Counsel for the Petitioners Philip Addison is set to take Chairman of the Electoral commission Dr. Afari-Gyan through another round of cross-examination today.
The Presidential Election Petition continues into Day 41 Tuesday. The Petitioners yesterday supplied the witness a set of pink sheets to inspect and study for cross-examination.
Addison is set to ask questions on these sheets.
While this remains the focus of today’s cross-examination, the sideline is heavy with anticipation of a showdown on the contempt charge dangling over the NPP General Secretary Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie. Anything can happen Tuesday.
As usual, Myjoyonline.com brings you live update all through today’s proceedings. Stick and stay.
The judges back on their seats. The counsel are also back but without Tony Lithur, at least for now. In his place is Dr Basit Bamba.
Motion for KPMG to count unique pink sheets
Philip Addison is up to argue his motion for the court to direct KPMG to make a unique count of 1545 pink sheets which were not initially counted.
He says the court on receiving the KPMG report has the right to accept in whole or in part the report or make recommendations as the court may require. The Petitioners say the application have been necessitated because these matters if not addressed leaves the KPMG report incomplete. He says with respect to the 1,045 pink sheet exhibits which the referee says are unclear, the referee has sought for further directions from the court on how to proceed with those ones. He refers the judges to the referee's report where those directions are being sought. Addison goes further to say that in the report there are pink sheets found in the President's set but not in the Registrar's. He is convinced that if these unique counts are made, it will be clear for all to see the number of polling stations filed by the Petitioners and that will greatly assist the court.
Dr Bamba for the first Respondent
The application is unduly prolong the case. The order given to the referee is specific. There is no ambiguity. It is not about a truthful and faithful count. It is about establishing the identities of the pink sheet which is not part of the mandate. He reads the mandate given by KPMG. He says there is nothing in the order that makes reference to the identities of the pink sheets. What they are seeking to do now is for the referee to help the Petitioner identify. He says this application if granted has other potential ramification which includes the shifting of the burden of proof from the Petitioners to the referee. He says the application is incompetent.
Quarshie Idun is up. The application is to cause an undue delay in the trial baring in mind that the burden of proof lies with the Petitioners. He donates the rest of his time to Tsatsu Tsikata.
Tsikata associates himself to the submissions made by the first and second Respondents. He points out that the report explicitly spells out the exhibit numbers of the 1045 pink sheets said to be unclear. Wherever the exhibit is recorded with whatever identification mark available those are recorded. The report of the referee addresses all the orders of the judges comprehensively. What the Petitioners are seeking to do is to effectively go outside the orders given by the judges. The Petitioners opposed the referee to be appointed and also opposed the count of the President’s set. They are now asking the referee to do a job outside the direction of the referee. The evidence of the referee’s rep explained out unique pink sheets can be derived. As far as further and better particulars are concerned, the referee cannot be asked to go back to it because it will delay the process all the more. He says what is being sought for by the Petitioners is completely different from the orders of the court to the referee.
Addison seeks leave of the court to clear some issues. He says all the pink sheets served on the the referee does not have full information to make a clear identification of all the evidence. Not the doing of the Petitioners but the doing of the second Respondent and its officers. The application is intended to tie all the loose ends in the report. He says they brought the application at the earliest opportunity.
Court to deliberate on the arguments during recess and will give their ruling.
Afari Gyan enters the dock.
Late delivery of list
Quarshie Idun raises concerns. He says instead of being given the pink sheet exhibits yesterday, he was only given those exhibits this morning and so he is yet to check and be satisfied.
Philip Addison explains that those list had to with the ones with the Registrar. He says they had to remain in court till about 1030 yesternight sorting them out but the second Respondent left early a reason why they had to submit those lists this morning.
The court rises again to allow for the Bar to sort out the pink sheet exhibits.
Court is back from recess
Court dismisses application by the Petitioners but directs them to provide details of the list of 1,545 controversial pink sheet exhibits 'rejected' by KPMG to be crosschecked again.
The ruling read:
The referee’s report is auxiliary to the court. The court has a primary duty to adjudicate the case.
Since the materials upon which the petitioners are standing on are the same as they themselves filed in this court, their imposition to demonstrate with these materials (the pink sheets) by their own analysis with the aid of the referee’s report, the respective heads of the alleged malpractices in their case. Any perceived difficulty still lingering can be cleared through cross-examination of second respondent.
To facilitate matters, we direct that the petitioners list out the 1545 polling stations which they claim they have been able to identify despite the unclarities for the second respondent to respond.
Subject to this, the application is dismissed.
Controversy over 905 unsigned pink sheets
The second Respondent claims only 905 pink sheet were unsigned but the Petitioners say there are more. Afari Gyan submits list of 905 pink sheet to the Petitioners. Addison also provides another list of the entire unsigned pink sheets to the Respondents. But the Respondents claim there are repetitions of some of the pink sheet already covered by the 905 pink sheets. Petitioners therefore want the Respondents to provide details of the repeated unsigned pink sheet, a request the Respondents are not ready to do. They say it is the Petitioners case and they must do the sorting and take from the entire list of unsigned pink sheets those that have been agreed as unsigned by the second Respondent.
Judges intervene. They ask Petitioners to do the sorting out and remove all the 905 unsigned pink sheets already mentioned by the Respondents. The promise to handover that list to the Respondents this evening.