the case to cross-examine the international audit firm, KPMG, which conducted an audit into pink sheets at the heart of the election petition.

 No Floodgates
Turning to President Mahama’s affidavit in opposition, Mr Addison indicated that the President’s affidavit in opposition was filed twice, namely on June 24 and June 25, 2013, and further denied assertions that the petitioners’ request would open the floodgates for more requests to be made in future.
He maintained that each and every application was determined on its own merit and, “therefore, the issue of floodgates being opened do not arise here”.
Reacting to the NDC’s affidavit in opposition, Mr Addison refuted claims by the NDC that his clients were embarking on a fishing expedition.
He also stated that the petitioners would have made the application if they had the full complement of the pink sheets.
Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira enquired from Mr Addison what he meant by the issue of missing pink sheets to which Mr Addison explained that not all Polling Agents brought copies of the pink sheets.

Mr Quashie-Idun’s case for the EC
Mr Quashie-Idun informed the court that the summation of results on the pink sheets was what the petitioners were requesting for and, therefore, told the court the petitioners had access to those documents.
He said it had not been the case of the petitioners that there were discrepancies in votes declared at polling stations and results declared at the collation centres, adding that no objection was raised by representatives of the petitioners at the collation centres.
Mr Quashie-Idun said his client had received 8,000 pink sheets and maintained that the petitioners’ request was belated and “an attempt to obtain documents through cross-examination”.
He said the constituency results declaration forms should contain all the information the petitioners required, adding that the petitioners were on a fishing and “groping” expedition.

Mr Lithur’s “Pair Trawling” Assertion
Counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, said the application by the petitioners for the provision of documents outside their pleadings was wrongful and must not be entertained by the court.
“It is quite clear that this is deep sea fishing – it is pair trawling,” Mr Lithur pointed out, and accused the petitioners of seeking fresh evidence from the EC in their bid to turn it against the EC in the long run.
He questioned the basis for the petition if the petitioners claimed they did not have full complement of pink sheets and reminded the court of the consistent attempt of the petitioners to resist any attempt for the introduction of new documents that had not been pleaded.
Mr Lithur accordingly prayed the court to apply the same “yardstick” it had applied during the hearing of the petition to the petitioners as well, adding, “It is too late in the day.”
He also argued that the information on constituency collation forms had substantial information relating to the volumes of pink sheets for each of the constituencies and which had the tendency to delay the petition.
Counsel opined that the application was an abuse of the court’s process and must, therefore, be dismissed accordingly.

Incompetent Application
Counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, described the petitioners’ application as incompetent on the grounds that the rules referred to by Mr Addison applied to election offences and hearing of election petitions at the High Court.
He said the submission on missing 2,000 pink sheets was not before the court, adding that such assertion “settled the matter against the petitioners”.
Mr Tsikata argued that the matter before the court was in relation to pink sheets filed in court and reminded the petitioners that they had “consistently maintained that their case is based on the face of the pink sheets”.
That, to him, clearly indicated that the petitioners were embarking on a fishing expedition for missing pink sheets, adding, “They themselves ruled themselves out of court.”
He accordingly prayed the court to dismiss the application because it was incompetent.

“You should have come earlier”
Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe at that stage intervened and informed Mr Addison that the petitioners should have made the application earlier to which Mr Addison explained later that issues came up later in the day.
Mr Justice Gbadegbe also reminded Mr Addison that such applications could be brought under “very, very exceptional circumstances”.
Undaunted Mr Addison, however, prayed the court to determine his clients’ application on its merit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, subsequently ruled against the petitioners in a unanimous decision after returning from its break.
The other members are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose C. Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.