Home > Politics
Bawumia cross examined in day three of the Election Petition Case
From: Ghana|Myjoyonline.com          Published On: April 18, 2013, 00:37 GMT
  Comments ()     Email     Print  


Bawumia cross examined in day three of the Election Petition Case

It is Day three of the substantive hearing of the Election Petition case in which three leading members of the NPP are challenging the verdict of the 2012 General elections.

President John Mahama was declared winner by the Electoral Commission and the NPP leaders are seeking to overturn the results.

In Day two of the hearing, Dr Bawumia who is a key witness for the petitioners led evidence to what he claims were gross violations of the electoral process, violations which inured to the benefit of the president who is the first respondent in the case.

The hearing had to be adjourned on the request of the counsel for the petitioners Philip Addison.

Day Three

10:00 The nine panel of judges have taken their seats; counsel for both the petitioners as well as the first, second and third respondents have done same.

1010 Dr Bawumia mounts the witness box and he is reminded of the oath he swore the day before. He continues with his evidence.

Counsel leads witness into the affidavits filed by the second petitioner (EC) and seeks his responses.

1041 Counsel: Have you seen affidavits of the respondents?

Bawumia: Yes I have seen the affidavits. Except for the names of deponents all of affidavits are the same and none of them addresses the issues.

Addison: How many polling stations did you look at in your observation.

Bawumia: 11,138. Witness asks if he could refer to his notes.

Counsel for the NDC, Tsatsu Tsikata requests that he provides the court with the notes he will be refreshing his mind with. Bawumia does so.

Bawumia goes ahead with his evidence and says he had to reduce the number of polling stations from 11 842 to 11, 138 because of challenges with a little over 500 pink sheets.

1055 Counsel asks if his variations in the number of polling stations will have an effect on the evidence he gave yesterday.

Bawumia admits there will be change in figures but insists those changes are insignificant and will not affect the germane issues raised yesterday.

He says for-instance that some 251,000 votes have been affected by the change and therefore instead of John Mahama having 39 per cent as he said yesterday, he would now have 40.29 per cent. And Nana Addo the first petitioner would now have 58 per cent instead of the 59 per cent figure he provided yesterday.

1100 Tsatsu Tsikata demands that witness presents to the court the updated documents he has been quoting from in the witness box.

Counsel for the EC Quarshie Idun also raises objection. He says the figures being provided by the witness is a variation of what he had early on presented to them.

Bawumia tenders in evidence the updated version of the documents.


1110 Tony Lithur Objects to the tendering of the documents. He says witness cannot amend his petition in the witness box. He asks the counsel on the other side to come by an amendment if it is the case they want to change figures. He says respondents have prepared responses for the figures brought yesterday and cannot be asked to vary the figures again. He pleads that witness comes with an amendment.

“This is serious business and must be approached seriously,” Lithur concludes

1115 Quarshie Idun also objects to the tendering of evidence of the amended documents and asks the witness to amend his pleadings as well.

1117 Tsatsu Tsikata says documents being submitted now is a contradiction of of what has been submitted on oath the day before.

Addison: Says we are not amending the documents. We have just abandoned part of the evidence. He says the reduction actually reduces the burden on the respondents and they should welcome it. He says the document is the witness’ own personal analysis of the figures he referred to and not an amendment.

Tsatsu springs up again and insists it is not an abandonment of the evidence but an amendment of the pleadings. He demands the highest ethical standards from his opponent.

Addison says they are not varying their case. He prays the court to admit in evidence the documents tendered by the witness.

1130 Court rises for a few minutes to rule on the matter

1210 Court returns from recess.

Judges overrule the objection raised by the lawyers for the respondents.

Philip Addison asks counsel for the NDC to render an unqualified apology having accused them of unethical conduct.

Tsatsu Tsikata stands by his words. Judges ask for proceedings to go on.

Philip Addison asked the witness what he wants the court to do.

Dr Bawumia in his response said, Supreme Court should declare that John Mahama was not validly elected president of the December elections, and that Nana akufo-Addo should be declared duly elected president of the 2012 elections.

Time for cross examination

Tony Lithur is up to begin his cross examination.

Lithur presents one of the pink sheets with the NBP 1297 and asks if the witness can identify it. He presents another NBP 1299 and ask if the witness can identify same.

Lithur accuses the witness of using the same pink sheets but with different numbers.

Bawumia denies it is a repetition and asks for a CDROM for confirmation. Lithur insists Bawumia did not use a CDROM in providing his evidence an therefore does not need a CDROM to provide answers to his cross-examination.

Lithur presents another set of pink sheets and asks if the witness can identify the documents.

Philip Addison pleads the court to allow his witness the opportunity to use the CDROM but Lithur vehemently rejects. He says it is Dr Bawumia who presented the copies of the pink sheets to the first respondent and if it is the case that there is a repetition of pink sheets he doesn't need a CDROM to answer that.

Lithur goes ahead to asks if witness can confirm if the same pink sheets have been used twice under different sets of alleged irregularities.

Bawumia says those documents were not used in the analysis.

Lithur again presents different set of pink sheets and asks witness to confirm them.

Bawumiah says he can confirm the counsel for the first respondent has received the same pink sheet twice but were not used twice in the analyses.

Lithur presents different set of pink sheets for the same polling station provided as exhibits by the petitioners and asks if the witness can confirm it.

Bawumia says he can confirm that different exhibit numbers have been given for the same polling station but assures they were not used twice in the analyses and that he will provide the court with the full details of figures in the 11,138 polling stations analysed.

Judge warns

1307 Judge issues a strong warning to persons to show civility in the court room. He says what is happening is not a football match for one party to cheer or hoot at another.

Lithur continues;

Lithur: I suggest to you Dr Bawumia that you deliberately used to two exhibits for the same polling station to increase the numbers.

Bawumia denies: I suggest to you that the two exhibits were not used in the analysis. He says the the difference in numbers for the same polling station exhibits is because one of the exhibits was generated manually and the other generated electronically.


1315 Court goes on recess to return at 14 Hrs GMT

1405 Court resumes

Bawumia returns to the witness box and he is reminded of his oath.

Tony Lithur continues from where he left off by providing different pink sheets for the same polling station. He asks witness to confirm if the different pink sheets have been presented for two polling station.

Bawumia answers in affirmative, explaining that there was electronic and manual coding system and that is the reason for the different numbers but insists only one polling station figure was entered.

1415 Lithur presents two sets of pink sheets both of which he said were manually filled but had different exhibit numbers for the same polling station and represents different sets of irregularities outlined by the witness in his petition.

Bawumia affirms the fact that the exhibit numbers were manually filled and represent the same polling station but reiterates the fact only one polling station was entered in the analyses.

Judge interjects. He says counsel for the first respondent (John Mahama) is being repetitive in his line of cross examination and says if it the case counsel wants to attack the credibility of the figures provided he could do so.

Lithur insists it is necessary to lists all the repetitive polling station pink sheets provided by the witness because it has the potential to substantially undermine the claim by the petitioners that they have won the elections. He goes ahead with his cross examination.

He provides another set of pink sheets with different exhibit numbers and asks if the witness can confirm.

Bawumia confirms but says it was only entered once and assures the judges and the court that the computer will vindicate his position.

Lithur: I suggest to you that these figures were entered more than four times in the analysis.

Bawumia: You are free to suggest, but it was only entered once.

At this juncture counsel for the first respondent is presenting several cases in which pink sheet exhibits have been differently labelled by the petitioners under different heads of alleged irregularity and the answer from the witness has been the same.

Statute of Limitation

1600 Judge draws the attention of the counsel that his "statute of limitation" is up and should round up.

Lithur says he has seven of similar cases left and pleads the court to finish with them. Judge grants him the opportunity.

Counsel continues with the routine and presents another set of pink sheets with different exhibit numbers but for the same polling station and this time with two different signatures at the back of it.

Bawumia confirms the the signatures but denies knowledge of how it came about.

Deception of Court

Lithur then tells the court that witness deliberately duplicated the pink sheets in order to deceive the court.

Bawumia insists he did not deceive the court and will later show that these figures were entered once in the analysis.

Case adjourned to Monday April 22, 2013

Comments ( ): Have Your Say >>