Rapist, accomplices remanded in custody (May 31, 2013 - published on www.graphic.com.gh)

An alleged rapist, Collins Takyi, and his two accomplices have been remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Mr Ebenezer Osei Darko.

Takyi, an electrician, allegedly raped two sisters at gunpoint while on a robbery operation with the two others at Adenta in Accra.

The two are Emmanuel Kwasi Aidoo, unemployed, and Darlington Tamakloe, a plumber.

They have each been charged with two counts of conspiracy and robbery. Takyi faces two additional charges of rape and defilement.

All have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Takyi, who committed the offence on May 17, 2013, forcibly had sex with the two sisters in the presence of their younger brother.

According to the police, Takyi scared the girls, aged 15 and 17, with a gun and a knife and succeeded in defiling them.

Prosecuting, Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr Reindorf Agyemang informed the court that Takyi broke into the house of the complainant, who was then asleep with his entire family, and subsequently entered the bedroom of the two girls.

Takyi forcibly had sex with the two sisters in turn, while Aidoo and Tamakloe kept watch from outside a window.

After the act, Takyi took three tins of Nido, a tin of Milo and some assorted drinks and bolted.

The incident was subsequently reported to the police, who arrested Aidoo in the course of their investigations.

Aidoo in turn mentioned Takyi as the one who had raped the two sisters while he (Takyi) and Tamakloe stood outside.

Investigations are ongoing.

AFARI-GYAN SPEAKS - Verification not applicable to only fingerprints (May 31, 2013 - Lead Story)

Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan











The Returning Officer of the 2012 presidential election, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, yesterday mounted the witness box, to the surprise of many, and denied claims that verification only applied to fingerprints.
“It is not true that verification is limited to fingerprint alone,” he pointed out, and said 70,951 people were captured to vote without undergoing biometric verification due to their physical conditions.
According to him, he did not know where the star witness for the petitioners, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, got the figure 3,196 as being the number of face-only voters (FOs) captured by the biometric machine.
Dr Afari-Gyan explained that there were more than 18,000 FOs in the Upper East and Northern regions alone.
While admitting that the EC and the political parties had agreed that voters had to undergo biometric verification, he explained that an exceptional concession was made   for   persons   suffering   from   permanent   and temporary trauma.
He informed the court that people who applied to register but did not have fingers were classified as persons suffering from permanent trauma and qualified to vote.
The other category, he explained, were voters who had fingers but the machine could not capture their fingerprints.
These two categories, he pointed out, were classified as FOs and, therefore, not required to undergo biometric verification.

The Surprise
Before he could be sworn in to give his evidence-in-chief, counsel for the petitioners challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the 2012 presidential poll, Mr Philip Addison, sought judicial directions from the bench as to why Dr Afari-Gyan had mounted the witness box.
Counsel argued that the Deputy Chairman in charge of Finance and Administration at the EC, Mr Amadu Sulley, had deposed to affidavits in the case and in view of that it was not proper for Dr Afari-Gyan to lead evidence.
Mr Quashie-Idun disagreed with Mr Addison and stated that the party in the case was the EC and argued that another Deputy Commissioner of the EC, Mr Sarfo Kantanka, had also sworn to affidavits.
According to Mr Quashie-Idun, the affidavits sworn were from witnesses of the EC, adding that Dr Afari-Gyan was also a party in the case.
In a unanimous ruling read on behalf of the nine-member panel, the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, said Dr Afari-Gyan was the Returning Officer of the 2012 elections and could, therefore, give oral evidence.

The Evidence
In his evidence-in-chief, Dr Afari-Gyan took the court through the processes the EC had to go through to capture soldiers and policemen returning from peacekeeping duties, as well as students on scholarship and foreign mission workers, on the electoral roll.
He said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave the EC a list of 2,000 people but the EC’s officers managed to capture only 705 names across 28 different locations in the world and explained that “the team got back angry and said they registered only 705 persons after long trips”.
Dr Afari-Gyan indicated that absolutely no voting took place anywhere abroad, explaining that persons who were captured outside in the voters register were assigned to polling stations in Ghana.

Biometric Registration and Verification in 2012 
Explaining further, Dr Afari-Gyan said Ghana was currently using the biometric system of registration and said the final voters register captured 14,031,680 voters.
He stated that the regular information required for a voter to be properly identified had already been captured and indicated that there were only two elements that constituted biometric registration — the use of biometric technology to capture the 10 fingerprints of applicants and the capturing of the photograph of applicants.
The benefits of biometric registration, he explained, included the avoidance of multiple registration and indicated that there was an instance in which someone registered 15 times during the last registration and the biometric registration machine made it possible for the name of the person to be deleted from the register.
He said the registration exercise took place for more than 40 days and because there was not enough equipment for all the 26,002 polling stations, a set of biometric registration machines was allocated to four polling stations who took turns to register for 10 days each.
Dr Afari-Gyan indicated that the EC had problems during the registration process but was able to eventually overcome them and further indicated that daily printouts of registered voters were given to representatives of the various political parties that participated in the polls.
“This is the only country where we allow political party representatives to be present at registration centres,” he pointed out.

General Information
He took the court through the way balloting was done and explained that the booklets printed came in pages of 25, 50 and 100 and further pointed out that although the law required 10 per cent of ballot papers to be allotted to each polling station, that quota was impossible to meet, especially when it was restricted for ballot booklets to be split.
He emphasised that loose ballots were not allowed in Ghana’s electoral system and for that reason it was impossible for the EC to strictly meet that 10 per cent quota, thereby making the EC exceed the quota in some polling stations.

Printing Houses
Dr Afari-Gyan said the representatives of the various political parties were present to monitor the printing of ballot papers at the printing houses where the ballot papers were printed.
There were instances when the representatives were able to track the movement of ballots, he said, adding, “This is not a secret activity.”

No EC Staff at Polling Station
He drew the court’s attention to the fact that none of the permanent staff of the EC participated in the administration of elections at the various 26,002 polling stations across the country.
According to him, the EC engaged temporary personnel numbering more than 130,000 to assist in the smooth conduct of the presidential and parliamentary elections.
Mr Addison, at that point, shot to his feet and declared that “the witness is lecturing us”, but the court, in a 6-3 majority ruling, overturned his objection.
Dr Afari Gyan informed the court that the British Department for International Development (DFID) sponsored training for 270,000 party agents, as well as printed 400,000 guides for candidates and their agents for the 2012 general election, adding, “Agents form part of the team entrusted with the responsibility for making sure the elections are run properly at polling stations.”
He stressed that polling agents were not observers.

Special Voting
He told the court that special voting was conducted for security personnel and electoral officials who would not be present at their designated polling stations on voting day and explained that ballots cast during special voting were sealed and counted after the close of poll on voting day.
He said there was one centre for special voting for each constituency and stated that it was not correct for Dr Bawumia to state that pink sheets were not issued for special voting.

Filling of Pink Sheet 
Dr Afari-Gyan explained that the law required aspects of the Statement of Poll and Declaration of Result for the office of President, also known as the pink sheet, to be filled before the commencement of poll on election day.
For instance, Sections A and B are expected to be filled out before voting commences.
Section A1 to A2 requires ballot information. Under that section, the presiding officer is expected to answer questions such as: What is the number of ballots issued to this polling station and what is the range of serial numbers of the ballot papers issued to the polling station?
Section B – Information on the register and the other lists at the polling station.
Thus B1 to B3 requires the number of voters on the polling station register, the number of voters on the proxy voters list and the total number of voters eligible to vote at a particular polling station.

Voting Process
The witness also took the court through the voting and general biometric verification process and indicated that stamps, tamper evident envelopes and ballot boxes for polling stations did not have any serial numbers.
He also stated that ballot boxes were turned upside down and placed in the open for the view of the public before voting commenced.
He also indicated that presiding officers and polling agents were required to sign pink sheets after the declaration of results and took the court through the procedures for objecting to ballot counting and declaration of polls.

The Petition
The hearing of the substantive petition began on April 17, 2013.
So far, Dr Bawumia has testified on behalf of the petitioners and has been cross-examined by lawyers for President Mahama, the EC and the NDC.
The General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, has also given evidence on behalf of the NDC and President Mahama and has since been cross- examined by the other parties in the case.
The petitioners have alleged that the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election was fraught with malpractices of over-voting, non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers or their assistants, voting without biometric verification and duplicated serial numbers of pink sheets.
However, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC have denied that any such irregularities occurred during the election.

..... Errors can occur (May 31, 2013 - Front Page)

THE Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on Thursday, May 30, 2013 conceded that errors could occur during an election because of the huge numbers involved in elections.
He explained that two types of errors could easily be made at the collation centres, and named one of them as transposition error which involved entering spots wrongly when care was not taken in entering figures on the collation forms.
According to him, some of the transposition errors could have occurred but did not give details.
The other type of error, he explained, was taking the score from the pink sheet onto the collation sheet.
He cited the instance of entering of 11,000 as 1,100 and vice versa, adding that “we tell people to watch out for such errors.”
Filling of Pink Sheet
Dr Afari-Gyan explained that the law required aspects of the Statement of Poll and Declaration of Result for the office of President, also known as pink sheet to be filled before the commencement of poll on election day and indicated that, “if not, there is an irregularity.”
For instance Section A and B are expected to be filled out before voting commences.
Section A1 to A2 requires ballot information. Under this section, the presiding officer is expected to answer questions like – what is the number of ballots issued to this polling station and what is the range of serial numbers of the ballot papers issued to the polling station.
Section B – Information about the register and the other lists at the polling station.
Thus B1 to B3 requires - the number of voters on the polling station register, the number of voters on the proxy voters list and the total number of voters eligible to vote at a particular polling station.

Declaring that the filling of Section C3 of the pink sheet by presiding officers as an error, Dr Afar-Gyan said, presiding officers were instructed not to fill Section C 3 which required the number of ballots issued to voters verified by the use of Form 1C, but not by the use of biometric verification device.
The petitioners are alleging that 535,723 voters voted without biometric verification and are accordingly calling for the annulment of those votes.
Led by the counsel for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun to give his evidence-in-chief, the Chairman of the EC said the bio data of some voters were lost although the daily print out clearly indicated they had been captured by the biometric machine during the registration process.
To avoid disenfranchising those people on voting day, he explained, that the EC had proposed to issue out form 1C to enable such persons to vote but the political parties kicked against the idea and as a result, the forms were abandoned.
He explained presiding officers would have been required to issue out the forms to potential voters whose bio data had been lost on the biometric machine but had been previously issued with voter identity cards.
Following the objection from the political parties, he stated that the electoral officials were trained not to fill out the C3 section of the pink sheets but for some reason they ended up entering numbers to indicate persons voted without undergoing biometric verification.
He said filling out that portion would amount to error but stated that, there was the need for an analysis to find out if there was actually an error or not.
According to him he preferred that the number 0 to be written at the spaces for C3 because, “I do not like blank spaces in election forms because anyone can put a figure there.”
Asked what happened on voting day, Dr Afari-Gyan said Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey and some party officials had attempted to halt the declaration of the presidential results because they suspected some discrepancies had occurred but he went ahead to declare the results because they could not prove their allegations.
Last Person to see Results
Dr Afari-Gyan informed the court that he was the last person to see election results and indicated that presiding officers, polling agents, returning officers and party representatives had seen and signed the results before he does.
He also explained that voting continued in 412 polling stations across the country on December 8, 2012 because biometric verification machines for those polling stations had broken down on December 7, 2012.
The Petition
The hearing of the substantive petition began on April 17, 2013.
So far Dr Bawumia has testified on behalf of the petitioners and has been cross examined by lawyers for President Mahama, the EC and the NDC.
The General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, has also given evidence on behalf of the NDC and President Mahama, and has since been cross examined by the other parties in the case.
The petitioners have alleged that the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election was fraught with malpractices of over-voting, non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers or their assistants, voting without biometric verification and duplicated serial numbers of pink sheets.
However, President Mahama, the EC and, the NDC have denied that any such irregularities occurred during the election.
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.

Abu Ramadan files review - Of Supreme Court decision not to sit at weekends (May 31, 2013 - Page 3 lead)

Chief Justice Georgina Wood 










The National Youth Organiser of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Mr Abu Ramadan, is urging the Supreme Court to review its decision allowing any party aggrieved with the judgement of a presidential petition to file for review.
He is also praying the court to review its decision not to sit on public holidays and weekends on a presidential petition.
The court had on April 30, 2013, ruled that the directive by Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), which provides in part that "the court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays, when hearing a presidential election petition”, was unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
In a unanimous decision, the court held that a review of its decisions was a right created by Article 133 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 133 (1) of the Constitution states: “The Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules of court.”
The decision related to a suit filed at the court by the General Secretary of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Mr Bernard Anbataayela Mornah, 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 (CI 74) were unconstitutional and must be declared null and void and of no effect”.
In an affidavit in support of his application for review, Mr Ramadan, who is also a leading member of the “Let My Vote Count Alliance,” a pressure group, said “although I was not an original party to the constitutional writ titled Suit No. J1/7/2013 between Bernard Anbataayela  Mornah and the Attorney-General, a decision of which was handed down by this Honourable Court, on 30th April 2013. I am pioneering this review application in defence of the Constitution.”
He argued that the decision under reference was not private in nature, as it was public in character having far-reaching consequences for Ghana’s constitutionally-sanctioned democracy and the rule of law.
According to the applicant, the decision undermined the1992 Constitution itself, the powers of the Judiciary had been unfortunately subordinated to the Executive, the existing body of law and, procedure was thrown into confusion, among others, which presented exceptional circumstances which, respectfully, were compelling enough to persuade the Supreme Court to review the decision of the court dated 30th April 2013.
“Furthermore, I am advised by counsel that the purpose of a presidential election petition was not a consideration at all in the exercise of the court of its interpretative function of the constitution.
Hearing of the review application has been fixed for June 14, 2013.

PINK SHEETS REIGN - In election petition hearing (May 28, 2013)

Pink sheets

 PINK, a watered-down red colour, has been widely associated with affection. In many parts of the world, it is viewed as soft, pleasant and feminine.
Pink has varied meanings that cut across politics, fashion, economics, sports and a host of other disciplines.
Universally, the colour pink is associated with girls.
In Ghana, however, pink means serious business. Pink in Ghana’s politics since December 9, 2012 has not meant the same for the two main political parties in the country.
While the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), President John Dramani Mahama, benefited from the colour pink on December 9, 2012, the same cannot be said of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
Results collated on pink sheets and subsequently declared by the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, inured to the benefit of President Mahama, but Nana Akufo-Addo and two others, per their arguments, see the pink sheets from 11,138 polling stations as “tainted” with gross and widespread irregularities and not fit to be added to the tally of polls declared.
Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, are challenging the declaration of President Mahama as winner of the 2012 presidential election based on the pink sheets in their possession.
And aside from the general reference to rules of court, statutes, reported legal cases and the1992 Constitution, lawyers on all the sides have relied heavily on the pink sheets to make their case.
Sittings at the Supreme Court for the past 22 days have been heavily characterised by objections and counter-objections relating to both filed and unfiled pink sheets.
The expression “pink sheet” has become so popular that it can hardly “pass by” without it being caught up in all manner of conversations in Ghana.
When the Supreme Court resumes its sitting today, it will be the pink sheets that will again take centre stage.
The international auditing firm, KPMG, will also be expected to submit its findings to the Supreme Court on the number of pink sheets submitted by the petitioners this week.
The Pink Sheet?
Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for third respondent
The form on which the Statement of Poll and Declaration of Result for the office of President and Parliament is recorded is known as the pink sheet.
It is called pink because it is coloured pink.
For the purpose of this article, the focus will be on the Statement of Poll and Declaration for the office of President.
Article 49 (2) of the 1992 Constitution states: “Immediately after the close of poll, the presiding officer shall, in the presence of such candidate or their representatives and their polling agents as are present, proceed to count, at the polling station, the ballot papers of that station and record the votes cast in favour of each candidate or question.”
‘Question’ here refers to the event a referendum is being organised and polls have closed for counting to proceed.
Article 49 (3) states: “The presiding officer, the candidate or their representative and, in the case of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and the polling agents if any, shall then sign a declaration stating – (a) the polling station; and (b) the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate or question: and the presiding officer shall, there and then, announce the results of the voting at the polling station before communicating them to the returning officer.”
Thus, the declaration as spelt out by the Constitution is recorded on the pink sheet, a copy of which is then handed over to representatives of the political parties.
Pink Sheets in the custody of the petitioners
There are currently 26,002 polling stations across the country and, according to the petitioners, 11,138 of the pink sheets from 11,138 polling stations contain irregularities of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers failing to sign pink sheets and some po
lling stations having the same serial numbers.
The petitioners are, therefore, praying the Supreme Court to annul 4.3 million votes cast in those polling stations.
History of Pink Sheets
The pink sheets were white in colour Lawyer Philip Addison, Counsel for Petitionersuntil 2008 when they were printed in blue.
In the past, pink sheets were issued to political party representatives on A4 sheets, but due to the tendency of their being forged, the EC, in December 2008, introduced the carbonised pink sheets as a security measure.
The carbonised copies were also used in the 2012 elections. These copies are issued to all political parties in carbonised formats, thereby making it impossible for any political party to falsify them.
Nine carbonised pink sheets in 2012 elections
The number of presidential candidates in the 2012 presidential election was eight and for that matter the EC issued nine carbonised copies — the original for the EC and the remaining eight for representatives of the various presidential candidates.
The presidential candidates in the 2012 general election were President Mahama of the NDC, Dr Henry Herbert Lart
ey of the Great Consolidated Popular Party (GCPP), Nana Akufo-Addo of the NPP and Dr Paa Kwesi Nduom of the Progressive People’s Party (PPP).
Mr Akwasi Addai Odike of the United Front Party (UFP), Mr Hassan Ayariga of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Dr Michael Abu Sakara Foster of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) and Mr Jacob Osei Yeboah, an independent candidate, added to the number of presidential candidates.
General Outlook of a Pink Sheet
A typical pink sheet has the name of the EC clearly embossed on it and has the Coat of Arms also embossed at the top left corner, with a serial
number at the top right corner.
The sheet has spaces for polling station name and code and has been segmented into EL 21 B and EL 22 B.
The EL 21 B column is segmented into Sections A to D.
Section A1 to A2 requires ballot information. Under this section, the presiding officer is expected to answer questions such as: “What is the number of ballots issued to this polling station and what is the range of serial numbers of the ballot papers issued to the polling station?”
Section B is on information on the register and the other lists at the polling station.
Thus B1 to B3 requires the number of voters on the polling station register, the number of voters on the proxy voters list and the total number of voters eligible to vote at a particular polling station.
Proxy voters are those who give the power of attorney to other persons to vote on their behalf due to their inability to be present on voting day at the polling stations where they registered.
Section C is about Ballot Accounting (to be filled in at the end of the poll before counting commences).
Under the C column, C1 to C6 demands information on the number of ballots issued to voters on the polling station register, the
Lawyer Tony Lithur, Counsel for first respondent
number of ballots issued to voters on the proxy voters list, the number of ballots issued to voters verified by the use of Form 1C (but not by the use of BVD), number of spoilt ballots, number of unused ballots and the total
of C1, C2, C3 and C4 (this number should equal A1 above).
Section D – Rejected ballot report to be filled in at the end of poll after counting is completed
The D column is marked D1 to D6 and it includes the number of rejected ballot papers without official polling station stamp, rejected ballots because a voter voted for more than one candidate, rejected ballot papers with writing or marks by which voter could be easily identified, ballot papers rejected because they were unmarked, ballot papers rejected because the choice of the voter could not be ascertained and the total number of rejected ballots (D1 plus D2 plus D3 plus D4 plus D5).
Second Part of Pink Sheet
The second portion of the pink sheet contains the full names of the presidential candidates and the order in which they appear on the ballot paper.
It also has a space for the polling station name and polling station code and has a major heading: “Presidential Elections – Polling Station Results Form”.
Beneath this heading are the names of the presidential candidates and the political parties they represent.
An independent candidate is also referred to in that capacity.
Next to the party initials are allotments for votes obtained in figures and in words.
Slots are also provided for the total valid votes, total rejected votes and total votes in ballot box to be recorded.lawyer Quarshie Idun, Counsel for second respondent
Declaration
Under the Declaration section is a standard statement which says, “We, the undersigned, do hereby declare that the results shown above are a true and accurate account of the ballots in this polling station.”
A space is made available for the Presiding officer and the polling agents of the various presidential candidates to state their names,the  name of the party candidate and signature.
An additional slot for party agents to state the reason for their refusal to sign is also provided on the pink sheet.
The fight over pink sheets
The issue relating to pink sheets is so delicate that the parties in the case are currently in disagreement over the actual number of pink sheets submitted to the Supreme Court Registry.
Lawyers for the President and the NDC, in a letter dated May 21, 2013 and addressed to KPMG, the audit firm appointed by the Supreme Court to audit the pink sheets, alleged that 10 additional boxes have been added to 24 already inspected boxes.
“It is our opinion that the ten boxes that were not part of those inspected on May 16, 2013 ought to be identified, isolated and excluded, as they are not part of the subject matter of the court order on May 9, 2013,” the letter, signed by Mr Tony Lithur and Mr Samuel Codjoe, lawyers for President Mahama, stated.
Lawyers for the petitioners, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the allegations of the respondents.
For instance, a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo, has denied respondents’ claims and described them as totally false.
Mr Philip Addison also stated in open court that the allegations by the two respondents were part of their many cooked up stories and must, therefore, be ignored with impunity.
The Position of the Court and Referee KPMG
The nine-member Supreme Court panel, comprising Mr Justice William Atuguba, as President, 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, has affirmed its decision in giving the KPMG the green light to audit the pink sheets submitted to the court’s registry by the petitioners on April 7, 2013.
It has, however, urged the auditors to officially note down any complaint from any of the parties in the final report.
Meanwhile, the auditing of the pink sheets, which is being done in the presence of representatives of parties in the petition, is ongoing.
Pink Sheet Analysis
The respondents have accused Dr Bawumia, the star witness for the petitioners, of deliberately duplicating pink sheets in order to deceive the court, but Dr Bawumia, during his 21 days of evidence-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination, maintained that he used single pink sheets in his final analysis and that at no point did he repeat any pink sheet in the analysis.
The Court and Issues for Consideration
The court will take into account evidence adduced by the parties and their witnesses and the laws of the country before arriving at its final decision.
It has, in the meantime, narrowed down two issues for determination — whether or not statutory violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities occurred during the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012 and also ascertain whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the results.
Keep fingers crossed on pink sheets
The pink sheet has demonstrated its importance in Ghana’s politics because information on it has the power to determine who wins an election to become a Presidential or a Member of Parliament (MP).
Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh       
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh
Below is a sample of the pink sheet

Election petition hearing, the journey so far (May 25, 2013)

EC Chairman Afari Gyan (R) and former Deputy Chairman Sarfo Kantanka leaving the court premises after a hearing





















Ghanaians have, for the past 22 days, been introduced to legal jargon, general courtroom procedure, objections and counter objections and numerous rulings, thanks to the live telecast of the presidential election petition seeking to annul the 2012 elections.
Once known as 22 million coaches due to their avid love for sports and harsh criticism of football coaches, Ghanaians have now turned into pocket lawyers and mini-judges.
Expressions such as “pink sheets,” “I put it to you”, “I suggest to you”, “objection”, “objection overruled”, “objection sustained” and other legal terms are now on the lips of Ghanaians.
To reflect their appreciation of proceedings in court, most Ghanaians have found ways and means of introducing these words in their daily interactions.
Although the Supreme Court broke convention and allowed cameras into the courtroom to enable Ghanaians and the international community to see and hear what goes on there, there are some who find the legalese bandied about by lawyers in the case puzzling.
This simplified article, therefore, seeks to take readers without any legal background through proceedings at the Supreme Court for the past 22 days.

PREAMBLE
Ghanaians, on December 7 and 8, 2012, exercised their right under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution by joining long queues to cast their ballots in the presidential and parliamentary elections.
Voting had to be suspended and continued on December 8, 2012 at some polling stations across the country due to the breakdown of newly introduced biometric machines.

The Declaration
With the powers conferred on him by the 1992 Constitution, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on December 9, 2012 declared President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the presidential poll with 50.7 per cent of the valid votes cast, with the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, placing second with 47.7 per cent.
Prior to the declaration of the results, the NPP leadership prevailed upon Dr Afari-Gyan to suspend the declaration because they had uncovered some discrepancies which could affect the final results of the presidential election.
After a marathon meeting with EC officials and members of the Peace Council, Dr Afari-Gyan declined to suspend the announcement of the results on the grounds that the party leadership had failed to prove why the declaration should be halted.
He, accordingly, advised the leadership of the NPP to sue the EC if it felt dissatisfied with the results he was billed to declare.

Threat to Sue and the PetitionAkufo Addo and Bawumia entering the Supreme Court room
Irked by the EC’s declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the presidential poll, three leading members of the NPP, namely, Nana 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 Registry on December 28, 2012.
They initially alleged gross and widespread irregularities at 4,709 polling stations, but after further investigations they amended their petition to indicate irregularities  at 11,916 polling stations.
Upon further scrutiny, the petitioners are now relying on 11,138 polling stations as areas where the alleged infractions relating to over-voting, voting without biometric verification, some polling stations with the same serial numbers and some presiding officers failing to sign pink sheets occurred.
Per the petitioners’ calculation, Nana Akufo-Addo won the election by 59.69 per cent, while President Mahama polled 39.1 per cent.
They are, therefore, pleading with the court to annul 4.3 million votes at the polling stations where the alleged irregularities occurred.

The Respondents
President Mahama, the EC and the NDC, who are the first, second and third respondents, respectively, have denied the allegations and indicated that President Mahama won the elections fairly and transparently.

Issues for Consideration
After 10 sittings to consider and rule on more than 21 interlocutory applications filed by parties in the case, the nine-member court set out two issues for trial.
They are whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012.
It will also ascertain whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the results.

What has been happening for the past 22 days in court?
For the past 22 days, lawyers for the petitioners have led evidence to justify why votes in 11,138 polling stations should be annulled by the Supreme Court, but the respondents have cross-examined Dr Bawumia and sought to point out inconsistencies in his evidence in their bid to maintain the status quo.
As expected in litigations, parties occasionally enter into altercations, while the judges either affably arbitrate or display their authority with firm decisions.
The arbiters have also been caught in the crossfire on a few occasions, but that does not undermine proceedings in any way.
Such incidents occur in what some may describe as ordinary cases, for which reason it should not come as a surprise to many to find the lawyers fiercely trying to put their cases across to the nine-member panel, namely, Mr Justice William Atuguba, 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.

High Stakes
The stakes are high because the petition is seeking to unseat a sitting President and the parties are not expected to leave any stone unturned to either unseat or maintain President Mahama as the sitting President.

Proceedings So Far
Day One - Supreme Court endorses live coverage
The Supreme Court endorsed the live telecast of its proceedings via television and radio to ease the tension, the taking of sides and acrimony that had characterised the petition.
Prior to the endorsement, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood, had, in a statement on Monday, directed that the proceedings of the presidential election petition be broadcast live via television and radio.
The President of the court, Mr Justice William Atuguba, at the beginning of the hearing of the substantive case, said the court’s decision was in accordance with the law and expressed the hope that it would erase any misconceptions held about the matter.
The court, however, fixed the hearing for the next day to enable the EC to file its written affidavits in response to the affidavits filed by the petitioners.
Lawyers for the respondents prevailed on the petitioners to start their case, but their lawyer, Mr Philip Addison, stood his ground and insisted he would only start the case after his side had received copies of the EC’s affidavit evidence.
For the first time, the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, was present in court.

Day Two – April 17, 2013 — Bawumia in the box to make case for annulment of presidential results
The star witness for the petitioners, Dr Bawumia, who chaired the committee that investigated the alleged infractions recorded during the polls, mounted the witness box and was led by Mr Addison to give his evidence-in-chief.
He maintained that the widespread constitutional and statutory violations, irregularities and malpractices which characterised the election should be a cause for the annulment of results in the affected areas because they influenced the outcome of the election.
As head of that committee, he said, he ensured that the statement of poll and declaration of results forms for the office of President, otherwise known as the Pink Sheets, were examined and analysed and it was the committee’s findings which resulted in the court action.
In all, he said, 24,000 pink sheets were examined and over-voting was recorded in two forms, namely, where the total votes in the ballot boxes recorded on the pink sheets exceeded the number of voters in the voters register and where total voters as recorded on the pink sheets exceeded the total number of ballots recorded on the pink sheets.
Dr Bawumia informed the court that 535,723 voters voted without biometric verification.
He said, for instance, that at the Bekwai Experimental JHS Polling Station, 294 of the 375 voters voted without biometric verification, while at 2,240 polling stations nationwide, voters voted without biometric verification.
He said 856,172 votes were annulled by the EC because of non-biometric verification and that the results at certain polling stations in the Gambaga-Nareligu Constituency were annulled because of voting without biometric verification.
“The EC cannot apply one set of rules to one polling station and apply another set of rules to another polling station. Therefore, we want an annulment of voting in all areas where there was voting without biometric verification which gave candidate Mahama 49.16 per cent and Nana Addo Dankwa 49.34 per cent,” he said.
He said in 1,739 polling stations, neither the presiding officers nor their agents signed the pink sheets but the results of 705,305 votes were validated and used when there were no signatures on the forms.
Regarding polling stations with the same serial and code numbers, the witness said their findings revealed that different polling stations had the same serial and code numbers and that there were 9,921 polling stations with such an anomaly on the pink sheets.
The total number of voters at those centres, he said, was 3,924,844, adding that the serial numbers were unique and could not be written like the code number.

Day Three – April 18, 2013 – Lithur, Bawumia Lock Horns
Dr Bawumia ended his evidence-in-chief, thereby paving the way for counsel for the President, Mr Tony Lithur, to begin cross-examining him.
The two engaged in many face-offs.
It all started when Mr Lithur put it to Dr Bawumia during cross-examination that the witness had submitted to the court as exhibits some pink sheets which were duplicated in different categories of alleged electoral malpractices.
Mr Lithur, in the cross-examination, said, “l put it to you that you have used the duplicated pink sheets for the purpose of deceiving the court,” to which Dr Bawumia responded: “l suggest to you that it is not true,” amidst spontaneous laughter from members of the Bench, the Bar and the gallery.
Dr Bawumia explained that although duplicated pink sheets had found their way to the court, not a single one was relied upon and that materials on the CD ROM were the ones used in the final analysis.

Day Four – April 22, 2013 – Supreme Court says it is premature for independent audit of pink sheets
An application by Mr Lithur for an independent audit of pink sheets to determine the actual number of polling stations whose results are in issue was overruled by the Supreme Court.
The court held that the fact that the President and the NDC had responded to 8,621 polling stations meant that there was a definite number of pink sheets to deal with.
It, therefore, said the audit was premature and that once that figure existed, it did not appreciate the problem facing the respondents because when the question of audit manifested it would be dealt with appropriately.

Day Five – April 23, 2013 – Lithur tests Bawumia’s credibility
Mr Lithur resolutely defended his line of cross-examination when the court expressed worry over the slow pace of proceedings.
According to him, the nature of the case demanded that he adopt the style being used to test the credibility of the star witness for the petitioners.

Day Six - April 24 – Lithur concludes cross-examination and says there is no basis for annulment of 2.6 million votes
Mr Lithur concluded his cross-examination of the petitioners’ star witness and indicated that suggestions that about 2.6 million votes be annulled were completely preposterous.
But Dr Bawumia insisted that those votes were tainted with many irregularities relating to over-voting, the non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers and duplicated serial numbers.
The witness also said the petitioners were not accusing the President of any malpractice, except that he was the beneficiary of the EC’s conduct.

EC cross-examines Dr Bawumia
Counsel for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun, sought to cow Dr Bawumia into admitting that there were some genuine errors on some of the pink sheets but Dr Bawumia disagreed and said a President could not be declared based on errors.

Day Seven – April 25, 2013 – EC Lawyer Stopped
Heated exchanges characterised proceedings when Mr Quashie-Idun was interrupted by both the Bench and lawyers for the petitioners due to the EC’s failure to file exhibits in response to the allegations by the petitioners.

Day Eight – April 29, 2013 — Tsatsu Starts Cross-examination of Dr Bawumia
The lawyer for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, took over the cross-examination and Dr Bawumia and did not give the witness any breathing space at all.
But as he progressed, he toned down.
Regarding voting without biometric verification, counsel told the witness that certain concerns were raised about the frustration among voters who found it difficult to vote because of the problems associated with verification, but Dr Bawumia stated that every citizen had the right to vote, provided all the proper procedures had been followed.

Day Nine – April 30, 2013 – Bawumia clashes with Tsatsu; Ruling on Bernard Mornah Case
Mr Tsikata sought to establish that the mis-labelling of some of the exhibits before the court, particularly the pink sheets, by the petitioners was done deliberately to mislead the judges, but Dr Bawumia disagreed.
Mr Tsikata suggested that but for the vigilance of the respondents, the court would not have known that each set of pink sheets provided for the court by the petitioners had some polling station numbers repeated on them.

Supreme Court cannot sit on holidays
The Supreme Court ruled that its decision in respect of petitions filed to challenge the election of a President could be reviewed if any of the parties was dissatisfied.
It also ruled that the directive by Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) which provides in part that "the court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays, when hearing a presidential election petition”, was unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Julius Ansah, by a unanimous decision held that a review of its decisions was a right created by Article 133 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 133 (1) of the Constitution states: “The Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules of court.”
The decision related to a suit filed at the court by the General Secretary of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Mr Bernard Anbataayela Mornah, 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 (CI 74) are unconstitutional and must be declared null and void and of no effect”.

Day 10 – May 2, 2013 – Argument over pink sheets
Questions and answers on Day 10 related to repeated or duplicated pink sheets, the confirmation of the poll results by polling agents of the petitioners, no indication of any protests by the polling agents and the reading of the declared results on the face of the pink sheets.
While Mr Addison, raised an objection regarding the piecemeal approach adopted by Mr Tsikata to dealing with pink sheets before they were tendered in evidence,
Mr Tsikata rather blamed the petitioners for the situation because the respondents had been overwhelmed by so many duplicated pink sheets to deal with.

Day 11 – May  6, 2013 – Judges warn lawyers, journalists and commentators
Justices of the Supreme Court condemned social commentators, lawyers and journalists for unfairly criticising their work.
Their sentiments stemmed from the way and manner the public, including lawyers, had taken their work, especially their rulings, out of context and lashed out at them.
According to the judges, they had even been referred to as timid in some of the criticisms and urged all to be circumspect in their criticism.
Mr Tsikata’s cross-examination continued after the judges had expressed their sentiments.

Day 12 - May 7, 2013 – Leave Court to Decide
The court asked Mr Tsikata and Dr Bawumia not to engage in arguments over whether or not pink sheets had been certified or attested to but leave that for determination by the court.

Day 12 – May 8, 2013 – Court stops Tsatsu’s attempt to introduce 50 pink sheets
Mr Tsikata was stopped from introducing 50 pink sheets he intended to cross-examine Dr Bawumia on.

Day 13 – May 9, 2013 – Court orders audit of pink sheets
Following controversy over the actual number of pink sheets served on the respondents, the court directed the international audit firm, KPMG, to audit the pink sheets and submit a report to the court.
The auditing is currently underway.

Day 14 – May 13, 2013 – Tsatsu requests to cross-examine four witnesses of petitioners
Mr Tsikata informed the court that he had a motion pending which was targeted at cross-examining four witnesses of the petitioners who had sworn affidavits.
The court adjourned the cross-examination of Dr Bawumia to enable the parties to sort out among themselves pink sheets with duplicated serial numbers.
The parties also met KPMG to set out modalities for the audit.

Day 15 – May 14, 2013 – Bawumia and Tsatsu in hot exchanges Mr Johnson Asiedu-Nketia (L), General Secretary of the NDC, sharing a joke with Mr Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie (R), General Secretary of NPP
In what had become persistent, Mr Tsikata and Dr Bawumia once again engaged in a crossfire during the former’s cross-examination of the latter.
Mr Tsikata, who was not pleased with the responses from Dr Bawumia, complained to the Bench about the kind of responses being given by the witness and said the witness should not be allowed to make those comments.
Mr Justice Atuguba, the presiding judge, calmed their nerves and urged the counsel and the witness to cease fire, indicating that Dr Bawumia was not to engage counsel in arguments but rather answer the questions put to him.

Day 16 – May 15, 2013 – Pink Sheet Audit For Free
Mr Justice Atuguba officially announced that KPMG had agreed to conduct the auditing for free. Some officials of the audit firm were present in court and were acknowledged by the presiding judge.
Although KPMG did not make public how much it would have charged for the exercise, some industry analysts put it around $100,000.

More exchanges
Judges were stretched to their limit following flared tempers between Mr Tsikata and Mr Addison over the line of cross-examination of Dr Bawumia, who was accused of acting in bad faith by Mr Tsikata.

Day 17, 2013 – May 16, 2013 – Court restrains respondents from cross-examining four witnesses
The Supreme Court refused a request from the respondents to cross-examine four witnesses who had given evidence in the form of sworn written affidavits.
According to the court, it had received and was still in the process of receiving abundant evidence from the parties in the dispute to enable it to arrive at a conclusion.
The four witnesses are the Member of Parliament (MP) for Berekum East, Dr Kwabena Twum Nuamah; the NPP’s parliamentary candidate for Upper West Akyem in the Eastern Region, Mr Eugene Sackey; the NPP MP for Tano North, Ms Freda Prempeh; a resident of Savelugu, Fuseini Safianu, and the presiding officer of Temporary Booth Chief’s palace polling station at Pong Tamale, Abdulai Abdul Hamid.

Day 18 – May 20, 2013 – Brief hearing
Proceedings were adjourned after a very brief sitting.
The adjournment followed a consensus reached among lawyers for the parties to allow adequate time for the petitioners to sort through lists of pink sheets relating to the same serial number category.

Parties Fight Over Pink Sheets
Controversy rocked the auditing of pink sheets, as lawyers for President Mahama and the NDC stormed the Supreme Court conference room where pink sheets were being counted and objected to the alleged introduction of additional boxes containing pink sheets.
But a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo, who is leading the petitioners’ legal team, refuted allegations that extraneous materials had been introduced into the pink sheets.

Day 20 –May 21, 2013 – Court says no to respondent lawyers
An attempt by lawyers for the respondents to persuade the Supreme Court to allow pink sheets in the custody of the nine-member panel to be used by KPMG in its count of the sheets was refused by the court.
The respondents had alleged that the documents being worked on by KPMG had been compromised.
But Mr Addison vehemently opposed the attempt, describing it as one of the cooked-up stories by respondents, generating heated arguments between counsel.

Day 21 – May 22, 2013 – Addison, Atuguba clash
Day 21 of the presidential election petition hearing ended on a sour note when counsel for the petitioners and the presiding judge entered into an altercation.
The fiery exchanges between Mr Addison and Mr Justice Atuguba were so serious that sitting had to end abruptly, with the Bench reminding lawyers of its authority.
Tension soared, tempers flared, but the court eventually had its away and stuck to its unanimous decision to reject petitioners’ attempt to introduce re-categorisation of irregularities at 203 polling stations.

Day 22 – May 23, 2013 – General Mosquito denies irregularities in elections
The General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, began his evidence-in-chief and denied claims of irregularities during the polls.
He led evidence on four categories of irregularities as spelt out by the petitioners and rebutted each of them.
For instance, Mr Nketia stated it was not true for Dr Bawumia to state that polling stations were recognised by their serial numbers and explained that in his 34 years of observing elections in the country, polling stations had always been recognised by their names and unique codes, adding that serial numbers did not impact on the results of elections.
Mr Nketia, who is popularly called General Mosquito, stated that polling station names and codes were crafted such that anyone conversant with elections would recognise polling stations by letters of the alphabet, except I, for each of the 10 regions of the country.
Led by Mr Tsikata, the general secretary advanced evidence to rebut allegations of over-voting, voting without biometric verification, blank spaces on pink sheets, no signature on pink sheets and voting at unknown 23 polling stations.
He is expected to continue on Tuesday, May 28, 2013.

Asokwa pink sheet shot down

 May 24, 2013 (Front Page)

An attempt by counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, to tender in evidence a pink sheet from one of the strongholds of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) to prove allegations of bad faith on the part of the petitioners backfired when the Supreme Court overruled the move.
Mr Tsikata had sought to lead the General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, to tender in evidence a pink sheet from the MA Primary School Polling Station at Asokwa in the Ashanti Region to buttress the NDC’s claim that the petitioners deliberately relied on the strongholds of the NDC to make claims of irregularities when, indeed, similar irregularities had occurred at some of their strongholds.
Objecting to the tendering of the pink sheet, counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, argued that the document had not been properly laid before the Supreme Court to warrant Mr Tsikata referring to it.
He also argued that the NDC had not pleaded the documents in its affidavit.
The court sustained Mr Addison’s objection.
Immediately after the court’s decision to uphold the objection, Mr Tsikata prayed the court to allow him to tender it in evidence.
At that point, Mr Addison objected again, on the grounds that the April 2, 2013 ruling of the court had directed all parties in the petition challenging the legitimacy of President Mahama to tender in evidence as exhibits all documents they wished to rely on during the hearing.
He submitted that the Asokwa pink sheet was not part of the documents the NDC had pleaded to rely on and for that reason if the court allowed it it would amount to the court no longer relying on its April 2, 2013 order.
“It is not part of their case. There is no mention of this document. We have closed our case and are now being confronted with fresh documents. Under the circumstance, we pray the tendering of the document should be disallowed,” Mr Addison emphasised.

Mr Tsikata responds
Replying to Mr Addison’s objection, Mr Tsikata reminded the court that on May 22, 2013, it allowed the petitioners to tender in evidence a list of 704 polling stations which had been deleted from polling stations where the petitioners alleged irregularities.
He, therefore, maintained that the document was relevant because it had been identified as a statement of poll and declaration of results at an identified polling station, adding, “The relevance of the document cannot be contested.”
Mr Tsikata said it was part of the NDC’s case that the issues in contention related to 26,002 polling stations and it was also important for the court to take cognisance of the NDC’s pleadings that the petitioners had acted in bad faith.

Mr Addison rebuts
Rebutting Mr Tsikata’s argument, Mr Addison indicated that the list of 704 polling stations was already in evidence, and added, “We are not talking about relevance here; it is about abiding by the rules of the court.”
“They are trying to do a case behind our back,” Mr Addison added.

The Ruling
The presiding judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, took some minutes to go through the court’s record book to locate the April 2, 2013 ruling.
He conferred with his colleagues after locating the ruling and eventually announced the sustenance of Mr Addison’s objection on behalf of his colleagues.
Other members of the panel 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.

The Petition
The hearing of the substantive petition, which has the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, as petitioners, began on April 17, 2013.
The petitioners have alleged that the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election was fraught with malpractices of over-voting, non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers or their assistants, voting without biometric verification and duplicated serial numbers of pink sheets.
However, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC have denied that any such irregularities occurred during the election.

General Mosquito denies irregularities during polls

 May 24, 2013 (Front Page)

The General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, on Thursday, May 23, 2013, began his evidence-in-chief in the presidential election petition at the Supreme Court and denied claims of irregularities during the polls.
He led evidence on four categories of irregularities as spelt out by the petitioners and rebutted each of the allegations.
For instance, Mr Nketia stated that it was not true for the star witness for the petitioners, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, to state that polling stations were recognised by their serial numbers.
He explained that in his 34 years of observing elections in the country, polling stations had always been recognised by their names and unique codes, adding that serial numbers did not impact on the results of elections.
Mr Nketia, who is popularly called General Mosquito, stated that polling station names and codes were crafted such that anyone conversant with elections would recognise polling stations by letters of the alphabet, except I, for each of the 10 regions of the country.
He said, for example, that the code number for the Brong Ahafo Region begins with G, while those for the Greater Accra and the Ashanti regions began with C and F, respectively.
According to him, no polling agent, as far as he was concerned, had received training on serial numbers as security features.
Led by the lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Mr Nketia refuted allegations of over-voting, voting without biometric verification, the call for the annulment of votes at the polling stations which had the same serial numbers, no signature of some presiding officers on some pink sheets, as well as voting taking place at some 23 unknown locations.
He gave contrary evidence to the petitioners’ claim and stated that each of the alleged infractions was false and made in bad faith.
Testifying on behalf of President John Dramani Mahama and the NDC, Mr Nketia formally informed the court that the President had given him the power of attorney to testify on his behalf.

Over-voting
Responding to the petitioners’ claim that over-voting was recorded during the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential poll, the witness replied that there was nowhere that over-voting took place.
To him, over-voting meant the number of ballot papers in ballot boxes exceeded the number of people at a particular polling station and stated that in that particular instance, there was no complaint from any polling agent, as well as an indication that any polling agent had registered any form of protest.
Reacting to Dr Bawumia’s claim that over-voting meant ballots cast exceeded the number of ballots issued, Mr Nketia said, “I have heard of it. This is the first time over-voting has been defined that way in my 34 years of observing elections in this country.”
In any case, Mr Nketia stated that he was not aware of anyone filing a formal complaint at any polling station with regard to the issue of over-voting.

Voting Without Biometric Verification
On the petitioners’ allegations that some voters were allowed to vote without undergoing biometric verification, Mr Nketia indicated that it was not true and further pointed out that he was not aware that there was any formal complaint in that regard.
Touching on allegations that the President directed the EC to allow persons to vote without undergoing biometric verification, he disagreed with assertions that that statement amounted to instructing the EC, adding that several prominent personalities also appealed to the EC not to disenfranchise anyone because of biometric verification.
Mr Nketia further indicated that the petitioners’ party also issued a counter press statement, adding that the EC eventually declined the request to allow persons to vote without undergoing biometric verification.
The witness was shown copies of some pink sheets which said persons voted without undergoing prior biometric verification but he repudiated that assertion and attributed such errors to “clerical errors”, adding, “All polling agents have certified these results.”

Polling Stations with Same Serial Numbers
Reacting to calls by the petitioners for some votes to be annulled because some polling stations had the same serial numbers, Mr Nketia said the petitioners did not appreciate how voting was organised and explained that polling stations where special voting took place had two declarations of results on double pink sheets.
He described special voting as polls conducted for persons who would not be available at their various polling stations on the day of polls and further indicated that sorting and counting of ballot papers for those special votes were not done until the close of polls on voting day.
Mr Nketia indicated that in that instance, one would find same polling station numbers and codes on two pink sheets but different signatures of polling agents and presiding officers, adding that every political party knew in advance areas where special voting took place.

Blank Spaces on Pink Sheets
Touching on allegations by Dr Bawumia that blank spaces on pink sheets gave room for over-voting, Mr Nketia denied that assertion and said, “Blank is blank.”
He also explained that such blank spaces could also be attributed to clerical errors and further pointed out that there was no protest recorded on any pink sheet.

No Signature on Pink Sheets
Witness admitted that the EC had trained polling agents and presiding officers to sign pink sheets after the declaration of results and then forward the sheets to the collation centre.
He stated, however, that nowhere had a presiding officer lodged a formal complaint on why he/she had not signed a pink sheet.

Voting at Unknown 23 Polling Stations
Rebutting the petitioners’ claim that voting took place at 23 unknown polling stations, Mr Nketia said that was not true because the alleged polling stations were all part of the originally designated 26,002 polling stations.
He further explained that polling agents of the petitioners and the other polling agents were all present to observe elections at the said unknown locations.

Preamble
The witness said he had been involved in meetings of the Inter-Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) prior to the conduct of the December 2012 presidential and parliamentary elections and at those meetings the modalities and processes to be adopted before and during the elections had been spelt out and agreed upon by the Electoral Commission (EC) and political party representatives.
He said 52,004 people were selected and trained to represent the NDC at all the 26,002 polling stations across the country.
He explained that two agents were deployed to each polling station across Ghana to ensure that: persons who were not entitled to vote did not vote, there was no multiple voting, no one tampered with the content of ballot boxes, focus on the tally of votes cast to avoid cheating, as well as ensure that electoral officers conducted their duties in accordance with the rules that apply to the elections.
Mr Nketia also indicated that all the political parties were involved in the printing of ballot papers and indicated that the NDC had three shifts which stood by every eight hours for 24 hours during the printing of the ballot papers to ensure that extraneous materials were not introduced into the ballot papers.
He said the move was also to ensure that ballot papers tallied with polling station codes and further indicated that representatives of the various political parties were also allowed to track the distribution of ballot papers to the various regions, constituencies, districts and polling stations.
He also informed the court that the EC organised training for all agents of political parties and went ahead to show the court a copy of the guidelines issued by the EC for the conduct of the polls.
The witness also took the court through the voting process he underwent on voting day and was asked if he visited other polling stations on the day of the polls.
But counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, objected to that line of evidence on the grounds that it was immaterial and had not been pleaded to by the President and NDC.
Mr Tsikata responded and indicated those issues had been pleaded and were, therefore, relevant to the determination of the case.
The court, in a 5-4 majority ruling, overruled the objection.
Mr Nketia is expected to continue his examination in chief on Tuesday, May 28, 2013.

The Petition
The hearing of the substantive petition, which has 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, as petitioners began on April 17, 2013.
The petitioners have alleged that the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election was fraught with malpractices of over-voting, non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers or their assistants, voting without biometric verification and duplicated serial numbers of pink sheets.
However, President Mahama, the EC and, the NDC have denied that any such irregularities occurred during the election.

Amicus Curiae
The hearing of a motion for review filed by Mr Tony Benony Amekudzi, the lawyer whose application seeking to pray the court to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the President cannot be sued, has been adjourned to May 28, 2013.

  

Amekudzi calls for review (May 23, 2013)

Lawyer Benony Tony Amekudzie The Supreme Court will Thursday, May 23, 2013) hear an application for review by Mr Benony Tony Amekudzi, who is seeking to challenge the petition contesting the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.

---

The original application of Mr Amekudzi, a lawyer, was thrown out by the Supreme Court on May 3, 2013 because he did not follow the rules of the court.
According to Mr Amekudzi, who filed the original application as a friend of the court (amicus curiae), the President cannot be sued while in office.
He is arguing that the judges were wrong in ruling against a constitutional matter he had placed before them as a friend of the court.
Mr Amekudzi had on May 3, 2013 claimed that the application was brought in the interest of justice, protection of the rule of law and fairness that when certain cases were being adjudicated upon by the court, a friend of the court could be entertained to assist on legal points.
But the court dismissed his application because he did not follow the rules of court.

Atuguba, Addison in hot exchanges - Over list of 203 polling stations

 May 23, 2013 (Front Page)

Day 21 of the presidential election petition hearing ended on a sour note when counsel for the petitioners and the presiding judge entered into an altercation.
The fiery exchanges between Mr Philip Addison andwere so bellicose that sitting had to end abruptly with the bench reminding lawyers of its authority.
Tension soared, tempers flared but the court eventually had its way, and stuck to its unanimous rejection of the petitioners’ documents which sought to introduce re-categorisation of irregularities at 203 polling stations.
Mr Addison’s beef was that he could not comprehend why the court should sustain his questions on re-categorisation of irregularities at the 203 polling stations but disallow the petitioners to tender documents which bordered on the re-categorisation.
Although the bench made it clear that it would not allow Mr Addison to re-introduce the document which had been rejected by the bench, following an objection from lawyers for the respondents that it did not bear any exhibit number, Mr Addison stood his grounds, and urged the court to reconsider its decision, and allow the petitioners to properly label the document and re-tender it today (Thursday, May 23, 2013).
The nine-member panel had sustained objections from the lawyer for the President, Mr Tony Lithur, counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, and the lawyer for the Electoral Commission (EC), Mr James Quashie-Idun.
The basis of Mr Tsikata’s objection was that the list did not have any relationship with matters that had arisen during the cross-examination of Dr Bawumia to warrant it being tendered in evidence as an exhibit.
According to counsel, the attempt to smuggle in what should have been done during examination-in-chief was not appropriate and must, therefore, not be entertained by the court.
Mr Lithur added that the document did not indicate which exhibit it was emanating from.
But Mr Addison explained that the document contained the list of re-categorisation of polling station codes and serial numbers and added that his side could not maintain the old exhibit numbers because the categories had changed.

“The Exchanges”
After the court’s rejection of the documents, Mr Addison informed the court that what it (court) had done amounted to “overruling” its own earlier ruling.
Mr Justice Atuguba expressed the feelings of his colleagues and said, “We allowed you to follow proper procedures which you did not do properly.”
But Mr Addison indicated that “we are talking about substantial justice here,” and accordingly prayed the court to give the petitioners leave to come back today (Thursday, May 23, 2013) with a properly labelled document.
Apparently losing patience with Mr Addison, Mr Justice Atuguba’s seethed:  “You did not withdraw and we voted on it,” adding that “if you had retreated we could have probably considered that.”
Mr Addison at a point pleaded with the court to use its discretion but Mr Justice Atuguba replied that “the matter has been ruled upon”.

No Dictation to Bench
At that point some members of the bench began packing their personal belongings in apparent gesture that the court had closed for the day, while Mr Addison stood on his feet and queried if the petitioners should take it that the re-examination had been curtailed by the court.Philip Addison, Counsel for petitioners
Mr Addison’s phrase “through the back door”, which was in reaction to the court’s decision not to allow the tendering of the list for 203 polling stations, infuriated Mr Justice Atuguba, who blurted that there was a limit the bench could tolerate the bar and virtually bellowed, “We cannot take dictation from the Bar.”
 “We are not dictating to the bench. We want to lead further evidence on re-categorisation,” Mr Addison emphasised, but that comment seemed to have been the last straw that broke the camel’s back as Mr Justice Atuguba threw caution to the wind and affirmed, “We have heard you. We understood you. You cannot insist. The matter is closed.”

“The Reporting”
The situation was so intense that counsel for the President, Mr Tony Lithur, had to report Mr Addison to the bench for refusing to hand over the documents to a court clerk to be marked as rejected.
According to Mr Addison, there had been instances where rejected documents of the respondents were not tendered in evidence but Mr Lithur expressed surprise with Mr Addison’s comments and urged him (Mr Addison) to “show respect to the bench”.
Mr Justice William Atuguba spoke on behalf of his eight other colleagues who showed signs of closing for the day, while Mr Addison stood on his feet to demand that justice be served on the petitioners.
His call for the interest of justice seemed to have infuriated the panel the more and this was exhibited through Mr Justice Atuguba, who reminded counsel that he had had the opportunity and had exhausted it.

Election Petition - GEN.MOSQUITO TAKES OVER BATON

The General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, will, today, May 23, 2013, testify in the petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the 2012 presidential election at the Supreme Court.
General Mosquito, as he is popularly called, is expected to give his evidence-in-chief to affirm his party’s position that President Mahama was legitimately elected in the December 2012 presidential poll.
He takes his turn after Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, the star witness for the petitioners, had completed his evidence-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination which spanned the period April 17, 2013 to May 22, 2013.
General Mosquito has been given the power of attorney by the President to testify on his (President’s) behalf.
 Mr Asiedu Nketia, who is the star witness for President Mahama and the NDC, on April 15, 2013 deposed to an affidavit in the form of evidence.
He is expected to rely on his affidavit during his examination-in-chief and cross-examination by counsel for the petitioners.
The power of attorney from President Mahama is dated April 15, 2013 and is currently among the exhibits presented to the court by the President and the NDC.
The affidavit, dated April 15, 2013 and filed at the Supreme Court Registry, stated that President Mahama was the duly elected President of Ghana and won in eight out of 10 regions in the country and for that reason “the announced results, therefore, demonstrated the will of the Ghanaian people”.

The NDC’s Affidavit in Support
The affidavit went on to state that the NDC won 148 out of 275 seats in Parliament, thereby attaining a clear majority in Parliament, as against the NPP’s 123 seats.
It said the process of voting on the two days had been testified to by polling/counting agents representing the President and the NDC, who had testified from personal knowledge in affidavits which had been filed before the court as to what took place in each polling station where petitioners had claimed something went wrong.
The processes of voting, sorting and counting of ballot papers and the declaration of results were done openly and in the full glare of the public, observers and the polling/counting agents of the various parties, the affidavit said.
“There were procedures by which any party who was dissatisfied with the results or any of the processes of voting could, on the spot, lodge a written complaint. In most of the polling stations in respect of which the petitioners have raised issues in this petition, the 1st petitioner’s polling/counting agents signed the pink sheets, documenting the declared results without raising any complaint,” it  said.

The Petition
The petitioners — the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP,  Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey — filed the petition on December 28, 2012.
They are alleging that the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election was fraught with malpractices of over-voting, non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers or their assistants, voting without biometric verification and duplicated serial numbers of pink sheets.
However, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC have denied that any such irregularities occurred during the election.

 Reaction to Annulment of Votes
Reacting to the petitioners’ call for the annulment of 4,670,504 votes, the affidavit said upon counting and examination of the pink sheets submitted by the petitioners in proof of their claim, the President and the NDC found the total number of pink sheets submitted by the petitioners “is 8,621 and not the 11,842 alleged in the affidavit filed by 2nd petitioner nor the 11,916 polling stations as alleged in the 2nd amended petition of petitioners and confirmed by counsel for petitioners in open court”.
It said out of the 8,621 pink sheets, 115 had absolutely no data on the basis of which any of the petitioners’ allegations, the subject matter of the petition, could be supported.
According to the affidavit, “further 373 were duplicated, adding that there was no logical, arithmetical or other basis upon which the petitioners came to the conclusion that 4.6 million votes cast in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election should be annulled”.
“The petitioners’ claims are not supported by the documents they have submitted in support of their case. Also, their statements about the malpractices, irregularities and omissions they alleged have not been consistent with each other,” it stated.
On the various forms of irregularities cited by the petitioners, the President and the NDC have responded to each allegation as follows:

Over-voting
It said in respect of all the pink sheets exhibited on over-voting, in no instance did the petitioners allege that the valid votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters at the polling station, adding, “What the petitioners are alleging to be instances of over-voting are in reality patent clerical, and sometimes, arithmetic errors in recording, which have no material effect on the actual votes publicly cast, sorted, counted and recorded.”
According to the two respondents, a number of the pink sheets did not support in any manner the allegation of over-voting.

Biometric verification
According to the affidavit, based on accounts of the NDC’s agents at the polling stations, no voter voted without prior verification.
“The affidavits sworn to by our polling agents and filed before this Honourable Court confirm that in all the polling stations in respect of which they swore their respective affidavits, voters were biometrically verified before they were permitted to vote,” it stated.
On the President’s statement referred to by the petitioners that where there were still challenges with the fingerprint verification machines, voters be allowed to vote without prior fingerprint verification, the affidavit explained that the President’s statement was a reflection of his recognition of the constitutional rights of Ghanaian citizens.
“In any event, the statement of 1st respondent (President) was not the basis of any decision of officers of 2nd respondent (EC) in conducting the elections,” it held.
Different results on pink sheets having the same polling station code
The affidavit said the EC had explained that where polling stations had been used for special voting which preceded the general voting, two separate results would appear on the pink sheets with the same polling station code, one representing the results of the special voting, the other those of the general voting.

Unknown polling stations
On the issue of voting taking place in 23 polling stations outside the recognised 26,002 polling stations, the respondents held that all the said polling stations existed and were all part of the 26,002 that were created by the EC for the conduct of the December 2012 elections.
According to the affidavit, the petition was an act of bad faith and brazen attempt by the petitioners to find some reason to question the validity of the December 7 and 8 presidential elections after they had lost.
“Throughout the period after the close of polls, media houses throughout the country announced results as they were declared and reported tallies, which were consistent with the final results declared by 2nd respondent,” it pointed out.

7,000 Plus witnesses for NDC and President
Per the April 2, 2013 order of the Supreme Court which ordered the parties in the petition to file sworn affidavits, more than 7,000 witnesses have given evidence in the form of sworn affidavits to back the legitimacy of President Mahama.
The evidence of the witnesses is also in support of the NDC’s claim that its candidate, President Mahama, won the elections fairly.
The witnesses are mostly voting and counting agents who were on duty at the various polling stations cited by the petitioners as among the places irregularities took place.
A total of 250 boxes containing affidavits from the 7,000 witnesses who were drawn from the regions, constituencies and polling stations where alleged electoral malpractices took place are currently in the custody of the Supreme Court Registry.

 

How do you rate the speed of Ghana's Justice system?
Excellent Good Slow Too Slow