Home > Politics
 
Addison accuses Afari-Gyan of "causing financial loss to the state "
From: Ghana|Myjoyonline|Edwin Appiah          Published On: June 13, 2013, 10:56 GMT
 
  Comments ()     Email     Print  

 
 
Audio Attachment: Listen to excerpts of court proceedings
 


     
 




Addison accuses Afari-Gyan of

Chairman of the Electoral, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan


Petitioners’ counsel Philip Addison has accused the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan of causing financial loss to the state for printing 54,000 pink sheet booklets when only half of that number was needed.

The lawyer for the Petitioners in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition hearing made the charge when he was cross-examining the EC's witness, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on the number of pink sheets printed during the 2012 presidential and parliamentary election.

The Electoral Commission purportedly printed 54,000 pink sheet booklets but used about 26,000.

The witness explained that the situation arose because the EC expected a higher number of presidential candidates than actually participated in the elections.

Addison probed further by asking if the EC printed a duplicate set of pink sheets for the Parliamentary elections in view of the contentious creation of 45 new constituencies.

Afari-Gyan in answering, said there were many blank sessions on the pink sheets and so the EC did not print a duplicate set for the Parliamentary elections.


Addison inquired from Afari-Gyan what he intended to do with over 27,000 pink sheet booklets. The witness replied the Commission would keep them.

At this point, Philip Addison suggested “by printing a duplicate set of pink sheets for the presidential elections 2012, you have in fact caused financial loss to the State”.

Justice Akoto-Bamfo immediately intervened and ordered the witness not to answer the question.

Dr. Afari Gyan explained an “element of wastage” was built into the administration of elections.

It is Day-33 of the hearing of the Presidential Election Petition at the Supreme Court.



Comments ( ): Have Your Say >>