.... 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.

Election petition - Parties make more demands

January 25, 2013 (Front page) Apart from the fierce courtroom battle which ensued in the past week, parties in the petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential election are making a number of demands from one another. The Electoral Commission (EC), which presided over the election and is the second respondent in the petition; President John Dramani Mahama, who has been dragged into the petition as the first respondent and the petitioners themselves are all demanding additional documents to enable them to put up solid cases. While the President and the EC have requested the petitioners to provide them with names and codes of the 4,709 polling stations, constituencies and regions where alleged electoral irregularities took place, the petitioners, on the other hand, have requested the EC to provide them with details of the names and addresses of people who were registered overseas and the mode and manner in which those people 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 the political parties between 2010 and 2012, as well as the special voters list used in the 2012 presidential election. In any case, correspondence between lawyers for the petitioners and the EC clearly indicates that it is only the Supreme Court that can resolve the matter. For instance, a letter dated January 11, 2013 and signed by Lynes Quashie-Idun and Co and addressed to solicitors for Nana Akufo-Addo is asking the petitioners to furnish the EC with additional particulars on how the petitioners arrived at the conclusion that 1,342,845 votes had been rendered invalid by reason of irregularities recorded during the elections. The EC’s solicitors stated, “In view of the allegation of fraudulent intention or other condition of mind contained in Paragraph 26 of the petition, we also request particulars of the deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the respondents with the ultimate object of unlawfully assisting first respondent to win the December 2012 election.” Paragraph 26 of the petition states, “The petitioners say that all of the irregularities and electoral malpractices captured above were nothing but a deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the respondents with the ultimate object of unlawfully assisting the first respondent (President) to win the 2012 December presidential election.” However, solicitors for the petitioners, in a reply dated January 15, 2013, said, “In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to await the second respondent’s formal application for the order of the court and better particulars.” The Registrar of the Supreme Court has been copied with the correspondence between the EC and the petitioners. To buttress the decision of the petitioners not to release any further particulars until directed to do so by the court, Nana Akufo-Addo, in an affidavit in opposition to the EC’s request for further and better particulars, 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”. The NDC, which was allowed to join the petition as the third respondent, has since been served with the amended petition to reflect it (NDC) as the third respondent in the petition, which has the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, as the contestants of the election results. 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 arbiter in the case, which happens to be the Supreme Court, is expected to hear the motion for further and better particulars from lawyers for the EC and the President on January 29, 2013. It will then decide whether or not to grant the motion from the two sides. The petitioners, on the other hand, can also apply to the Supreme Court to direct the EC to furnish them with the needed documents if the EC does not meet their demands. The highest court of the land will fix a date for hearing of the substantive matter after all preliminary legal issues are resolved. Hearing is expected to be held on a daily basis, including weekends and holidays. Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74) provides in part as follows: "The Court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays," for a speedy disposal of a presidential election petition. By virtue of provisions in the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), the matter will be determined once and for all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision, although the 1992 Constitution gives the court the mandate to review its own decisions. A former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo, is leading the 10-member legal team for the petitioners, while Mr Tony Lithur and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata are leading a number of lawyers to make a case for the President and the NDC, respectively. The EC is being represented by Mr James Quashie-Idun. Security will continue to be tight until the final determination of the case, which is being witnessed by only accredited persons.

Prez Mahama requests further particulars - On 4,709 polling stations

January 24, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) PRESIDENT John Dramani Mahama is praying the Supreme Court to order the petitioners challenging his declaration as the winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential polls to provide “further and better” particulars on the 4,709 polling stations where election irregularities allegedly took place. He is pleading with the court to order the petitioners to state “the name and code of each of the four thousand seven hundred and nine (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 these polling stations falls and the exact nature of the alleged irregularity and/or malpractice at each of the said polling stations”. President Mahama said the court ought to order the petitioners to supply him with particulars of the alleged irregularities “in the interest of promoting a fair, open and efficient trial” and accordingly prayed the court to strike out “all allegations and paragraphs of which the petitioners fail to give particulars”. Premising his motion on notice for further and better particulars under Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74), the President is making additional request for the total number of polling stations and/or constituencies where votes cast in favour of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, were unlawfully reduced. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, which had Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, as petitioners, stated, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations favoured President John Dramani 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 the Electoral Commission (EC), which organised the elections, has denied the claims and insisted the results declared were accurate and credible. But President Mahama is urging the court to order the petitioners to provide the name and code of each polling station where it was alleged that 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 motion, which was filed on the President’s behalf on January 22, 2013, is further urging the court to order the petitioners to state the number of votes cast in favour of Nana Akufo-Addo in the said polling station and/or constituency, as well as the total number of polling stations and/or constituencies where votes cast in favour of President Mahama were alleged to have been “illegally padded”. He is seeking an order directed at the petitioners to furnish the court with “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” in his favour. “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 1st Petitioner” is also being requested by the President. President Mahama, who insists he won the elections freely and fairly in the presence of the media, domestic and international election observers, is asking the court to order the petitioners to cite “the name and code of each polling station, constituency and region where it is alleged that voting took place without biometric verification”, as well as the number of voters in each polling station who voted without biometric verification. The applicant is further urging the highest court of the land to state the name and code of each polling station, constituency and region where voters allegedly voted without undergoing biometric registration, among others. Touching on allegations that Superlock Technologies Limited (STL) allegedly tampered with election results, the President is asking the petitioners to “state in what manner it is alleged that the election results were tampered with through the involvement of STL in respect of which polling stations and constituencies and how many votes are alleged to have been so tampered with in relation to each”. Included in the President’s request are the name and code of each polling station where it was alleged that there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the declaration forms, as well as mention the names of polling stations where it was alleged that there was over voting. An additional information being requested by the President is “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”. An affidavit in support of the motion deposed on President Mahama’s behalf by his Campaign Co-ordinator, Mr Elvis Afriyie-Ankrah, said he had the consent and authority of the President to swear to the affidavit. The affidavit in support said under the applicable rules of procedure, the court had the power to order a party to supply particulars of facts material to its claim and to the reliefs it sought to an opposing party in the interest of promoting a fair, transparent and efficient trial. “I am advised by counsel and verily believe that whenever a party’s pleadings allege matters such as irregularity and malpractice, the facts supporting these must be stated with particularity,” the affidavit in support pointed out. It argued that how the petitioners arrived at the number of votes they seek to have nullified, added to or subtracted from those declared for President Mahama were all material in determining whether or not there was a basis for the reliefs sought by the petitioners. The affidavit in support pointed out that “no vote can be nullified more than once even if multiple irregularities were established in respect of that particular vote and that it is necessary for the petitioners to clarify, by providing particulars, whether or not the multiple permutations of irregularities/malpractices they allege involve a claim to have any votes nullified more than once”. It argued that where allegations or imputations of fraud or misconduct were attributed to “a party or to persons alleged to be acting on his or its behalf, that party ought to be provided with precise particulars of the acts alleged and the basis on which they are attributed to him or it and that given the allegations that the petitioners make, they ought to be ordered to supply the particulars sought with respect to these allegations” in order to prevent an ambush litigation. The motion will be moved on January 29, 2013, the same day the EC is also expected to move its application for further and better particulars. In another development, the petitioners have amended the title of their petition to include the NDC as the third respondent and has since served it on lawyers for the President.

Challenge of sale of govt bungalow - Jake wins review case

January 24, 2013 (Front page) THE Supreme Court on January 23, 2013 unanimously affirmed its ruling that the Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, acquired a state bungalow legally. Delivering its ruling in a review application, the 11-member panel held that the applicants “failed to show there was an exceptional error” in the court’s May 22, 2012 decision which declared Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s purchase of the bungalow as lawful. “We would, accordingly, dismiss the application as unmeritorious,” Professor Justice S.K. Date-Bah said on behalf of his colleagues. But the President of the panel, Mr Justice William Atuguba, who had, in the earlier ruling, declared the acquisition illegal and a breach of trust, stated, “I reluctantly agree that the review be dismissed.” However, counsel for the applicants, Mr Kwabla Senanu, told journalists after the court ruling that he would pursue the matter further. “l will not let the matter go,” he said, adding, “I am going to the African Commission on Human Rights to seek justice for the people of Ghana because I have exhausted the legal system in Ghana.” On May 22, 2012, the Supreme Court, by a majority 6-3 decision, refused to pronounce as illegal Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s acquisition of a state property he once occupied as a minister of state. Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the applicants, who are the caretaker Deputy Minister of Information, Mr Samuel Okudzeto-Ablakwa, and the Minister-designate of Communications, Dr Edward Omane-Boamah, applied for a review of the court’s decision on the grounds that its earlier ruling amounted to a miscarriage of justice. But the court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Prof Justice Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu and Mr Justice Dotse, held otherwise. The other members of the panel were Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe, Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo and Mr Justice J. B. Akamba. According to the court, the applicants had a “major technical hurdle” to surmount in proving that there was an error on the part of the court in its May 22, 2012 ruling, adding, “The applicants could not convince the court to depart from its earlier decision.” It said the applicants could not establish the essential elements to prove that there had been a miscarriage of justice, adding that the applicants had failed to impress upon the court to depart from its earlier decision. According to the court, under Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, the applicants had the task to indicate the exceptional circumstance under which there had been a miscarriage of justice. They could not also indicate whether they had discovered new and material evidence which was not available before the conclusion of the trial and after due diligence. The court contended that it had “held time and again” that an application for review was not an appeal and must, therefore, not be treated as such in reference to the re-arguing of the case by the lawyer for the applicants, Mr Senanu. Counsel for Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, Mr R. O. Solomon, prayed the court to award costs against the applicants but it declined and reminded him that it was a constitutional matter. He also urged the court to give “consequential orders” to direct the state to register the land title in the name of Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, but the court directed him to follow laid down legal procedure. Accompanied by his wife, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey left the courtroom looking cheerful. The applicants, in 2008, sued the Attorney-General and Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey over the allocation of the bungalow at No 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge Residential Area in Accra to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, which he occupied at the time. They contended that Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s action contravened articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution, an action which they claimed smacked of cronyism and gross abuse of discretional powers of a public officer. They thus questioned the legitimacy of the sale, disposal or transfer of any government or public property to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, but the Supreme Court eventually held a different view.

Akufo-Addo opposes EC's request

January 23, 2013 (Page 3) THE presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 general election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has opposed the request by the Electoral Commission (EC) for further documents in the petition contesting the results of the presidential poll. He said the EC “ought not 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”. The EC filed a motion on January 15, 2013 praying the Supreme Court to direct the petitioners to furnish it with “further and better” particulars of polling stations the alleged irregularities took place. But Nana Akufo-Addo, who is one of the petitioners challenging the declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the polls, in an affidavit in opposition dated January 21, 2013, prayed the court to dismiss the EC’s request. Hearing of the EC’s motion for further particulars has been set for January 29, 2013. The petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, filed by Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, stated, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations favoured President Mahama. According to the affidavit in opposition, the EC already had in its possession originals of the declaration forms and for that reason it was needless for it to request for further particulars from the petitioners. 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, but the EC has denied the claims, describing the election results as credible and accurate. Joined to the petition is the winner of the presidential polls, President Mahama, who has also denied the petitioners’ claims and insisted he won the election freely, fairly and in the full glare of the media, domestic and international observers. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority decision, yesterday allowed the NDC to join the petition as a third respondent. The court was of the view that “it will be in the interest of justice” to allow the NDC to join the petition, since the outcome of the case will have a direct bearing on the party. According to the court, the fortunes of the NDC and those of the President were “tied together” and it was, therefore, important for the NDC to be allowed to join the petition to assist the court to get to the bottom of the matter.

COURT GIVES NDC NOD - To join NPP petition against presidential results

January 23, 2013 (Lead story) THE Supreme Court on January 22, 2013 gave the National Democratic Congress (NDC) the green light to join a petition challenging the declaration of President John Mahama as the winner of the December 2012 presidential poll. By a 6-3 majority decision, the court was of the view that “it will be in the interest of justice” to allow the NDC to join the petition, since it would be directly affected by the outcome of the case. According to the court, the fortunes of the NDC and those of the President were “tied together” and it was, therefore, important for the NDC to be allowed to join the petition to assist the court to effectively and completely determine the matter. “It will not be proper to say a party cannot be called to join when its candidate is being challenged. The NDC played a pivotal role in the nomination and election of President Mahama and it will certainly be in the interest of justice that the NDC be allowed to join the petition,” Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo stated in the court’s lead opinion. “The purpose of a joinder is to allow all matters to be handled once and for all,” she said, and accordingly described as “without basis” the attack on the rule under which the NDC applied for the joinder by the lead counsel for the petitioners. The six justices of the highest court of the land who gave the NDC the nod to join the petition as a third respondent were Mr Justice William Atuguba, the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. Those who did not find it “necessary and convincing” for the NDC to join the petition were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah and Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie. After a two-hour ruling, the court also ordered that the title of the petition be amended to include the NDC as the third respondent in the case. The parties in the case have seven days within which to serve the necessary papers on each other, as well as file the necessary documents, before the court convenes on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 to hear a motion from the Electoral Commission (EC) which is praying the court to order the petitioners to furnish it (EC) with “further and better particulars” to enable it to respond to allegations of manipulating the election results in favour of President Mahama. A petition filed on December 28, 2012 by the 2012 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 Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, is claiming that irregularities recorded in 4,709 polling stations inured to the benefit of President Mahama. President Mahama is the first respondent in the case, while the EC, the body that organised the elections and subsequently declared the results, has been joined as the second respondent. Following the filing of the petition, the NDC filed a motion three days later praying the court to allow it to join the case, with the argument that President Mahama stood on its ticket and it would, therefore, serve the interest of justice if it was allowed to join the petition. But Nana Akufo-Addo opposed the application and said the application for joinder would delay the hearing of the petition. The lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, on January 16, 2013, moved the application for joinder on behalf of the NDC arguing that it would serve the interest of justice to allow the NDC to join the petition but lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, opposed on the grounds that the joinder would delay the matter. Delivering its ruling at the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the court cited the 1992 Constitution and numerous legal authorities to reinforce its decision that it was imperative for the NDC to be allowed to join fully and not as a “spectator”. It said the 1992 Constitution and the Political Parties Act recognised the pivotal role of political parties such as the NDC and it would, therefore, “amount to injustice” if the doors of the court were shut on the NDC. Mr Justice Atuguba, who supported the lead opinion, said the applicant had rightly brought the application considering provisions in Rules 4(6),45(4) and 82 of the Supreme Court Rules (CI) 16 which should be read in conjunction with provisions in articles 63 and 64 of the Constitution. He said that it was a political party which sponsored candidates who contested presidential elections or public offices other than to the district assembles and that public officers envisaged under the Constitution included the President who occupied the highest public office in the land. Political parties, he said, had a constitutional right to organise political programmes in consonance with the Constitution and that the presentation of the President to the electorate by the NDC was in accordance with its programmes and objects. Justice Atuguba said considering provisions in Rule 45(4) of CI 16, the applicant had a very real interest to be joined to the petition, adding that it was better equipped with the facts in the matter than the President and was in a position to assist the court to unravel the issue in dispute. He said the court could not be intimidated by the number of witnesses to be called by the President. Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, who read the lead dissenting opinion, held that having read the lead opinion, he was still not convinced that the applicant was a necessary party that ought to be joined to the petition. He described the application as unmeritorious and proceeded to dismiss same, arguing that the principles for joinder were littered in several cases and the common thread in the authorities was the nature of relief as it affected the person to be joined and the avoidance of multiplicity of suits. He said the other denominator was whether the party was a necessary party, such that the joinder would effectively and completely enable the court to adjudicate on all matters in controversy. ‘’The applicant is an interested party and no more,’’ Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie held, and indicated that there was nothing that the applicant was a necessary party and wondered what it was that the applicant was taking to the table that the President did not know. He said there were absolutely no reliefs that were being sought directly or inferentially against the applicant, adding that having looked at all the laws, he could still not see how the applicant could be made a necessary party. Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said the action in the court was a straight fight between human beings and not political parties, for which the law was clear, and, therefore, allowing the applicant would be discriminatory, which the court should not entertain. The applicant, he said, had only demonstrated that it had an interest in the petition without any explanation demonstrating that it was a necessary party. He said the law was clear that no political party could challenge the declaration of presidential results as in a petition and that it was only human beings who could do that. According to him, a person who joined a suit acquired the rights and obligations of a defendant and could also counterclaim. He said if one did not have the capacity to sue, that person could as well not join a suit. Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said in the whole of Chapter Eight of the 1992 Constitution, nowhere is it indicated that a political party could challenge the removal of the President and, unlike Members of Parliament who, when they resigned from a political party had to resign from Parliament, the President could still maintain his position when he resigned from the party on whose ticket he won power. Mr Justice Anin Yeboah associated himself with the dissenting view and held that a joinder could be brought by either party to a suit or the court on its own motion but the test for a joinder was different from that of an intervener, as was the case of the applicant. He said the majority decision did not envisage that the applicant was a necessary party and whether its presence was essential for the effective determination of the suit. The applicant, he said, did not demonstrate that without it the court could not effectively and completely determine the case, while the rule on joinder did not provide for any joinder by intervener. He said the applicant also failed to satisfy the requirements of joinder by intervener and, therefore, its presence was unnecessary because without it the case could be dealt with by the court. Mr Justice Ansah also associated himself with the dissenting view and held that the application should fail because without the applicant the action would be contested without the presence of the applicant. Lawyers from both sides declined to comment on the court’s ruling, but the lead counsel for the petitioners, Ms Gloria Akufo, informed journalists that her team would work feverishly to serve the necessary papers on the parties in the case. The General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, expressed joy at the court’s ruling. The atmosphere in the courtroom was generally cordial as parties from both sides interacted with each other. A member of the NDC legal and communication team, Nana Ato Dadzie, and Mr Nketiah walked up to Nana Akufo-Addo for a brief but hearty chat while the court was not in session.

Agya Koo granted bail

January 22, 2013 (Front page) POPULAR actor in the local movie industry, Kofi Adu, popularly known as Agya Koo, said to have defrauded a number of people was yesterday granted a GH¢20,000 bail with two sureties by the Accra Circuit Court. His case was adjourned to today to enable the prosecution to correct defects on the charge sheet. Noted for his humorous comments, Agya Koo, who is alleged to have defrauded a number of people under the pretext of securing them visas to travel abroad, looked far from excited when an investigator escorted him into the courtroom. Clad in a black T-shirt over a pair of jeans, Agya Koo fumed and said in Twi, “Seize the camera. Does he think there are kids here?” when he saw a Daily Graphic photographer made an attempt to take his picture. While in the dock, Agya Koo appeared pensive and looked fixedly at Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ms Mary Agbozo, when she informed the court that the prosecution could not proceed with the case yesterday because there were anomalies on the charge sheet. She, therefore, prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable the prosecution to correct the said defects. Ms Agbozo said the prosecution was not asking the court to remand the accused, but intimated, “As I speak, there is a warrant in force for his arrest.” Counsel for Agya Koo, Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Darteh (retd), informed the court that the accused person reported himself to the police and for that reason he should be granted bail. “The accused person is a famous actor in Ghana. He has nowhere to hide and cannot hide,” Capt Effah-Darteh stressed. He also reminded the court that the offence his client was alleged to have committed was not rape, murder, robbery, defilement or any related first degree felony charge and, therefore, it was important for the court to grant him bail. Counsel explained that his client could not report himself as ordered by the court because he was on a government-sponsored trip to Abu Dhabi and received a call while boarding an aircraft that he was needed by the police. Under the circumstance, counsel explained, his client had no choice but embark on the trip and report himself to the police later. Agya Koo was placed in police custody last Friday until yesterday, January 21, 2013. After a publication of the bench warrant for his arrest in the Friday, January 18, 2013 edition of the Daily Graphic, 13 more people reported to the police that each of them had been defrauded of $1,850 by the comedian under the pretext of securing United States of America (USA) visas for them. writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

Joinder application: Court rules today

January 22, 2013 (Front page) THE first hurdle to the legal challenge of the results of the December 2012 presidential election will be cleared by a nine-member panel of the Supreme Court in Accra today. Presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, the court will decide whether or not to allow the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to join a petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as winner of the election. Other members of the panel are 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, the registrar of the Supreme Court is expected to fix a date for the hearing of the substantive petition and communicate it to parties in the case. The election petition, which has 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, as the petitioners, is expected to be heard on a daily basis per the new Supreme Court rules. Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) provides in part as follows: "The court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays" for the speedy disposal of a presidential election petition. By virtue of provisions in CI 74, the matter will be determined once and for all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision. Unlike in other cases where the Supreme Court is open to the public, attendance to the court proceedings is strictly by invitation and under very heavy security. On January 16, 2013, lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, moved the motion for joinder and prayed the court to allow his client to join the petition as a respondent because the name and the symbol of the NDC were displayed against President Mahama’s photograph, adding that it would “advance the interest of justice” if the NDC was made to join the petition as respondents. He denied assertions that the NDC’s application for joinder was intended to delay the petition and argued that the party filed its motion three days after the filing of the petition. Counsel for the President, Mr Tony Lithur, associated himself with the NDC’s application for joinder and, accordingly, prayed the court to grant it. The EC, for its part, declined to react to the application and left the matter to the discretion of the court. Opposing the motion, one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, said the motion for joinder would delay the trial and, therefore, draw back the purpose of the new Supreme Court rules aimed at expediting the hearing of petitions challenging results of presidential elections. The petitioners, on December 28, 2012, filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the election results on the grounds that the EC deliberately manipulated the results to favour President Mahama. But the NDC filed a motion for joinder on December 31, 2013, arguing that it was an interested party because the President stood for the elections on its ticket. The EC has debunked claims by the petitioners on the grounds that the election results were credible. President Mahama has also filed his defence and accused the petitioners of attempting to subvert the will of the people by calling on the Supreme Court to annul the election results. He also intends to call a record number of 4,800 witnesses. Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh.graphic.com.gh

Gbagbo ally faces more charges

January 18, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) TEN additional charges of robbery have been preferred against the former Spokesperson of former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, Justin Katinan Kone, who had initially faced 10 counts of robbery. However, the Presiding Judge at the Osu District Magistrate Court, Mr Aboagye Tandoh, yesterday advised the prosecution to relate the charges to Ivorian laws, since the alleged crimes were committed in Cote d'Ivoire. The state is currently praying the court to extradite Kone to Cote d'Ivoire to face criminal charges. At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Matthew Amponsah, indicated that his outfit had prepared the charge sheet and the facts of the case but conceded that the defence team had not been served. He then served a copy of the documents on counsel for Kone, Mr Patrick Sogbodjor. The judge then observed that although the facts of the case related to Ivorian laws, the charge sheet only quoted Ghanaian laws. He, therefore, suggested that the state should relate the charges to Ivorian laws. He also urged the state to furnish the defence team with relevant documents. Mr Tandoh stressed that the state had a duty to establish a prima facie case against Kone to warrant his extradition. He also tasked the state to find out whether or not Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana had an extradition agreement, since Mr Sogbodjor had argued that there was no such legal arrangement between the two countries. Hearing continues on January 29, 2013. An Ivorian court had, on August 16, 2012, issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Kone, who had been living in Ghana as an asylum seeker since April 13, 2011. The Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) District Magistrate Court, on October 24, 2012, discharged Kone on murder charges on the grounds that the police had failed to justify why he should continuously be held for murder under Ghanaian laws when the alleged murder was committed in Cote d'Ivoire. Kone was first put before the Osu District Magistrate Court on September 3, 2012 but was later arraigned before the AMA District Court on October 1, 2012 for allegedly murdering two Ivorians in March 2011. The accused person was picked up by the International Police Organisation (INTERPOL) Section of the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) of the Ghana Police Service on Friday, September 28, 2012, three days after he had been granted bail by the Osu District Magistrate Court. Kone is, nonetheless, enjoying the bail granted him by the Osu District Magistrate Court following his discharge on October 24, 2012. He was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on August 24, 2012 by operatives of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) following a warrant for his arrest issued by an Ivorian court to face robbery charges. Kone, who fled to Ghana after the collapse of Gbagbo’s regime, is alleged to have committed economic crimes when he was a Budget Minister during the three months of crisis and conflict that followed Gbagbo's refusal to cede power to his rival and current President, Mr Alassane Ouattara, in December 2010.

I'm not a member of NPP - Dotse

January 17, 2013 (Front page) A Supreme Court judge, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, has denied media reports that he is a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP). “I have never contested for any election on the ticket of the NPP, let alone polling station, constituency or regional offices of the NPP, while I was a lawyer,” he said. He was reacting to media reports attributed to a lawyer, Mr Abraham Amaliba, a member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) legal team, who had alleged that Mr Justice Dotse was a card-holding member of the NPP. Mr Justice Dotse said Mr Amaliba should have investigated the issue before putting it in the public domain. Citing Deuteronomy 20:3-4, Mr Justice Dotse accused Mr Amaliba of failing to adhere to the tenets of the law profession and said if those allegations were meant to “poison the mind of the public” against him, “I leave the rest to the Almighty God.” Deuteronomy 20:3-4 states: “He shall say: Hear, Israel: Today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not panic or be terrified by them, For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.” (New International Version) Speaking to a packed courtroom in the presence of his colleague judges, Mr Justice Dotse said he was prepared to recuse himself if the NDC had a “genuine and legal concern” against him. He said the said media reports were an “occupational hazard”, could breed “distrust” and “breach and destabilise the dignity of the independence of the Judiciary”. He urged Mr Amaliba and all persons peddling falsehood about his person to stop, since it was injurious to his reputation and that of his family, adding that it was crucial for him to “correct the misinformation”. The courtroom was quiet when Mr Justice Dotse stated his concerns. Other members of the panel which heard the NDC’s application for joinder were Mr Justice William Atuguba, President, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as panel members. Mr Justice Atuguba also clarified comments he had made on January 10, 2013 which took a swipe at persons he perceived to be casting doubt on the independence and integrity of the Judiciary. According to him, he only sought to emphasise the independence and integrity of the Judiciary and assured the public that the Judiciary would perform its role independently and creditably. The petitioners, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the NPP in the December 2012 polls; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, were present in court. One of the lawyers representing the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, had described President John Dramani Mahama's intention to call 4,800 witnesses as "intimidating and threatening". Counsel argued that under the rules of court, the President was not required to state the number of witnesses he intended to call. But the lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, justified the number of witnesses to be called. According to him, since the petitioners had alleged that irregularities had occurred in 4,709 polling stations, it was only fair for the President to call persons who were present at the said polling stations to testify. The petitioners are claiming that irregularities recorded in the December 2012 presidential election inured to the benefit of President Mahama.

NDC joinder to election petition - COURT RULES TUESDAY

January 17, 2013 (Lead Story) THE Supreme Court, has fixed January 22, 2013 to decide whether or not to allow the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to join a petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama winner of the December 2012 presidential election. The court arrived at the date after four hours 25 minutes of legal submissions. It took an hour for the lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, to justify why the NDC must be made to join the petition and an additional hour for the lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, to oppose the NDC’s application to join the case, which promises to be a landmark in Ghana’s legal history. An additional 40 minutes was expended on whether or not there was the need for lawyers for the petitioners to officially and openly withdraw their objection to the composition of the 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 as panel members. Prior to the hearing of the motion, Mr Addison had refused to openly withdraw the objection of the petitioners, namely, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 elections; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, on the grounds that he had not raised the objection in open court. Mr Addison insisted that his team did not make its objection to the composition of the panel in open court during the court’s sitting on January 10, 2013 and read out a letter dated January 11, 2013 which said the petitioners had withdrawn their objection to the composition of the panel. He argued that it was rather some members of the NDC legal team who publicly mentioned the name of the judge the petitioners were opposed to. After back and forth arguments between Mr Addison and Mr Tsikata, with occasional interventions from the judges, Mr Addison eventually stated, “I completely withdraw.” The remaining two hours 25 minutes was used on a 27-minute break, brief comments from some members of the panel, a series of legal arguments from lawyers in the case, objections, counter-objections, brief rulings from the bench, as well as legal interaction between the judges and the lawyers. The petitioners, on December 28, 2012, filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the election results on the grounds that the Electoral Commission (EC) deliberately manipulated the election results to favour President Mahama, but the NDC filed a motion for joinder on December 31, 2013, arguing that it was an interested party because the President stood for the elections on its ticket. Moving the motion, Mr Tsikata prayed the court to allow his client to join the petition as a respondent, on the grounds that the name and the symbol of the NDC were displayed against President Mahama’s photograph. “We seek to join the matter in the interest of justice because President Mahama was selected and agreed to stand on the platform after the death of Professor John Evans Atta Mills,” he said. He said it would “advance the interest of justice” if the NDC was made to join the petition as respondents. Responding to the petitioners’ affidavit in opposition, Mr Tsikata denied assertions that the NDC’s application for joinder was intended to delay the petition and argued that the party filed its motion three days after the filing of the petition. “All evidence point to our acting promptly,” he said, and further argued that President Mahama did not contest the election as an individual but on the ticket of the NDC. He further submitted that Dr Bawumia and Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey did not partake in the election as candidates, but had filed a petition and for that reason it was only fair that the NDC was made to join. Opposing the motion, Mr Addison said the application was completely unmeritorious and further argued that the NDC did not file its application under the proper rules of court. According to him, the motion for joinder would delay the trial and, therefore, delay the purpose of the new Supreme Court rules aimed at expediting the hearing of petitions challenging results of presidential elections. He further argued that the President was an Executive President and not there as the President for the NDC, arguing that such was the reason individuals could stand elections as independent candidates. Counsel maintained that nowhere had the NDC stated how it would be directly affected by the court’s decision on the petition and, accordingly, prayed the court to dismiss the motion. Counsel for the President, Mr Tony Lithur, associated himself with the NDC’s application and accordingly, prayed the court to grant it. The EC, for its part, declined to react to the application and left the matter to the discretion of the court.