Lead counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison had a hectic time in soliciting responses during his re-examination of the star witness, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, in the ongoing election petition at the Supreme Court: the court overruled almost every question of his.
His re-examination was bombarded with intense objections from counsel for the first and third respondents, with occasional support from the second respondent’s counsel on Wednesday.
All objections raised against his questions were sustained except two which included the categorization of some of the polling stations, which the witnessed had admitted during his cross-examination that there were issues with labelling.
Even with this, counsel for the respondents objected to the tendering, positing that some polling station names might have been smuggled in because the exhibits have no numbers. The objection was sustained, and according to the court Addison took a "bad gamble", and failed to "follow proper suit".
His persistence to be given a chance to come back tomorrow with a properly labelled exhibits, was not entertained by the court.
Mr Addison, in his re-examination early on, asked the witness whether it was true from his analysis as suggested by counsel for the respondents that he only used “favourable polling stations”.
This was strongly objected to by counsel for the first respondent, Tony Lithur, who argued that there was no ambiguity in the witness’ answer during cross-examination. He asserted Dr Bawumia's answer was clear.
The court did not take the argument by Addison that it was not limited to ambiguity, but also on issue of bad faith. By a majority decision of 6-3, the objection was sustained.
Addison proceeded to ask the witness to identify 11 out of 20 polling stations bothering on duplicated serial numbers which was in his further and better particulars he stated during the cross-examination.
But counsel for the third respondents, Tsatsu Tsikata, objected saying the witness identified the specific polling stations. President of the panel of judges, William Atuguba also indicated he had a record of the 11 identified polling stations. Addison then refrained from continuing with his question.
Again, Philip Addison wanted Dr Bawumia to make some changes in the categorization of some of the polling stations as a result of quality control and further scrutiny. But this was yet again objected by Mr Tsikata.
Mr Tsikata contended that the pleading of petitioners have not been amended, adding that their testimony in respect of quality control was specific and that it is not open in re-examination to seek questions set out already. He therefore argued that changes may require him to do another cross-examination.
James Quarshie-Idun, counsel for the second respondent, and Tony Lithur concerted to Tsikata’s argument.
Mr Atuguba however told the court judges “reserve their ruling”: the objection was subsequently overruled.
However, Mr Addison continued saying his witness was called dishonest so many times, and asked Dr Bawumia to tell the court how he arrived at his 11,158 to show there was no double counting.
Once more Lithur and Tsatsu said the issue of methodology is irrelevant.
The objection was sustained by 5-4.
Mr Addison therefore told the court that subject to the deferred ruling, he was done with his re-examination.
However he was successful in tendering in the further and better particulars of Dr Bawumia, which preceded the re-examination.