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.