Petitioners granted permission to file amend petition

 February 8, 2013 (Front Page)

The Supreme Court has granted permission for the amendment of the petition which is alleging that irregularities were recorded at 11,916 polling stations during the conduct of the December 7, 2012 presidential election.
An original petition dated December 28, 2012, had cited what the petitioners termed “gross and widespread” irregularities in 4,709 polling stations but an amended petition, dated January 31, 2013, increased the number of polling stations where alleged irregularities took place to 11,916.
In a unanimous decision, nine justices of the Supreme Court gave the nod to the petitioners – the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, to amend the petition.
As a result of the court’s authorisation for the amendment, the petitioners have been given two days to officially file the amendment, and an additional seven days to provide “further and better particulars” on the said amendment.
The “further and better particulars” as sanctioned under Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012 (C.I 74) are expected to be served on the respondents in the case, President John Dramani Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Under the circumstance, the petitioners are expected to disclose the full names and codes of 11,916 polling stations where the alleged electoral glitches took place.
They are also obligated under the Rules of Court to disclose the names of 28 locations where they alleged elections took place outside the known 26,002 polling stations.
The nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, unanimously allowed the amendment after counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, had prayed the court to grant it, following the discovery of more anomalies during the elections.
Other members who allowed the petition to go into the court’s records were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

Motion for amendment

Moving the motion to amend the petition, Mr Addison submitted that his clients had not been served with an affidavit in opposition as earlier indicated by the NDC.
At that point, one of the lawyers for the NDC, Mr Samuel Cudjoe, explained that the NDC did not intend to oppose the motion for amendment.
For his part, counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, also stated “we do not intend to oppose the application”.
Continuing with his motion for amendment, Mr Addison explained that the amendment was intended to correct typographical and clerical errors.
“The amendment became necessary because of the discovery of new violations and malpractices from 4,709 to 11,916 polling stations,” he stated.
He further pointed out that the amendment had to do with figures. He also gave an assurance that the petitioners would abide the court’s February 5, 2013 ruling to provide further and better particulars on the irregularities, “so there will be no need for additional applications”.
Mr Addison, therefore, prayed the court to allow his clients to amend the petition.

EC’s opposition and court intervention

The lead counsel for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun, opposed the petitioner’s application and indicated that the petitioners were expected to file proper requirements the court gave on February 5, 2013.
He was referring to the court’s order to the petitioners to furnish the respondents in the case with further and better particulars on the alleged irregularities.
Mr Justice Gbadegbe then interjected and said “if they do not provide the particulars, you benefit. If amended, they are by law required to adhere to the order of the court.”
At that point, Mr Addison got to his feet but Mrs Justice Adinyira intervened and said, “Mr Addison, you have made your point and we appreciate your point.”
The court went on a break from 11:05 and returned at 12:10 p.m., to deliver its ruling, granting the amendment.
Before the court read its decision on the motion for amendment, Mr Justice Atuguba said to the packed courtroom, “our break was not a health break.”
His comment was followed by an uproar from the courtroom.

NDC’s motion for further and better particulars overruled

The third business of the day involved the NDC’s motion for further and better particulars in respect of paragraph 27 of the petition.
Paragraph 27 states, “The petitioners say that in consequence of these statutory violations and infractions, as well as irregularities and malpractices, the results declared by second respondent in favour of first respondent were far in excess of votes cast in his favour, thereby, subverting the sovereign will of the electorate contrary to the preamble of the Constitution, Article 1 (1) and Articles 42 and 63 (3) of the Constitution, 1992”.
Prior to his moving the motion, Mr Cudjoe had prayed the court to allow the NDC to move its motion for further and better particulars for a separate order to avoid the situation where the NDC would not be allowed to object to issues at a point in the trial because it did not move its motion for further and better particulars.
The following transpired between Mr Cudjoe and the Bench:
Mr Justice Atuguba: Are you saying you will not be served with the court’s orders?
Mr Cudjoe: The consequences of not applying for the particulars can affect us.
Mr Justice Dotse: Are you saying you cannot rely on particulars when provided?
Mr Justice Yeboah: The order will be served on all parties.
Mr Gbadegbe: Order 1 Rule 2 of C. I. 47 ensures a speedy and effective justice in order to avoid delays and multiplicity of proceedings. If you continue like this, how can we proceed?
Mr Justice Gbadegbe then affirmed, “We are in charge. Proceed.” His comments drew a huge laughter from the courtroom, but Mr Cudjoe continued and said “the court should make an order”.
Mr Justice Yeboah then queried, “Are you saying this matter won’t end if we do not rule?”
“Your application is not in accord with the rules. We are here to do justice. We know the passion in this case but remember we are the judges and you are lawyers,” Mr Gbadegbe stressed firmly.
Mr Justice Gbadegbe insisted Mr Cudjoe moved on with his application which was not captured in the court’s February 5, 2013 orders to which the latter obliged.
Mr Cudjoe’s case for NDC
Counsel said his clients were asking the petitioners to provide particulars of results which were far in excess of votes cast in favour of the President.
Mr Addison responded and explained that the answer to paragraph 27 was captured in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the petition. He further stated that paragraph 27 was only a conclusion of paragraphs 22 and 23.
According to Mr Cudjoe, paragraph 23 of the petition talked about deduction and annulment of some votes, adding that it was on that basis that “we are asking for excess votes as contained in paragraph 27 of their petition”.
Mr Justice Atuguba explained that it was the contention of the petitioners that the excess votes amounted to votes that had to be invalidated.
“That is so my Lord,” Mr Addison stated, while Mr Justice Dotse explained that paragraph 27 was the conclusion.
When it became clear that Mr Cudjoe would not withdraw his motion, the court overruled him and accordingly dismissed his application for further and better particulars with respect to paragraph 27 of the petition.

President withdraws motion

Immediately after the court’s ruling on the NDC’s motion, Mr Lithur withdrew the President’s interrogatories with respect to the original 4,709 polling stations with the explanation that he intended to re-apply after studying the additional 7,207 polling stations.
The court granted his request, struck out the interrogatories, and accordingly gave the President the liberty to re-apply when the need arose.

Mr Addison drew the court’s attention that the rules of court were silent on what happens after all documents in the case had been filed and served on all parties and, therefore, pleaded for the court’s direction.
The court, through Mr Gbadegbe, gave the parties the liberty to confer while the Bench conferred on the next line of action to be taken.
In offering further clarification on the issue, Mr Justice Atuguba read out Order 69 C (1) of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74) which basically states that the court shall hear the petition within 15 days after service of the petition on the respondents.
After Mr Addison’s reminder to the court that the court did not give the number of days to the respondents to respond to the amended petition, the court gave the respondents 14 days to respond after further and better particulars had been served on them.
The court also stated that it would give a date for the hearing of the substantive matter after the parties in the case had provided answers to each other.

Akufo-Addo denied EC Documents

The Supreme Court on Thursday, refused petitioners challenging the December 2012 presidential elections, access to inspect and make copies of original results from 275 collation centres across the country. In a unanimous decision, the nine-member panel also rejected the petitioners’ prayer to be allowed to make copies of original of pink sheets from 26,002 polling stations. “We find the petitioners request superfluous, unnecessary and premature,” the court stated in a ruling read on its behalf by Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira. The other members of the panel were: Mr Justice William Atuguba, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. The petitioners, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP); his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, had pleaded with the court to permit them to inspect and make copies from original results recorded in 275 collation centres. They had also implored the court to authorise them to inspect and make copies of original results recorded in all 26,002 polling stations across the country, but the court said no, on grounds that they (petitioners) had copies of duplicates upon which they had based their allegations of irregularities. The ruling Touching on the petitioners’ argument that they (petitioners) had a right to access the said documents based on Article 21 (1) (f) of the 1992 Constitution, the court held that their reliance on Article 21 (1) (f) of the 1992 Constitution “is rather lame”. The petitioners had argued that they had the right under the 1992 Constitution to access the said documents, since they were public documents, but the court reminded them that their party, just as the other political parties which participated in the 2012 general elections, had been given duplicated copies of the said documents. According to the court, Section 166 of NRCD 323 (Evidence Act) clearly states that the duplicate of an original copy can be tendered in evidence in court. It said the petitioners had failed to “raise concerns” with the said documents to warrant the court to grant their request, adding that Order 21 Rule 11 (1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47) indicated that orders could be made only when they were necessary. In this particular instance, the court was of the view that “where a party is in possession of a document, it will be unnecessary to apply to court to order for a copy,” adding that “duplicates are admissible” under the Evidence Act. It took into cognisance its February 5, 2013 ruling, which directed the Electoral Commission (EC) to answer all questions posed by the petitioners, as well as an order it directed at the petitioners to furnish the EC and other parties in the case with further and better particulars on the alleged irregularities at 4,709 polling stations before arriving at its decision. The other respondents in the case are President Mahama and the National Democratic Congress (NDC). The court submitted further that the petitioners had relied on the said documents to raise issues of irregularities in December 7, 2012 polls, and for that reason, their rights had not been infringed upon under the 1992 Constitution. “They failed to make a case for us to order the Electoral Commission to produce documents for inspection. They have failed to convince the court on how their rights under Article 21 (1) (f) have been infringed upon,” the court said, and consequently stressed that “the petitioners motion of discovery and inspection is dismissed”. It said discoveries could be made at any time during trials, and not at the end of pleadings, adding that the petitioners’ prayer for the original documents was “premature”. Background to application for discoveries Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, had on February 5, 2013 argued that although the petitioners had photocopies of the said documents, the signatures of presiding officers did not appear on most of the pink sheets and it was, therefore, important that the court allowed them (petitioners) to have access to the said documents. However, counsel for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun, stated that Order 21 Rule 6 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47) states that the court could order a discovery only if it was necessary. Under the present circumstance, counsel was of the view that the discovery being sought by the petitioners was not necessary because they already had copies of the documents. He said Dr Bawumia had on January 25, 2013 stated in an affidavit sworn on behalf of the other two petitioners that they (petitioners) had copies of the documents “for which they are seeking discovery”. Mr Quashie-Idun accused the petitioners of embarking on a “fishing expedition”, adding that the burden of proof was on the petitioners. “They started with 4,709 polling stations. Now they are claiming for 26,002 polling stations. This is oppressively unnecessary,” Mr Quashie-Idun remarked. The court eventually upheld the EC’s opposition. The Petition - President and EC’s denials The petitioners filed a petition at the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012 and noted, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations favoured President Mahama. They, however, amended their petition on January 31, 2013 to request the Supreme Court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded. They are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place, which, according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC. The court has since allowed the amendment into the court’s records. The President and the EC denied the claims and have both described the election results as credible and accurate.

Tango Over Results - Nana Akufo-Addo, others ordered to provide details of irregularities

 February 6, 2013 (Lead Story)

 The Supreme Court has ordered petitioners disputing the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama, as the winner of the December 2012 presidential election, to furnish the President and the Electoral Commission (EC) with the names and codes of 4,709 polling stations where alleged irregularities took place.
It has also ordered the petitioners to supply the President and EC with names and codes of the polling stations where voting took place without biometric verification.
The court, however, declined to grant the EC’s request for particulars of fraud at the polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded.
The court also denied the President’s call on the petitioners to provide details of how his votes were allegedly padded while those of Nana Akufo-Addo were illegally reduced.
The petitioners, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the 2012 general election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, have seven days to adhere to the court’s orders.
A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, had noted, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations favoured President Mahama.
The petitioners on January 31, 2013, amended their petition to request the Supreme Court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded.
They are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place, which, according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC. 
Their lawyer, Mr Philip Addison, is expected to move a motion on Thursday, February 7, 2013 to seek permission from the court to amend the petition after the court refused to accept a preliminary opposition to the methods adopted by the petitioners in amending the petition.
Counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, was ordered to file the party’s affidavit in opposition to the amended petition by the close of work today. His earlier preliminary objection to the proposed amendment was unanimously dismissed by the court.

The Ruling
Giving its unanimous ruling on two separate applications from the President and the EC, which requested the Supreme Court to order the petitioners to provide them with further and better particulars as set out in Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, (C.I. 74), 2012, the court ordered the petitioners to state the instances where there were no signatures of presiding officers on the declaration forms.
A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo, gave the order.
Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), says a respondent may apply for further and better particulars in order to prepare adequately for a case.
The court, in granting the applications from the President and the EC, held that per the rules of court, each party in the case was entitled to be supplied with evidence in order to prepare well for the trial.
The court said it was important that parties in a case are provided enough facts to facilitate the trial and, therefore, described an objection to the applications for further and better particulars as “unexpected”.
It, accordingly, advised lawyers to do away with “entrenched” positions, especially when the rules of court were explicit.
The court, whose decision was read by Mr Justice Gbadegbe, held that it was only fair for the petitioners to provide the necessary information for an expeditious trial and added that there was merit in some of the requests from the EC and the President.

Orders in favour of the EC

The nine-member panel ordered the petitioners to:
• state the names of the polling stations across the country where the EC permitted voting without prior biometric verification by the presiding officers and or their assistants contrary to Regulations 30 (2) of C. I. 75.
• instances where different results were strangely recorded on the declaration forms otherwise known as the “pink” or “blue” sheets in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station codes.
• state instances where there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the declaration forms as required under Regulation 36 (2) of C. I. 75.
• clarify how the election was vitiated by gross and widespread irregularities and/or malpractices which fundamentally impugned the validity of the results in 4,709 polling stations as declared by the EC.
The President’s request granted
After studying the President’s request for further and better particulars, the court directed the petitioners to state:
• in what manner the election results were tampered with through the involvement of Superlock Technology Limited (STL); in respect of which polling stations and constituencies; and how many votes were alleged to have been so tampered with in relation to each.
• the name and code of each polling station where it is alleged that voting took place without biometric verification;
• the name and code of each polling station where it is alleged that voting took place by persons who had not undergone biometric registration;
• the constituency and the region within which each of those polling stations falls
• the name and code of each polling station where it is alleged “different results were strangely recorded on the declaration forms (otherwise known as ‘pink sheet’ or ‘blue sheet’) in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station codes”
• the name and code of each polling station where it is alleged that there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the declaration forms;
• the constituency and the region within which each of those polling stations falls;
• the name and code of each of the 4,709 polling stations where it is alleged that there were gross and widespread irregularities and/or malpractices;
• the constituency and the region within which each of those polling stations falls;
• the name and code of each of the polling stations where it is alleged that there was over-voting;
• the name and code of each polling station where it is alleged “the words and figures of votes cast in the elections and as recorded on the pink sheets did not match;
• the constituency and the region within which each of those polling stations fall;
• state how the allocation of votes to be annulled as between candidates was determined and how many such votes are attributed to each affected polling station;
• the total number of polling stations and/or constituencies where votes cast in favour of the first petitioner are alleged to have been “unlawfully reduced”
• for each polling station and/or constituency the number of votes by which the first petitioner’s results are alleged to have been “unlawfully reduced”
• the total number of polling stations and/or constituencies where votes cast in favour of the first respondent are alleged to have been “illegally padded”
• the names and respective codes of the polling and/or constituencies where votes cast in favour of the first respondent are alleged to have been “illegally padded”.

President denied

However, the court declined to order the petitioners to provide the following particulars to President Mahama. They included:
• the exact nature of the alleged irregularity and/or malpractice at each of the said polling stations. 
• the number of votes cast in favour of the President Mahama at each said polling station and/or constituency
• for each polling station and/or constituency the number of votes by which the first respondent’s results are alleged to have been padded
• the identities, offices and, if applicable, political affiliation or other connection to any of the parties herein of the persons who it is alleged “illegally padded” the results of the first respondent;
• the identities, offices and, if applicable, political affiliation or other connection to any of the parties herein of the persons who it is alleged “unlawfully reduced” the results of the first petitioner. The court’s refusal to grant the above was premised on the fact that the petitioners had provided particulars to the issues.
The petitioners were present in court but the President was absent.

Supreme Court rules on petitioners application today

February 5, 2013 (Page 3) The Supreme Court will this morning put to rest preliminary demands from parties in the petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the December 2012 presidential polls. The court is expected to rule on three separate applications which include calls from President Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC), praying it to order petitioners challenging the December 2012 presidential election to furnish them with further and better particulars of the petition. It will also rule on an application to direct the EC to answer a number of questions set out by the petitioners. The petitioners 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. President Mahama and the EC are praying the court to order the petitioners to furnish them with "further and better particulars" with respect to the names and codes of the 4,709 polling stations, constituencies and regions where alleged electoral irregularities took place. However, the petitioners are of the view that the court must not allow the EC to employ an application for further and better particulars to compel them to disclose the nature of evidence they intend to lead during the trial. Apart from their opposition to the demands of the President and the EC, the petitioners filed a motion for leave to serve the EC with a number of interrogatories. They are requesting the EC to provide them with details of the names and addresses of persons who were registered overseas and the mode and manner by which those persons were registered. The petitioners are also asking for declaration forms of all polling stations in the 2012 presidential election, minutes of all meetings held between the EC and political parties between 2010 and 2012, as well as special voters list used in the 2012 presidential election. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, had noted, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations favoured President Mahama. The petitioners on January 31, 2013, amended their petition to request the Supreme Court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded. They are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place which, according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC. Lawyers for the petitioners are expected to move the motion seeking leave of the court to amend the petition while lawyers for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) are anticipated to oppose the interrogatories set out by the petitioners. A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo will make a decision on the applications from the EC, the petitioners and the President. Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74) says a respondent may apply for further and better particulars in order to prepare adequately for a case. The parties in the case are accordingly premising their claims for more information on this rule.

.... EC directed to give list of voters abroad

February 6, 2013 (Front Page) The Supreme Court has ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to answer all questions posed by petitioners challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama, as the winner of the December 2012 presidential elections. By this order, the EC is expected to, within seven days, provide details of the names and addresses of persons who were registered overseas, and the mode and manner by which those persons were registered. The EC has also been directed to supply the petitioners with declaration forms for all polling stations in the 2012 presidential election, minutes of all meetings held between the EC and political parties between 2010 and 2012, as well as special voters list used in the 2012 presidential election. 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, filed a petition at the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012 and noted, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations, favoured President Mahama. The petitioners on January 31, 2013, amended their petition to request the Supreme Court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded. They are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place which according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC. Their lawyer, Mr Philip Addison, is expected to move a motion to seek permission from the court to amend the petition after the court refused to accept a preliminary opposition from counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, to the methods adopted by the petitioners in amending the petition. The motion will be moved on Thursday, February 7, 2013, after Mr Tsikata files the NDC’s opposition to moves to amend the petition. He was ordered to file the response by the close of work Wednesday. In granting the application, the court said it carefully studied the questions posed by the petitioners and found that the petitioners were not embarking on a “fishing expedition” alleged by the National Democratic Congress (NDC). It said the scope within which the petitioners interrogatories posed were “permissible”, adding the EC had not provided specific details on the number of registered voters. The court then gave the parties in the case seven days within which to provide each other with the relevant and required information. After the court’s ruling, Mr Addison attempted to move the petitioners’ motion to seek leave of the court to amend the petition but he was opposed by Mr Tsikata on grounds that the rules of court had not been adhered to. But the court stated that, although, there were no explicit rules by which a party could withdraw and file a motion, it will allow the petitioners to move their application “so the ends of justice will be served.” “We will allow the amendment to proceed,” Mr Justice William Atuguba, the presiding judge, stated on behalf of his colleagues. The other members of the Bench were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. After the court’s ruling, Mr Tsikata stated that to facilitate an expeditious trial, he would adopt the ruling of the court with respect to its order for further and better particulars but would make a further application to pray the court to order the petitioners to cite the names of officers who superintended over the alleged irregularities. Mr Justice Dotse, then advised him to get the earlier order of the court and narrow down on areas he intended to make an application on. Mr Tsikata said “we will be guided by the court’s directives to compare the ruling to our application for further and better particulars.” At that point, Mr Justice Atuguba stated “we will adjourn to see the cross pollination.” His comment threw the entire courtroom into a state of laughter. More applications Counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, then prayed the court to grant his client leave to serve a number of interrogatories on the petitioners, but Mr Addison then interjected and advised his colleague to study the court’s order for better and further particulars for the case to move faster. Mr Justice Dotse also clarified Mr Addison’s position to which Mr Lithur, responded by stating “no problem.” Mr Lithur is, therefore, expected to move his application seeking leave to serve interrogatories on the petitioners on Thursday, February 7, 2013. Application for inspection In what promises to be a landmark case in Ghana’s legal history, Mr Addison moved another application praying the court to order the EC to allow the petitioners to inspect and make copies of results from 275 coalition centres across the country. He is also praying the court to allow his clients to make copies of pink sheets from 26,002 polling stations on the grounds that Article 21 (1) of the 1992 Constitution permitted that. According to counsel although, the petitioners had photocopies of the said documents, the signatures of presiding officers did not appear on most of the pink sheets and it was, therefore, important that the court allowed them (petitioners) have access to the said documents. “We are asking for only 275 coalition centres and they are requesting for details of 4,709 pink sheets,” Mr Addison stated and accordingly prayed the court to grant the application “for a quick resolution of the matter.” EC’s opposition Opposing the application, counsel for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun, stated that Order 21 Rule 6 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47) states that the court could order a discovery only if it was necessary. Under the present circumstance, counsel was of the view that the discovery being sought by the petitioners was not necessary because they already had copies of the documents. He said Dr Bawumia, had on January 25, 2013, stated in an affidavit sworn on behalf of the other two petitioners that they (petitioners) had copies of the documents “for which they are seeking discovery.” Mr Quashie-Idun accused the petitioners of embarking on a “fishing expedition” adding that the burden of proof was on the petitioners. “They started with 4,709 polling stations. Now they are claiming for 26,002 polling stations. This is oppressively unnecessary”, Mr Quashie-Idun, who had from the beginning of the hearing of the interlocutory applications, kept a calm composure, remarked. Counter opposition Mr Addison reminded the EC that whether or not the petitioners had copies, the documents they were requesting for were public documents which they (petitioners) were entitled to at all material times. The court is expected to rule on the petitioners’ application on Thursday, February 7, 2013.

Application by Nana Akufo-Addo, others to amend petition - EC, NDC SAY NO

 February 5, 2013 (Lead Story)

 The National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the Electoral Commission (EC) have opposed moves by three leaders of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) to amend their petition challenging the results of the December 2012 presidential election.
According to the two bodies, the proposal by the petitioners to amend the petition was against the rules of the court and had the potential to protract the case.
While the NDC maintains that the procedure being adopted by the petitioners was contrary to the rules of the court, the EC for its part argued that “the proposed amended petition, which the petitioners are seeking leave to file, suffers from the same deficiencies, shortcomings and defects, which caused the second respondent to file an application, which is currently pending before this honourable court, and is awaiting its ruling”.
The second respondent, the EC, had already filed an application for “further and better particulars”, praying the Supreme Court to order the petitioners to supply the names and codes of the 4,709 polling stations where alleged electoral irregularities took place.
A ruling is expected to be delivered on the EC’s application for further and better particulars at the court’s sitting in Accra today, Tuesdaday.
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, filed a petition on December 28, 2012 citing irregularities at 4,709 polling stations during the conduct of the presidential election on December 7, 2013.
They are praying the court to annul the results at those polling stations, but the EC has denied the claims.
But the petitioners amended the petition dated January 31, 2013, praying the Supreme Court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded.
The petitioners are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place which, according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC.
However, in the latest rounds of oppositions all dated February 4, 2013, the NDC, which is the third respondent, and the EC are praying the court to dismiss the motion to amend the petition on grounds that it was without merit and must, therefore, be refused by the court.
A notice of preliminary objection to the application to amend the petition filed on behalf of the NDC by its solicitors, Law Trust Company, at 2:40 pm,  yesterday, said the application to amend the petition that was served on the NDC on January 31, 2013 “only for a notice of withdrawal without leave of the court, was improper.”
It submitted further that “petitioners cannot determine their own procedure for filing any process and the filing of another application to amend when leave of the court has not been obtained to do so, is not allowed by the rules of this honourable court”.
The party, which was allowed to join the petition on January 22, 2013, stated that “having filed a Notice of Withdrawal unconditionally without having obtained an order of this honourable court granting them liberty to reapply, petitioners are estopped from repeating the same application”.
It is, therefore, praying the Supreme Court to strike out the application to amend the petition and, award cost against the petitioners.
An affidavit in opposition deposed to on behalf of the EC by its Deputy Chairman in charge of Finance and Administration, Mr Amadu Sulley, at 2.15 p.m, Monday, held that the proposed amendment would prolong the case and, for that reason, must not be allowed by the court.
In a related development, the petitioners have filed an application in opposition to the President’s motion seeking permission from the court to serve a number of interrogatories on them (petitioners.)
An affidavit in opposition deposed to on behalf of the petitioners by a Vice-Chairman of the NPP, Mr Fred Oware, and dated February 3, 2013, held that the matters in respect of which the President sought clarification were clearly and sufficiently set out in the amended petition.
The President is seeking to elicit from the petitioners a clarification of the method by which they arrived at the aggregate number of 1,342,845, which the petitioners were seeking the court to annul on the basis of alleged irregularities and/or malpractice.
However, the petitioners are arguing that those issues needed no further clarification.
According to the affidavit in opposition, President Mahama’s interrogatories were not brought in good faith and amounted to a time-wasting device which “will not promote a fair, open, cost-effective and efficient trial”.
The petitioners are, consequently, praying the court to dismiss the application to serve the interrogatories on the petitioners.
In what promises to be a landmark case in Ghana’s legal history, the EC has also filed an affidavit in opposition to the petitioners’ prayer to the court, to order the EC to produce documents for inspection and subsequently allow them (petitioners) to make copies of.
According to the EC, Dr Bawumia had, on January 25, 2013, stated in an affidavit sworn on behalf of the other two petitioners that they (petitioners) had copies of the documents “for which they are seeking discovery”.
“The discovery requested in the instant application is not necessary, is oppressive, an abuse of the process of the court, and that it is not made in good faith,” the EC argued, and accordingly prayed the court to dismiss it.
A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo will make a decision on the applications from the EC, the petitioners and the President.
The substantive matter would be heard after the court clears all the preliminary legal issues being raised by parties in the case.

 

 

Supreme Court rules on petitioners application today

February 5, 2013 (Page 3) The Supreme Court will this morning put to rest preliminary demands from parties in the petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the December 2012 presidential polls. The court is expected to rule on three separate applications which include calls from President Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC), praying it to order petitioners challenging the December 2012 presidential election to furnish them with further and better particulars of the petition. It will also rule on an application to direct the EC to answer a number of questions set out by the petitioners. The petitioners 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. President Mahama and the EC are praying the court to order the petitioners to furnish them with "further and better particulars" with respect to the names and codes of the 4,709 polling stations, constituencies and regions where alleged electoral irregularities took place. However, the petitioners are of the view that the court must not allow the EC to employ an application for further and better particulars to compel them to disclose the nature of evidence they intend to lead during the trial. Apart from their opposition to the demands of the President and the EC, the petitioners filed a motion for leave to serve the EC with a number of interrogatories. They are requesting the EC to provide them with details of the names and addresses of persons who were registered overseas and the mode and manner by which those persons were registered. The petitioners are also asking for declaration forms of all polling stations in the 2012 presidential election, minutes of all meetings held between the EC and political parties between 2010 and 2012, as well as special voters list used in the 2012 presidential election. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, had noted, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations favoured President Mahama. The petitioners on January 31, 2013, amended their petition to request the Supreme Court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded. They are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place which, according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC. Lawyers for the petitioners are expected to move the motion seeking leave of the court to amend the petition while lawyers for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) are anticipated to oppose the interrogatories set out by the petitioners. A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo will make a decision on the applications from the EC, the petitioners and the President. Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74) says a respondent may apply for further and better particulars in order to prepare adequately for a case. The parties in the case are accordingly premising their claims for more information on this rule.

NDC demands further particulars from petitioners

February 2, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) THE National Democratic Congress (NDC), is requesting the petitioners challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama, as the winner of the 2012 presidential elections to furnish it with “better and further particulars” on allegations of irregularities during the elections. The NDC, which was allowed to join the petition on January 22, 2013 as the third respondent, is demanding “particulars of the instances where votes earned by the first petitioner were unlawfully reduced whilst at the same time votes of the first respondent were illegally padded.” Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), in the December 2012 elections, is the first petitioner in the petition which is seeking to annul votes declared in 11,916 polling stations, due to alleged “widespread and gross irregularities.” President Mahama is the first respondent while the Electoral Commission (EC), which organized the election, is the second respondent. The other petitioners are Nana Akufo-Addo’s running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey,. In an original petition dated, December 28, 2013, the three are praying the court to annul votes cast in 4,709 polling stations due to widespread irregularities. However, the NDC filed the application for further and better particulars under Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (C.I. 74) which allows respondents in a case to file for further and better particulars. In a motion filed on behalf of the NDC by its solicitors, the Law Trust Company, the NDC is praying the court to order the petitioners to provide it with particulars of the deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the respondents. They are also claiming particulars of claims by the petitioners that the results declared by the EC in favour of President Mahama were far in excess of the valid votes cast in his (President’s) favour. The party is also requesting for particulars of the numbers of votes deducted by petitioners from the respective votes declared in favour of the respective candidates as well as particulars on the names and codes of polling stations where each of the irregularities allegedly occurred. The motion is expected to be moved on February 5, 2013. In an amended petition, dated January 31, 2013, the petitioners are praying the court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded. The petitioners are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place which according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the motion to amend the petition on February 5, 2013. Writer's e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.

Bernard Mornah's case adjourned 'sine die'

February 2, 2013 (Page 18) THE Supreme Court has directed parties in the writ challenging the new Supreme Court rules to file memorandum of issues for trial. Memorandum of issues refers to matters set out by parties in a dispute for a court to adjudicate and rule on. At the court’s sitting in Accra on Thursday, January 31, 2013, it emerged the General Secretary of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Mr Bernard Anbataayela Mornah, who is challenging the new Supreme Court rule which states that hearing of a petition against a Presidential election shall be done on a daily basis including public holidays, and the Attorney-General had not filed issues to be set out for trial. Following that, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, directed the parties to file the issues, and accordingly adjourned the matter indefinitely. The other members of the panel were Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe, Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo and Mr Justice A. A. Bennin. Mr Mornah was represented by Mr Benson Nutsukpui and Mr James Agalga while the Attorney-General was represented by a Principal State Attorney, Mr Sylvester Williams. The plaintiff is challenging Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74) which provides in part as follows: "the Court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays" when hearing a Presidential election petition. Mr Mornah, who brought the action in his personal capacity as a citizen of Ghana, is arguing that the courts may not open for business until the President issues an Executive Instrument permitting same to happen. The Attorney-General is the defendant in the suit which was filed on December 30, 2012. A writ seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court filed on behalf of Mr Mornah by his counsel, Dr Raymond Atuguba, is arguing that “The Public Holidays Act, 2001 (Act 601) provides by implication in its sections 4, 5, and 6 that the courts of law may not open for business unless the President issues an Executive Instrument permitting same to happen. “ “Indeed it is an offence to hold court on a public holiday without such an Executive Instrument and those who engage in such an act may be arrested, tried and punished in accordance with Act 601,” the statement of case accompanying the writ pointed out. The plaintiff is accordingly seeking a “declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles 133, 157, 93(2) and 11 of the 1992 Constitution; Rule 71B and a part of Rule 69C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I.74) are unconstitutional and must be declared null and void and of no effect.”

President wants specific information on alleged irregularities

February 2, 2013 (Page 18) PRESIDENT John Dramani Mahama, is entreating the Supreme Court to direct petitioners challenging his being declared as winner in the December 2012 presidential elections to provide specific information on alleged irregularities during the elections. In a motion on notice seeking leave from the court to serve the petitioners with interrogatories, President Mahama seeks to "elicit from the petitioners a clarification of the method by which they arrived at the aggregate number of 1,342,845, which they are asking the Honourable Court to annul on the basis of alleged irregularities and/or malpractice." According to the President "the application is brought in good faith and for the purposes of promoting a fair, open, cost effective and efficient trial.” President Mahama argued that the answering of the interrogatories would assist him to adequately prepare his defence. Among the issues the President is seeking clarity on are specific details on allegations such as over voting, voting without biometric verification, same serial numbers for polling stations occurred and absence of signatures of some presiding officers among others. The President’s interrogatories also expects the petitioners to state the mode and method used in deducting votes from votes initially declared for each presidential candidate by the Electoral Commission. The President's motion for leave to serve interrogatories on the petitioners made the reference to 1,342,845 votes, because the motion was filed a day before the petitioners amended their petition to declare 4,670,504 invalid. The presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 elections, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, in an original petition dated, December 28, 2013, are praying the court to annul votes cast in 4,709 polling stations due to "gross and widespread irregularities". The respondents in the petition are President Mahama and the EC, who organized the elections and declared President Mahama winner with 50.70 per cent. But in an amended petition, dated January 31, 2013, the petitioners are praying the court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded. The petitioners are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place which according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the motion to amend the petition on January 5, 2013. Writer's e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.

Supreme Court to rule on Feb 5 - On issues raised by parties

February 1, 2013 (Front Page) THE Supreme Court will on February 5, 2013, rule on whether or not, to order petitioners challenging the December 2012 presidential elections, to furnish President John Dramani Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC) with additional particulars. The court will also decide whether or not to direct the EC to answer a number of questions set out by the petitioners. President Mahama and the EC are praying the court to order the petitioners to furnish them with "further and better particulars" with respect to the names and codes of the 4,709 polling stations, constituencies and regions where alleged electoral irregularities took place but the petitioners are of the view that the court must not allow the EC to be permitted to employ an application for further and better particulars to compel the petitioners to disclose the nature of evidence they intend to lead during the trial. Aside the petitioners opposition to the demands of the President and the EC, they filed a motion for leave to serve the EC with a number of interrogatories. They are requesting the EC to provide them with details of the names and addresses of persons who were registered overseas and the mode and manner those persons were registered. The petitioners are also asking for declaration forms for all polling stations in the 2012 Presidential elections, minutes of all meetings held between the EC and political parties between 2010 and 2012 as well as special voters list used in the 2012 Presidential elections. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, has noted among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations, favoured President Mahama. The petitioners are the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 presidential elections, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey. According to the petitioners, 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. They are accordingly requesting the court to annul results declared in the polling stations where the alleged irregularities were recorded but the EC which organized the elections has denied the claims and insisted the results declared were accurate and credible. President Mahama is the first respondent while the EC is the second respondent in the petition. On January 29, 2013 National Democratic Congress (NDC), was allowed to join as the third respondent following an application it filed to join. Petitioners and President absent in court The petitioners, who have been present since the court commenced hearing of preliminary issues bordering on the petition, were absent at the court’s sitting in Accra today. They were represented by the first Vice Chairman of the NPP, Mr Fred Oware while the General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah appeared on behalf of the NDC. President Mahama was also absent but the EC was represented by a Deputy Chairman of the EC, Mr Sarfo Kantanka. The Panel A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo will make a decision on the application from the EC, the petitioners and the President. The Rules of Court Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), says a respondent may apply for further and better particulars in order to prepare adequately for a case. The parties in the case are, therefore, relying on this rule to make their claims for additional documents. Legal arguments The lead counsel for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun, had moved the motion for further and better particulars on January 29, 2013 and argued that the interrogatories filed by the petitioners, were premature because an earlier application for further and better particulars, had not been determined by the court. He also clarified at the court’s sitting today that no voting took place outside Ghana adding “all voting took place in 26,002 polling stations in Ghana.” One of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, replied and stated “we are not talking about voting outside the country. We are asking for voters’ register for overseas”. NDC’s opposition to Petitioners’ interrogatories. Moving an application to oppose the petitioner’s motion for leave to serve the EC with interrogatories, lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, argued that none of the proposed interrogatories neither necessary nor material to fairly dispose the cause of the matter. He said the interrogatories were simply aimed at causing a delay in the expeditious determination of the petition. Describing the petitioner’s interrogatories as a “fishing expedition”, Mr Tsikata, prayed the court not to countenance it especially in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. According to counsel, the inherent jurisdiction of the court was being invoked by the petitioners to purse what he termed, “clearly an abuse of the court’s processes,” adding “no issue arises about the registration processes for the purposes of the orders the petitioners seek - much less, registration conducted in embassies, peace keeping missions.” Mr Tsikata informed the court that the answers being sought from the EC will in no way advance the adjudication of the case that had been pleaded by the petitioners about the alleged irregularities at the 4,709 polling stations during voting on December 7 and 8, 2012. For instance, counsel argued the contention of the petitioners bordered on votes cast adding that “broadening the petition beyond the scope of matters in the petition” was an abuse of the spirit of C. I. 74 which sought to expedite petitions challenging presidential election results. Mr Tsikata submitted further that C. I. 74 itself did not have a specific provision on interrogatories and held that the Order 22 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rule clearly outlined issues which were deemed to be material in determining a case adding that “your Lordships are obliged to apply a stricter criteria in the interest of justice as well as resolution of the matter.” “My Lords, do not sit on the petition as if it were a research project of an academic nature. There is absolutely no basis to how the research project they propose to the honourable court is going to advance the determination of this petition,” Mr Tsikata submitted. He argued that the heart of the petition was about alleged irregularities at 4,709 polling stations and said “there is absolutely no indication in the pleadings on how the interrogatories relate to any information as to what happened in those 4,709 polling stations.” According to Mr Tsikata, it will be “dangerous” for the court to adopt the petitioners “wide scope of enquiry.” Mr Philip Addison’s case for the petitioners. Mr Addison's case for the Petitioners Mr Addison held that Mr Tsikata’s arguments were not tenable because the issue of over voting had been raised by the petition and for that reason, it was important for “issues to be cleared”. “Interrogatories relate to matters in issue between the petitioners and the second respondent. They are necessary and fair in the disposition of the petition,” Mr Addison stressed. At that point, Mr Tsikata rose to his feet and enquired from the Bench whether or not Mr Addison was re-arguing his case but Mr Justice Atuguba intervened and said “he is responding to issues you have raised.” Mr Addison continued and argued that the interrogation was between “two parties and not three parties. This is between the petitioners and the second respondent and not a third or fourth respondent”. He laid emphasis on the phrase “between the second respondent and the petitioners” in clear affirmation of the petitioners opposition to the NDC being joined to the petition. Mr Addison held that the EC was represented by a very senior counsel who did not deem it necessary to raise issues being raised by Mr Tsikata. Responding to Mr Tsikata’s claim that the petitioners had a motive to amend their petition because of the interrogatories, counsel said “I do not know where it came from,” and maintained that the intention of the interrogatories was not to prolong the case but to shorten it. The “Red Devil” Mr Addison argued that the NDC was not served with the petitioners’ interrogatories and stressed that it was a matter between the EC and the petitioners and accordingly described NDC’s intervention as “nothing more than a Red Devil.” Mr Tsikata responded and said his client had been served with the interrogatories by the EC and the President based on the court’s orders that the NDC be served with all processes. Mr Addison responded by stating that his records showed the NDC had not been served adding “if you make photocopy privately that is a different issue.” His comments drew a huge uproar from the packed courtroom but Mr Tsikata, who also laughed declined to comment. The presiding judge after conferring with his colleagues then moved in and slated February 5, 2013 as the date for ruling on the matter. Security was as usual very stringent. Only accredited persons were allowed into the courtroom. END.

Petition challenging presidential resuts - ANNUL RESULTS IN 11,916 CENTRES - Nana Akufo-Addo and others demand

February 1, 2013 (Lead story) THE petitioners disputing the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential election yesterday amended their petition to request the Supreme Court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded. In the amended petition dated January 31, 2013, filed at 9:20 a.m. at the Supreme Court Registry, the petitioners are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were 28 locations where elections took place which according to them, were not part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC. They had initially called for the cancellation of 1,342,845 valid votes cast during the election at 4,709 polling stations due to what they termed “gross and widespread irregularities” recorded during the elections, but are now praying the Supreme Court to pronounce additional 3,327,659 valid votes cast during the elections as invalid. A total of 10,995,262 votes were declared as valid votes cast by the EC on December 9, 2012, but per the calculations of the petitioners, a total of 6,324,504 votes were currently valid. In their amended petition, the petitioners are also stating that polling stations where alleged irregularities took place had increased from 4,709 to 11,916. The petitioners are accordingly praying the court to annul 3,101,590 votes declared in favour of President Mahama, by the EC. President Mahama was initially declared to have polled 5,574,761 votes, but the new figures from the petitioners have reduced the percentage President chalked up from 50.70 to 39.1 per cent. According to the petitioners, the votes of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, must be reduced from 5,248,898 votes to 3,775,552. Nana Akufo-Addo, according to the amended petition, won the elections by 59.69 per cent. They are also praying the Supreme Court to annul a total of 95,568 from a total of 171,603 votes declared for six other presidential candidates in the December 7, 2012 elections due to alleged “gross and widespread irregularities” in 11,916 polling stations. The petitioners, namely Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, had in their December 28, 2013, petition called for the annulment of 1,342,845 but are now praying the Supreme Court to annul more votes. Counsel for the petitioners are expected to move the motion for leave of the court to amend the petition on February 5, 2013. An affidavit in support of the motion for permission to amend the petition deposed to by Dr Bawumia said the amendment had become necessary “particularly because of new and material facts that have come to the knowledge of the petitioners after filing of the petition on December 28, 2012 which will have a significant effect on the results as declared by the second respondent”. The second respondent in the petition is the Electoral Commission (EC), which organised the elections and declared the results, while President Mahama is the first respondent. The National Democratic Congress (NDC), on whose ticket President Mahama stood for the elections, was allowed to join the petition on January 22, 2013 after it had made an application to that effect. According to the petitioners, the irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. But the EC has denied the claims, and insists the results it declared are accurate and credible. President Mahama also maintains he won the elections freely and fairly in the full glare of the media and local and international election observers. In the motion for amendment, the applicants/petitioners are also praying the court to allow them to correct typographical errors in the December 28, 2013 petition. They also contend that the EC failed to provide the NPP with a provisional register of voters for each polling station in accordance with Regulation 21 (2) of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations 2012 (C.I. 72), “thereby disabling petitioners and their party from effectively verifying the names on the list to ascertain their authenticity”. Other violations cited by the petitioners include over-voting, voting without biometric verification, absence of signatures of presiding officers or assistants on pink sheets and same polling station code with different results, among others. According to the affidavit in support of the motion for amendment, the application had become necessary “to correct some typographical and clerical errors, particularly some erroneous numbers, in order to tidy up the averments in the petition.” It said the new material facts would demonstrate the full dimension and impact of the statutory violations, irregularities and/or malpractices as manifest on the face of the official declaration forms of the EC. “That, these new material facts are significant and necessary to ensure that the full facts pertaining to the petitioners’ petition can be fully laid before the court to ensure that all the matters in controversy are fully canvassed and dealt with efficiently, effectively and conclusively by the Court,” the affidavit in support pointed out. According to the affidavit in support, the application had been brought in good faith and would not take the respondents by surprise “as it simply seeks to effect the correction of clerical errors and to ensure that all relevant facts are brought to the attention of the Court before the final determination of the matter.” The petitioners also gave an assurance that the proposed amendment would not cause any undue delay in the case. Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

Anas Aremeyaw Anas's cocoa smuggling investigation - 3 acquitted, 11 to open defence

February 18, 2013 (www.graphic.com.gh) The Financial Division of the Accra Fast Track High Court has acquitted and discharged three persons implicated in an alleged cocoa smuggling scandal. The three are Rockson Eric Appeadu and Isaac Kwaku Asare Darko, CEPS officers and Kofi Aboagye, an immigration officer. However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, ordered 11 others to open their defence on March 12, 2013. The court upheld a submission of no case from counsel for the three acquitted persons, Mr Frank Yankey. According to Mr Yankey, the documentary by an investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas,  was doctored and, therefore, cannot be used as evidence to prosecute the three. According to counsel, in the  unedited version, his clients were not seen but were seen in the main documentary. The  14 security officers, were allegedly captured in a secret video recording by Anas Aremeyaw Anas, a journalist, aiding a group of people to smuggle cocoa beans from Ghana to La Cote D'Ivoire in 2010. The 11 persons, who were ordered to open their defense were  Gabriel  Dimado, William Festus Yawson, Steven Sowah, Prosper Edze, Nii Armah Adolf, James Dzamesi, Paul Dzamesi, all CEPS collection assistants, three police constables,  Samuel Kwasi Ekpeagba and J.K Boakye. The rest are two immigration officers, Mate-Korle and  Kofiabley Frederick According to the facts, Anas of the New Crusading Guide, received information that some security officials at the Western frontier of the Ghana-Cote d'Ivoire border were taking money to assist people smuggle dried cocoa beans from Ghana to Cote d'Ivoire. Based on the said information, the journalist conducted an initial investigation and captured his findings on video.

Akoto Osei, Anane at Court of Appeal

January 31, 2013 (Front page) THE Court of Appeal on Wednesday, January 30, 2013, gave a former Minister of State, Dr Anthony Akoto Osei, 21 days to file written submissions on his appeal challenging the refusal of the Fast Track High Court to refer a matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation. A second contestant to the decision of the Fast Track High Court, Dr Richard Anane, however, filed his written submission yesterday morning. His lawyers have since served the submission on the court and the state. Dr Akoto Osei and Dr Anane, together with three others, have been accused of causing financial loss to the state regarding the sale of Ghana Airways and the operations of the defunct Ghana International Airlines (GIA). The accused persons had requested for relevant documents to aid their defence, under Article 19 (2e) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “a person charged with criminal offence shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”. But the state opposed the application on the grounds that sections 163 and 181 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 (Act 30) do not allow accused persons who are standing trial summarily to have access to such documents before they are tendered in evidence as exhibits. Giving its ruling on July 16, 2010, the Fast Track High Court upheld the state’s submissions and, consequently ordered the accused persons to present themselves for trial. The court had held that the issue raised by the appellants did not border on the Constitution and, therefore, refused to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. Following the court's ruling, lawyers for Dr Anane, a former Minister of Transport, and Dr Osei filed the appeal against the court's decision. The appeal has been adjourned indefinitely.

Deeba advised to enage counsel

January 30, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) THE Osu District Magistrate Court has advised a Ghanaian musician, Akyeampong Deeba, also known as Richard Nimo and Kofi Akyeampong, to solicit the services of a lawyer or risk having a defilement case against him heard, without legal counsel. Deeba appeared before the court without a legal counsel and explained that, his lawyer was not aware the matter was billed to be heard at the Osu District Magistrate Court today. According to Deeba, he was arraigned before the Circuit Court and was expected to reappear on February 7, 2013. The presiding Magistrate, Mr Aboagye Tandoh, made it clear to him that the matter was being adjourned because he (Deeba) did not have a legal counsel, but added that, the court would go on to hear the extradition proceedings if his lawyer does not show up on the next adjourned date. Deeba was remanded by the Accra Circuit Court on January 18, 2013, pending his extradition to the United Kingdom to stand trial for allegedly defiling his stepdaughter. A Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah-Obuobisa, said the accused person had been charged with one count of assault and five counts of raping a minor below 13 years under the laws of the United Kingdom (UK). His plea has not been taken. The facts of the case were that in December 2012, INTERPOL Accra received a request of arrest warrant from its counterpart in London to the effect that between 2004 and 2008, while living in the UK, the accused person had a relationship with a woman who already had two daughters, aged eight and six, from her previous relationship. Subsequently, Deeba and the woman had two children from their union. Initially, they lived separately, but when the woman went on night shift, Deeba took care of the home and cared for the children. That, the prosecution said, continued until September 2008 when Deeba returned to Ghana to pursue his musical career. But two weeks after his departure from the UK, Deeba’s stepdaughter told her mother that her stepfather had had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions whenever her mother went to work in the night. According to the prosecutor, on those occasions, Deeba invited the little girl into the bedroom to watch pornographic films with him, after which he would have both sex with her. The little girl also alleged that the accused person sometimes had anal sex with her and that after each act he would put a sanitary towel in her panties to avoid evidence of bloodstains as well as hid the stained bed sheet in the process. She further alleged that Deeba threatened to beat her if she disclosed the acts to anyone. Deeba, the prosecution said, assaulted the little girl’s sister between June 1 and 4, 2008, when she attempted to satisfy her inquisitiveness about what was happening to her sister resulting in a cut on the back of the girl’s head. A medical examination on the little girl by a forensic physician, Dr. Ainsley Kassie, revealed extensive damage to her hymen as a result of vaginal penetration. Deeba was said to have denied the offence when he was confronted by his fiancee, who later lodged a complaint with the police, following which a warrant was issued by the Northampton-shire Magistrate Court for his arrest. According to the prosecution, Deeba was arrested at the La Palm Royal Beach Hotel in Accra during an undercover operation.

State fails to produce witness in Woyome trial

January 29, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) THE state yesterday failed to produce a witness in the trial involving a businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, who is accused of defrauding the state to the tune of GH¢51.2 million. A Chief State Attorney, Ms Cynthia Lamptey, told the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court that “we should have brought a witness, but circumstances beyond our control made it impossible”. She, therefore, pleaded with the presiding judge, Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, to give the prosecution two weeks to produce a witness to testify on behalf of the state. The trial judge obliged and adjourned the case to February 12, 2013, thereby, making it the second time the prosecution has failed to bring a witness to court five weeks after its fourth witness had testified in the matter. A fourth prosecution witness, Ms Yvonne Quansah, who is stationed at the Financial Sector Division of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), testified on December 19, 2012. Ms Quansah, who has since been discharged for completing her evidence in the trial, informed the court that Vamed Engineering, which was represented by Woyome, was shortlisted together with other companies for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008. Counsel for Woyome, Mr Osafo Buabeng, left the issue on whether or not the court should accept the prosecution’s prayer for adjournment to the discretion of the court. Mr Buabeng had on January 15, 2013, informed the court that he intended to challenge the prosecution of the case without a substantive Attorney-General. He indicated that in accordance with provisions of Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, the Attorney-General, who is the principal legal advisor to the government and initiates all criminal proceedings, must be present in order to perform those functions but the court held a different view. Woyome is facing two counts of defrauding by false pretences and causing financial loss to the state. The accused, who has denied any wrongdoing, is alleged to have made fraudulent claims to the government, resulting in the payment of GH¢51.2 million to him. The three other prosecution witnesses who have testified in the matter are a Deputy Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), Mrs Mangowa Ghanney; a former Minister of MoFEP, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, and a former Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Kwaku Agyemang-Manu.

NDC files response to petition of Nana Akufo-Addo

January 29, 2013 (Page 17) The National Democratic Congress has described the petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential elections as an “afterthought and in bad faith.” It is accordingly praying the Supreme Court not to countenance the petition since it was without merit and an attempt to “deny certain Ghanaians of their constitutional right without any justification.” “Petitioners, through the acts of their polling agents at the various polling stations as well as acts of other representatives, clearly acknowledged that the presidential elections were validly conducted and claims to the contrary now by the petitioners are an afterthought, and in bad faith and cannot be countenanced,” the NDC’s response to the petition stated. “The conduct of both the presidential and parliamentary elections involved citizens exercising their right to vote in full view of the public, the media and domestic as well as international election observers,” the NDC pointed out. According to the NDC, the results of the presidential showed that the first respondent defeated the first petitioner in eight out of the ten regions of the country, adding, “petitioners are acting in bad faith and that the petition is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.” The first respondent in the petition is President John Dramani Mahama while Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is the first petitioner in the petition dated December 28, 2012. The other petitioners are petitioners Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, the running mate of Nana Akufo-Addo and Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey. Also joined to the petition is the Electoral Commission (EC), the body which presided over the elections. According to the petitioners, irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations, favoured President Mahama adding that 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. They are accordingly requesting the court to annul results declared in the polling stations where the alleged irregularities were recorded but President Mahama and the EC have denied the claims and are currently challenging the petitioners to provide the names and codes of polling stations where the alleged irregularities took place. The NDC applied for a joinder three days after the filing of the petition, and after legal battle between the lawyers for the NDC and the petitioners, the Supreme Court on January 22, 2013 gave the NDC the nod to join the petition. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to allow it to join the petition, the NDC in a response filed at 3:00 p.m. on January 28, 2013, stated that “the categories of alleged irregularities set out by petitioners clearly overlap, and, therefore, adding the votes in these categories as a pattern of obfuscation resorted to by petitioners to create an appearance of a real issue when there is none.”

Parties to election petition appear in court tomorrow

January 28, 2013 (Front page) THE battle for legal supremacy continues at the Supreme Court tomorrow as parties in the petition challenging the results of the 2012 presidential polls, move their motions for and against the demand for additional particulars. Lawyers for President John Dramani Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC), who are the first and second respondents in the petition, are expected to move the motions for “further and better particulars” at the court’s sitting on Tuesday, January 29, 2013. The legal representatives of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 7, 2012 polls, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman ofthe NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, are expected to oppose the motion for further and better particulars. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, had noted, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations, favoured President Mahama. According to the petitioners, 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. They are accordingly requesting the court to annul results declared in the polling stations where the alleged irregularities were recorded. But President Mahama and EC responded to the petition, denied the claims and filed a motion under Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), which says a respondent may apply for further and better particulars in order to prepare adequately for a case. In the motion for “further and better particulars,” the EC and President Mahama, are praying the court to order the petitioners to provide them with the names and codes of the 4,709 polling stations, constituencies and regions where alleged electoral irregularities took place. However, an affidavit in opposition to the EC’s motion for further and particulars, deposed to by Nana Akufo-Addo stated that the EC “ought not to be permitted to employ an application for further and better particulars to compel the petitioners to disclose the nature of evidence petitioners intend to lead during the trial.” According to Akufo-Addo, the EC already had in its possession originals of the declaration forms, and for that reason, it was needless for the EC to request for further particulars from the petitioners. The petitioners, on the other hand, are requesting the EC to provide them with details of the names and addresses of persons who were registered overseas and the mode and manner those persons were registered. The petitioners are also asking for declaration forms for all polling stations in the 2012 presidential election, minutes of all meetings held between the EC and political parties between 2010 and 2012 as well as special voters list used in the 2012 presidential election. The tone of correspondence between lawyers for the petitioners and the EC, clearly indicates that, it is only the Supreme Court that can resolve the matter. Copied in the correspondence between the EC and the petitioners, is the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The court, on January 22, 2013, allowed the National Democratic Congress (NDC), on whose ticket, President Mahama stood for the elections, to join as the third respondent. It is expected to file its response to the petition on or before the close of work on January 29, 3013. As per the rules, the Supreme Court is expected to fix a date for hearing of the substantive matter after all preliminary legal issues are resolved.