Daily Guide Newspaper

KPMG Finds 13,900 Pink Sheets

Reports reaching DAILY GUIDE indicate that KPMG, the reputable international accounting firm chosen by all the parties to count the number of Pink Sheets used as exhibits in the landmark Presidential Election Petition, has found 13,900 of the documents.

It was unclear as at the time of going to press if the exercise had been completed, but it was likely to confirm the petitioners’ case that they, indeed, attached the 11,842 as exhibits.

The Brouhaha

The issue of how many pink sheets were attached as exhibits in the case became very contentious with the respondents insisting that they did not receive all the further and better particulars as directed by the court.

The request to count the pink sheets was initially made by the National Democratic Congress (NDC), before the court. With the consent of all the parties in the petition, an order was given by the court for an independent referee to conduct the exercise.

Just as KPMG commenced the exercise in the presence of two observers each from the parties as ordered by the court, the NDC, through its lead counsel Tsatsu Tsikata, came to court with a story that the exhibits had been compromised and that the boxes containing the pink sheets had increased from 24 to 31.

In fact, the allegation over whether or not the boxes of the exhibits had been tampered with started right after the court’s sitting on Monday, May 20, when news broke that Mr. Tsikata, Tony Lithur who represents President John Dramani Mahama and later James Quarshie-Idun representing the Electoral Commission (EC), had gate-crashed the venue for the counting and requested the Supreme Court panel chairman Justice William Atuguba to review the order of the court.

According to Mr. Tsikata, there were alleged criminalities involved and as a result, they would prefer an extended control mechanism that would take into consideration copies served on at least two panel members to compare that with the pink sheets at the court’s registry.

The issue of whether the petition was being unduly delayed had come up strongly since Mr. Tsikata took over the cross-examination of the principal witness, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, who is also the 2^nd petitioner. And many were of the view that the brouhaha over the pink sheets was part of the ploy to drag the process.

Mr. Tsikata, whose client came into the petition by way of a joinder, was in his 13^th day of cross-examination even though NDC’s co-respondents including President John Dramani Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC) used about three days each to conclude a similar exercise.

Just as he was winding up on his cross-examination, he brought another motion, seeking to cross-examine some of the witnesses who filed affidavits in support of the petitioners’ case; but the court threw him out, together with President Mahama and the EC who made similar applications.

Mr. Tsikata however, had always denied criticisms that his style of cross-examination was designed to delay the process, often accusing the petitioners of presenting exhibits that forced the respondents to ‘dig deep’ in order to counter the petitioners’ claims.

When the NDC complained to the court, the nine-member panel chaired by Justice William Atuguba rejected their attempt to halt the counting exercise.

The court ruled that KPMG should continue with the exercise and any concerns that would be raised by the parties incorporated into the final report.

The accounting firm had the duty of “specifying in respect of each pink sheet, polling station name and its code number and exhibit number if any,” the court stated.

“In doing so the said referee should make a true and faithful count of the said exhibits of pink sheets according to and under the various categories of alleged electoral malpractices in issue before this court.”

The court said the professional fees to be charged by KPMG should be shared equally between the parties and added that each party was at liberty to choose two representatives for the counting exercise as observers.

KPMG, however, opted to do the counting free of charge.

By William Yaw Owusu

Minority Raises Red Flag

The Minority Leader, Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu (left) addressing the press. With him is Dr Akoto Osei

The Minority in parliament has raised serious concerns over the real intent of the ruling National Democratic Congress(NDC) government to secure the $3 billion Chinese loan facility, which it says has so many lapses that could be a sure avenue for some government officials to enrich themselves.

At a press conference yesterday, the minority said the nation stood to lose about $500 million to some individual pockets, if those loopholes were not checked by parliament.

The minority has, therefore, called on the government to, as a matter of urgency, re-negotiate the terms of agreement with their Chinese counterparts because at the end of the day the Ghanaian taxpayer, who would be paying for this commercial loan, deserved real value for money.

Leading the minority in the press conference, the minority leader, Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu, said since the Master Facility Agreement (MFA) was signed for the loan in 2011 during the tenure of late President Atta Mills, the minority in parliament had raised a lot of red flags over some specific requirements and conditions in the loan agreement, which according to them if ignored would be inimical to the interest of Ghanaians.

According to him, the MFA guarantees a minimum of 60 per cent of all contracts under the loan, which would be awarded to the Chinese company and on top of it many of the projects are to be built, operated and transferred to Ghana stressing that the contractor in this case has become the investor and that the operator or the contractor will recoup his investment before transferring.

“We want to call on the government to re-negotiate this aspect of the agreement and make it that a maximum of 60 per cent of the contracts should go to Chinese companies while the remaining 40 per cent will be for Ghanaian companies since the minimum being pegged at 60 could even mean that blanket 100 per cent of the contracts could be awarded to Chinese companies,” he indicated

The minority explained that feasibility studies done on most of the projects to be undertaken under loan were done in a rush and that government officials could not give clear ceiling on the cost of the various projects, raising suspicion of possible perpetration of fraud and corruption in the management of these projects.

He said, for instance, that the agreement for the construction of coastal fishing harbours and landing sites would require between $150 and $250 leaving a room of $100 million, the Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Transport Project cost pegged between $150 million and $500 million leaving a room of $350million while the Accra Metropolitan ICT-Enhanced Traffic Management Project also left a room of $50 million stressing that the three projects could potentially be executed at the cost $450 million instead of $950 million which had been captured as the cost of the projects in the loan.

“The looseness of such broad banding would certainly create room for consultants and contractors to inflate the cost of projects,” he said, adding that government through this is also creating space for corruption and fraudulent manipulation of project cost which will not yield real value for money for the taxpayer.

The minority also raised issue about the fact that the $3 billion Chinese loan covered the Accra Metropolitan ICT-Enhanced Traffic Management and aspects of the Nsawam road, the Dodowa and La Beach roads, yet the Minister of Finance said in the budget that the Finance Ministry had raised bonds to pay contractors on these same projects.

“On the issue of raising bonds to finance these projects captured under the Chinese loan, the Finance Minister did not even come to parliament for approval to raise these bonds,” the minority leader noted, pointing out that it was required of the minister to come to parliament to brief members about the state of indebtedness to the contractors, now that he is also seeking to use part of the Chinese loan to cover the same programmed roads, otherwise there could be double payments for the same work done.

The minority leader also indicated that the Master Facility Agreement (MFA) for the Chinese loan provided for the collateralisation of the nation’s oil revenue which the Petroleum Revenue Management Act restricts and, therefore, the loan was in blatant breach of this Petroleum Revenue Management Act.

“The Chinese are lifting our oil even though the loan is not in and this is very serious,” he noted, adding that for the Minister of Information to come out last Thursday and say that the Chinese loan would soon be in despite all these genuine concerns by the minority was most unfortunate.

The Minority leader said there were serious difficulties with the Chinese loans and, therefore, the loan agreement should be brought back to parliament for reconsideration.

According to the minority, the Gas Project which has started and is scheduled to be financed by the Chinese loan is currently in limbo.

“Our information is that as of now, the gas project is the only project that has started in earnest and even that one has run into some challenges and works were halted by the Chinese,” the minority leader said.

The minority, therefore, served notice to the Minister of Finance that he would be summoned before parliament to answer why the gas contract was being executed while the subsidiary agreement relating to the project had not come to parliament.

“Our request for the gas contract to be brought to parliament for scrutiny and possible approval has so far not been heeded to in obvious contravention of Article 181 (5),” he said

Present at the press conference were some members of the minority including Dr Anthony Akoto Osei, MP for Old Tafo; Prof. Gyan Baffour, MP for Wenchi; Ignatius Baffour Awuah, MP for Sunyani West and Isaac Osei, MP for Subin.

By Thomas Fosu Jnr

Pastor Swindles Teenagers

Pastor David Sunday

A Nigerian who claimed to be a pastor has been arrested for swindling a 19-year-old girl.

Police said he tricked the teenager to hand over her parent’s jewellery and money to prevent the premature death of 12 members of her family.

The young lady at the centre of the scam whose name was being withheld for security reasons was made to part with jewellery worth GH¢5,000 and a total cash amount of GH¢2,750.

Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Stephen Kofi Ahiataku, Adentan District Police Commander informed DAILY GUIDE that at about 10:00am on February 1, 2013, a stranger approached the young lady for assistance to pay for his transportation cost.

“The young lady who had pity on the stranger gave him GH¢5. But he told her that he was not a Ghanaian and that he would need help to sell some goods he had brought to Ghana.”

The stranger who reportedly gave his name as Patrick said his goods included laptops and phones but when the young girl accompanied him to Labone junction for the said goods, they were met by another young man with brown envelops which he claimed could be transformed into money.

After demonstrating how the brown envelop could be changed into money by simply rubbing it in the arms, the young lady protested that she was only there to help sell laptops and phones and not to change paper into money.

The two gentlemen later took GH¢20 from the young lady and asked her to accompany them to Achimota, a suburb of Accra to meet another man who would give them money to pay her back.

On arrival, they met one Pastor David Sunday, 48, who started telling the young lady about her encounter with the young men but unknown to the teenager, he was the lead trickster.

The alleged kingpin then informed the young lady that 12 of her family members would die prematurely if he did not pray for her.

He convinced the lady to first give him whatever money she had, “So she went to the bank and withdrew GH¢130 for them,” said the Commander.

After the prayers, the pastor ordered her to go home and bring some more money and all the jewelleries in the house since they had been contaminated by bad spirits “and that she was not to mention it to anybody or risk losing her life instantly”.

According to the Adenta Commander, the lady obliged and returned with an amount of GH¢2600 which belonged to her parents and all the family jewellery including gold ornaments which she handed over to the pastor in a hotel.

The pastor asked the teenager to wait for him in the room whilst he went to a different room to pray over the items and the money. However, the man bolted with his booty.

After waiting for a while and calling his phone several times to no avail, the teenager called the first stranger who told her she had been scammed.

The case was then reported to the Adenta Police but while investigations where still ongoing the teenager, on May 13, at about 1:00pm met Pastor David Sunday and raised the alarm.

With the help of some drivers and conductors at a lorry station the pastor was grabbed and handed over to the Adenta Police Station.

In his statement to the police, the pastor initially denied but later confirmed the young lady’s story.

The pastor told the police he arrived in Ghana in 2010 and lived at Nsakina, near Ablekuma where he worshiped with a local church.

DSP Ahiataku advised the public to be wary of tricksters.

By Emelia Ennin Abbey and Linda Tanya

2 Teens Raped In Robbery Attack

Darlington Tamakloe, Emmanuel Kwesi Aidoo and Collins Takyie( the rapist) in police custody

Three suspected armed robbers, who unleashed their libido on two sisters after a robbery attack last Friday at Adentan, have been grabbed by the police.

The suspects are Collins Takyei , 24 year old electrician, Darlington Tamakloe, 45 year old plumber, and Emmanuel kwesi Aidoo.

Suspect Collins Takyei was identified as the suspect, who violently raped the girls who are 16 and 17 years respectively.

The suspects are now in police custody awaiting trial.

Narrating the story to the media, DSP Stephen Kofi Ahiatafu, the Adenta District Police Commander said the incident occurred on May 17, 2012 around 2am.

The victims live with their parents at their self-contain apartment at Aben wo aha near Adenta.

The three young men, on that fateful day, entered the room of the victims wielding a cutlass and two locally manufactured pistols.

The suspects then robed the victims of some assorted beverages including three tins of Milo and Nido together with other assorted drinks.

In the process, suspect Collins Takyei violently raped the two sisters in turns.

The victims, according to the police commander, could not shout for help because they were threatened by the suspects with the cutlass and pistols.

After having three rounds of oral sex with each of the girls by Takyei, the suspects bolted.

The following morning the two girls spotted suspect Emmanuel Kwesi Aidoo in their area.

Together with their parents, the victims reported the matter to the police for action.

Suspect Emmanuel was grabbed on Tuesday may 14, 2013 by the police for questioning.

Upon interrogation, Emmanuel initially denied the allegation but later confessed to the act.

Suspect then mentioned suspects Collins Takyei and Darlington Tamakloe as his accomplices.

The two were also arrested the following day by the police.

The two girls identified suspect Collins Takyei as the one who raped them during the raid.

Parents of the victims also revealed to the police that the girls forgot to lock their main doors that fateful day.

The district commander urged parents to let the security of their homes be paramount to them.

By Linda Tenyah & Emelia Ennin Abbey

‘Amicus Lawyer’ Files For Review

Benony Tony Amekudzi

A staunch member of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), Benoni Tonny Amekudzi who sprang a surprise at the Supreme Court recently when he attempted to be part of the Presidential Election Petition as friend of the court, has filed an application for review before the court.

Amekudzi, who is said to be a ‘returnee’ lawyer from America, was thrown out by the court on the basis that his application seeking to be friend of the court (Amicus Curiae) was not properly before it.

The application was slated for yesterday when the 1^st and 3^rd respondents through NDC General-Secretary Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah mounted the witness’ box to open their defence but the court adjourned the process until Monday May 27, for it to be moved.

However, in view of Monday being a statutory public holiday, Justice William Atuguba, chairing the nine-member panel that had thrown out the application, said it would rather be moved on Tuesday May 28.

It would be recalled that on March 5, 2013, a strange spectacle unfolded at the Supreme Court when Mr. Amekudzi sprang up with his application.

Lawyers on both side of the petition have barely finished introducing themselves when an unknown lawyer; Benoni Tonny Amekudzi sprang to the floor to lay a motion before the court.

In a loud voice, spiced with ample gesticulation and an exotic accent, Mr. Amekudzi, without going through the standard procedures, launched himself at the bewildered panel and tried to move a motion to the effect that a sitting President could not be sued or joined as a defendant or a respondent to a lawsuit or petition.

It was unclear how he sneaked himself into the front row where the case was being argued, as he was usually spotted sitting behind the NDC executives and having the same accreditation as the NDC members.

When he sprang to his feet, lawyers from all sides of the divide looked at him in disbelief for such an audacious diversion of attention from the matter currently being argued in court.

He did so by circumventing the standard processes of filing for such motions in the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, the standard procedure is for such an application to be accompanied by an affidavit. Mr. Amekudzi had none.

The bewildered court audience shifted uneasily and murmured in amusement at the motion that Mr. Amekudzi was seeking to smuggle into the fray. The lawyer claim he was filing as Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) because his motion was in the supreme interest of the general public.

Members from the legal teams of the petitioners and respondents were asked their views on the on Mr. Amekudzi’s intervention.

Counsel for the petitioners Philip Addison said “we do not think that this application is properly before the court….An Amicus Curiae brief is supposed to assist the court in determining a matter that is of public interest, in this instance, this application has been brought in support of the First Respondent and therefore it ceases to be an Amicus Curiae brief. It is partisan, it is intended to aid one side and that cannot be an Amicus Curiae. For that reason alone, we pray that this application be dismissed.”

Curiously, both the petitioners and the respondents overwhelmingly agreed with Philip Addison’s views. Counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Tsatsu Tsikata described the gate-crashing lawyer as an “Inter-meddler” who should not be allowed in the proceedings.

The Dismissal

Consequently, the Supreme Court threw out the motion arguing that since a petition was filed before a winner in a presidential election was sworn in, he could be sued in an election petition.

Reading the ruling, the Presiding Judge of the Panel, Justice William Atuguba said, “We are of the opinion that the intervention cannot properly be termed an application to present an Amicus Curiae brief, it being in support of one party represented already by counsel…” He quoted Article 64 of the 1992 Constitution and Constitutional Instrument 16 (CI. 16) relating to the application.

“As much as an election petition in any rate can be commenced before the person becomes President and being sworn into office, the application is therefore dismissed,” Justice Atuguba concluded.

Upon hearing the ruling, Mr. Amekudzi, having burnt up his gusto, stood up and bowed before he left the front row to the back row of the court.

On Tuesday May 28, he would have his day once more in the Supreme Court in front of live television while Ghanaians wait to see if he would be lucky with his curiae brief application this time.

By William Yaw Owusu

Akosua Cartoons

NDC Pink Sheet Bounce

Captain (rtd) Kojo Tsikata congratulates an excited Johnson Asiedu Nketia (General Mosquito) after court yesterday

An attempt by the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) to tender a pink sheet in support of their case that the presidential election petition has been brought in bad faith, backfired when the document bounced in court yesterday.

Indeed, the same document (MA Primary School Polling Station at Asokwa Constituency in the Ashanti Region) had been tendered, for the purposes of identification, by Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the NDC on his 5^th day of cross-examination of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, the 2^nd petitioner in the case.

At that time, Mr. Tsikata had said he was trying to prove a case that over-voting also occurred in the strongholds of the petitioners’ party, NPP, therefore, in his estimation; the petitioners had brought the petition in bad faith.

Interestingly, the NDC as 3^rd respondent together with President John Dramani Mahama (1^st respondent) and the Electoral Commission as 2^nd respondent have all vehemently denied that over-voting occurred during the December 7 & 8, 2012 general elections; a position they had held right from the time the petition was filed.

Even Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah, the NDC General-Secretary who is being led in his evidence-in-chief on a power of attorney from President John Dramani Mahama as 1^st petitioner, insisted in the dock that there was no over-voting and even added that even if indeed it happened, it was a “clerical error.”

The Funny Side

The NDC General-Secretary’s testimony was spiced with intermittent smiles and gestures.

At one point, there was spontaneous laughter in the courtroom when Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah made a request for the calculator used by Dr. Bawumia to put figures together during his cross-examination.

He had mentioned 100 in answer to a tally of ballots on a pink sheet when asked to assess one of the petitioners’ claims regarding over-voting.

Realising that he might have given a wrong figure to the court, he quickly told the court that the figure should have been 1,000 saying “perhaps I could borrow Dr. Bawumia’s calculator”.

In another instance, when he appeared to be confusing the court with his reference of respondents instead of petitioners and vice versa, he remarked that “I am a village palm-wine tapper testifying in court,” generating more laughter.

The Rush

In his eagerness to parry the respondents’ allegations, Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah would not even allow his counsel to conclude a question on a letter written by the NPP Chairman to the EC when he started referring to a statement purportedly made by the EC Chairman instead, and had to be brought back on track by Mr. Tsikata.

Seeking to tender the pink sheet, which was later rejected in the court generated heated debate between Mr. Tsikata and Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners.

Exchanges

Counsel: Have a look at this document which was identified during the cross-examination of the second petitioner (Hands the witness the exhibit). Now, what is the nature of that document that you have identified as ID 1.

Witness: My lords, it is the pink sheet of the polling station relating to MA Primary School, Asokwa with polling station code, F 191201.

Counsel: Now, you indicated that from the polling station code, you could identify where a polling station is. From the code of that polling station, are you able to tell what region or constituency it was?

Witness: Yes, my lords, it’s evident from my narration that F is Ashanti Region.

Addison’s Objection

Counsel: Now, that sheet, does it have relevant information in respect of the December elections? ….

Mr. Addison: My lords, I object to this question. It is a question that goes to the content of a document that is not in evidence.

Counsel: My lords, I’m clearly laying the foundation to tender this document and the question that I asked was whether the sheet on its face has any information relevant to the election. That is a necessary basis on which this document can be tendered, therefore, my lords it is important for the witness to be able to testify that that sheet relates to the December elections….So my lords, this is clearly a relevant basis for proceeding with the tendering of what has already been identified…(Amidst heightened sense of anticipation in the courtroom, the judges conferred in a bid to giving a ruling on whether that document can be tendered or not. In the process, Mr. Addison rose to re-emphasise his objection)

Mr. Addison: My lords, we object to the tendering of the document. The attempt to tender this document is in contravention of the directions of this court given on 2^nd April, which directed the parties to attach to an affidavit to all documents they would be relying on. This is a document that the first and third respondents clearly are relying on as part of their case and so it should have been properly attached to their affidavit….They have attached documents they are relying on, and this document is not one of them. Allowing this document would mean that the directions of your lordships no longer holds. The petitioners complied with your lordships’ order, indeed, as a result of the order of your lordships; the petitioners went through quite some difficulties in compiling the pink sheets. My lords, in attaching the document that the petitioners would be relying on, sufficient notice was afforded the respondents who then reacted to it in their affidavits, there was no mention of this document in the affidavit of the first and third respondents; it is not part of their case. We have closed our case, and we are now being confronted with such documents, in the circumstances, we pray that the tender of this document should be disallowed.

Counsel: My lords, yesterday in this court, the petitioners tendered a list of 704 polling stations as an exhibit in this proceeding. That list was not part of any affidavit that was sworn before you and your lordships allowed that list, clearly because of its relevance, so with the greatest respect, in the same manner as a relevant document was submitted by the petitioners after the stage of the affidavit being sworn, we are submitting that this document is a relevant document identified as a statement of poll and declaration of results at an identified polling station. My lords, the relevance of this document cannot be contested because on its face the identified document- it was identified during the cross-examination-, on its face the identified document is a statement of poll in respect of a particular polling station in this country. My lords, it is part of our case that the issue in contention relates to 22,002 polling stations because it in respect of 26,002 polling stations that a declaration of result was made. We have also pleaded the selective manner in which pink sheets have been provided by the petitioners in this case, and in the affidavit that has been filed, there is an indication that the petition is brought in bad faith (quotes paragraph 27 of the amended answer of the third respondent). We have pleaded that in bringing the petition before the honourable court, the petitioners are acting in bad faith… (Again quotes paragraph 17 of the affidavit of the third respondent). The exhibit that we are seeking to tender is a relevant part of our case as pleaded and as indicated in the affidavit.

Mr. Quarshie-Idun: My lords, I would like to make an observation, since a reference was made to the decision of the court made on the 2^nd of April….As regards the tendering of documents, it will also affect the second respondent, but I can wait and make my submissions later…

Mr. Addison: We raised an objection; counsel [Mr. Quarshie-Idun] if the objection is ruled on, you can give your observations to the court. Respectfully, with the leave of the court, I would like to [address] certain issues raised by my learned friend. It is about the 704. My lords, the list of 704 polling stations are part of the 11, 842 polling stations to which pink sheets were attached to our affidavit, so they are matters that were already in evidence. They were also in the Further and Better Particulars, so there is full knowledge of that list by the respondents. My lords, we are not talking about the relevancy of the document here-it is not about relevancy-, we are saying that there’s been directions from this court as to the conduct of this petition and we have abided by it and we have closed our case following those directions. Now, the first and third respondents by bringing this document are setting up an entirely new case behind our backs. The paragraphs referred to in their affidavits made no reference to this document and they further alleged that they are trying to establish “Bad faith”. Again, no particulars of bad faith were given in their affidavit for the petitioners to react to it; no such particulars were given.

Counsel: My lords, may I, with your leave, just draw your attention to what your order said and how we understood your order. My lords, that order made it clear that we could tender the document that was identified in cross-examination of the second petitioner. That order was in very clear terms and that is why I limited myself just to establishing relevance of the document in terms of your order. It was because of that that we did not proceed to tendering it through the second petitioner during cross-examination, but we were allowed to questioning him in relation to the ID1 and that order has not been set aside….(Judges continued to consult among one another for a final ruling on the issue. Eventually, Justice Atuguba announced the ruling)

Justice Atuguba: Very well, the objection is sustained.

Mr. Addison: My lords, the document has to be marked as “Rejected”…

Justice Atuguba: Yes, I think that must be done.

Prologue

Led in evidence by Mr. Tsikata, the NDC General-Secretary popularly called General Mosquito told the packed court that he was testifying on behalf of both President Mahama and the NDC because the ruling party sponsored the President in the December 2012 general elections.

He said as the General-Secretary of the NDC, he was deeply involved in all the meetings the political parties held with the EC in the run-up to the election.

“I led the 3^rd respondent’s team to the Inter Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) meetings and was involved in all the processes.”

He told the court that he was also involved in the planning, recruitment and training of the NDC party agents and added that they had 52,004 polling agents, which meant they were able to position two each at every polling station.

Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah said the agents were trained to play four key roles namely: check impersonation, multiple voting, ensuring nobody tampers with the ballot papers in the ballot box and making sure election officials conducted their duties in accordance with the rules on election day.

He said he had been involved in elections in the past 34 years either as candidate or an agent, and in respect of the 2012 general election, played a key role for his party.

He mentioned the determination of the positions of candidates on the ballot papers, review of the outcome of the Biometric Registration Exercise, printing of ballot papers and how to manage issues on election day as some of the key issues that were discussed at IPAC meetings.

He recounted how the Biometric Voters Register was compiled and how the EC told them about the total number of those registered as the provisional data and how the EC said it was going to conduct a mop up exercise as well as registration of some Ghanaians abroad.

He told the court that the voters register kept changing and said it moved from 13,917,366 to 14,158,890 and then to 14,031,680 adding at one point at IPAC meeting all the parties settled on 14,031,680 as the figure for the election.

Printing Ballot Paper

Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah told the court that in the printing of ballot papers, the NDC as well as all participating political parties and other candidates were involved in the process saying “there was 24 hour monitoring of the printing”.

He also said that the packing, distribution up to utilisation of the ballot papers were strictly monitored by all the parties and said they all tracked the distribution process.

Election Day

He said on election day, the party’s agent undertook specific assignment by focusing on the tally of votes of all candidates and said the agents monitor sorting of ballots, counting and declaration of the results and added that every party was given the analysis of ballot papers.

He told the court that he was the first person to vote at his polling station in Seikwa in the Tain District before visiting about 20 other polling stations across three regions.

He said he went through the Biometric Verification devise before casting his ballot and took steps to show the court how the process of casting ballot was done but Mr. Addison cut in to object saying the 1^st and 3^rd respondents had not been pleaded.

“What he is doing is completely outside his pleadings before this court. There is nothing in the pleadings mentioned. They filed 7200 affidavits from their witnesses but did not say this.”

Mr. Tsikata countered that the witness in his pleadings made mention of the evidence he was leading and he was recounting his personal knowledge.

The court in a 5-4 majority decision with Justices Julius Ansah, Rose Owusu, Annin-Yeboah and Sulley Gbadegbe dissenting, overruled the objection and asked Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah to proceed.

He admitted that because of the problems encountered as a result of the malfunctioning of the BVR machines, the EC had to conduct further elections the next day.

He recollected the meeting with the Ghana Peace Council where all the parties and the EC were present and added that the NPP had impressed on the commission to suspend the declaration of the results due to reported irregularities, malpractices and violations but EC eventually went ahead to declare it.

He stated emphatically that there was nowhere in all the 26,002 polling stations where over-voting took place saying, “I haven’t seen evidence of voters voting without verification…I disagree with the petitioners. If they say there was over-voting. I don’t know which figures they are referring to.”

Same polling station with same result

Counsel: There is one other category under which the petitioners are seeking to allege that there were irregularities in this election; that is the category they say the same polling station code with different results, what do you have to say in respect of that?

Witness: My lords, in reading the petition, I came across this allegation. Again, my lords, I consider it to have come from a situation where the petitioners are not appreciating how voting is done because on a careful study of the polling stations it is alleged that there are double pink sheets, you realise that these were polling stations that were used for Special Voting. In any polling station that special voting took place, at the end of the elections, you would have two (2) statements of poll and declaration of results. F1 indicates the results of special voting and then the second one indicates the results of the regular voting. So my lords, I have looked at the allegation and I have confirmed that all the cases where it is being alleged that there is double pink sheets, they relate to polling stations that were used for special voting.

Counsel: And what does special voting mean?

Witness: My lords, special voting is voting that is conducted to allow persons whose duties on the voting day would take them away from the normal polling stations, such that it would be difficult for them to cast their vote. A list is made of such persons and then the second respondent conduct elections for them. This special voting is special only in the sense that it happens before the voting day and the counting, sorting and declaration of results are not done on the day of voting, otherwise, everything about special voting is like the regular voting…

Changing Allegations

Counsel: In your affidavit, you have actually claimed that the representatives of the New Patriotic Party have made changing allegations about the alleged irregularities and malpractices which they claimed accounted for their defeat, what do you mean by that?

Witness: My lords, before the close of polls, representatives of the NPP started indicating that there were malpractices and this happened after the same representatives have come out to acclaim the result as free and fair and that nobody should come out to contest the outcome. The second respondent should be allowed to do their work without fear or favour.

Not long after that, there were other press statement that there were malpractices all over, and that the results are not acceptable. I believe this came when it became evident that the NPP and the first petitioner was losing the election. After that, I remember the claim they made at the second respondent’s office were contained in this document. Subsequent to that, they came out after the declaration making all sorts of things that were substantially different from any other claims they had made in the past, including the allegation that voting took place outside this country and that the external votes were inflated by a certain number-more than 200,00 votes. They hanged onto this, then at a later time, the claim was dropped and then they started claiming that the result has been padded….they kept changing the claims, so my lords, in this courtroom, we have witnessed the changing of claims for each passing day…

Definition of over-voting

He said his definition for over-voting is simply when the number of ballot papers in the ballot box is more than the number of registered voters in a particular polling station.

Serial Numbers

In his eveidence-in-chief, Bawumia had said that serial numbers are not “decorations” on the pink sheet and that the EC paid “good money” to go through tender in order to uniquely attach a serial number to a polling station code or name.

“The only number that comes embossed on the [pink sheet] is the serial number. It is the feature just as you have for cheques or passports. The serial number is a security feature and if you breach that, you compromise the elections,” he had explained.

However Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah disagreed and said the 2^nd petitioner’s claim was not correct and that serial numbers could not be primary documents in the election.

He said there were only two ways to identify polling stations and it comes by the name of the polling station which was invariably related to the locality and code numbers of the polling station.

He said that an experienced polling agent could identify the polling station by observing the code number.

He went ahead to give the alphabetical manner in which the EC has assigned polling stations in all the regions adding that Western Region is identified by ‘A’, Ashanti Region by ‘F’ and Brong Ahafo Region by ‘G’, among others.

By William Yaw Owusu & Raphael Ofori-Adeniran

Continue reading Comment »

General News