On Day 42 of the hearing, counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison sought to tender a 75-page list of irregularities under the P-series.
Tsatsu Tsikata has said he is tired of having to check several lists of pink sheets continually being served on them by the Petitioners in the Election Petition hearing.
The series deal with duplicate serial numbers which petitioners allege were used to prosecute massive fraud in the 2012 elections.
The Petitioners are set to cross-examine the star witness, Dr. Afari-Gyan on this list when hearing enters 43 days.
Myjoyonline.com will bring you live text of the telecast.
The bench is ready to go and so is the Bar. The Bar introduces their team to the court. Afari Gyan is back in the dock.
There are opening remarks from Quarshie Idun who will not object to the list of duplicate serial numbers being tendered by the Petitioners.
Tsatsu Tsikata will not also object to the tendering but raises concerns as to the number of times they had to correct errors.
Philip Addison is “not ready with all these lectures”. He wants to go on with his cross-examination.
Addison hands a document to the witness to identify. He identifies it. Addison later tenders the document through the witness.
The list is tendered.
Another list is handed to Afari-Gyan to identify. He says it is the pairs of serial numbers appearing more than once. He also has five pairs of clipped pink sheets.
Addison asks him to compare the list of pink sheet with repeated serial numbers to the five pairs clipped and see if they are the same. Afari Gyan confirms.
Addison then asks him to mention the name of the polling station and code.
Polling station code 141004A polling station name, Chief Bello Islamic School Zenu A, Afari Gyan states.
Addison asks witness to mention the polling stations on two other pink sheets. He obliges.
Addison wants Afari Gyan to confirm if all three pink sheets have the same serial number. He says Yes. All three bares the same serial number which is 0025195.
Addison takes him through a second set and the same set of questions and finally asks him if he can confirm that the serial numbers are the same.
Afari Gyan confirms.
Addison goes into the fourth set; takes witness through the same process and asks him if there is a repeat of serial numbers.
Addison wants to tender the documents which the witness has confirmed were had duplicate serial numbers.
Afari Gyan wants to make an observation before the list is tendered. He says he must cross check with the original list of pink sheets in the custody of the EC before the document is tendered.
Addison says there is no need because the list has already been perused by the counsel.
Quarshie-Idun says the list was provided to them yesternight and so if the witness wants to cross check he is only being cautious.
The judges agree for the witness to cross-check with the original copies.
Addison goes on with the cross examination. He asks, Dr Afari Gyan you said two set of pink sheets were printed; How do you explain the triplicates?
Afari Gyan says logically there should be no triplicates. I cannot understand how there should be quadruplicates.
Addison: I suggest to you that you printed more than two sets. Afari Gyan says only two sets were printed.
Addison says the evidence in exhibit X shows that four sets of pink sheets were printed. Afari Gyan says only two sets were printed.
Addison suggests to witness he is misleading the court. I am not Afari Gyan insists.
Addison turns to a new set of list.
Quarshie Idun says that the list was given to them few minutes ago and they will have to be cross-checked before the witness is cross-examined on them.
One of the judges asks Addison if there are more of similar pink sheets. He says Yes. Court wants to know when those final list will be made available to the Respondents to check. Addison says he cannot tell for now.
One of the judges then calls for an early rise so that if the the court returns after lunch break Addison can now tell the court when his technical men will provide the list to the respondents.
Court goes on Recess.
Addison gives indication that he will tomorrow provide the Respondents with all the pink sheets he will be relying on for cross-examination for them to take to the week end, peruse all the pink sheet so he will cross examine witness on those set of pink sheets on Monday. Court agrees.
He however hands a document to Afari Gyan who has resumed his position in the dock and reminded of his oath.
Addison asks witness to identify the document. He says it is a form titled duplicate polling station codes and a number of pink sheets.
Addison asks him to tell the court how many pink sheets are in his possession. Afari-Gyan says he has to count first. Pair of eight, that is 16, he says after the count.
Addison says the list is 18 not 16. Afari Gyan insists the pairs are eight so it is 16.
The counsel on all sides begin another count of the exhibits to be sure whether it was 18 or 16. After the count the witness is presented with the list again with same question about the number. He says it is 16.
Addison asks him to mention the polling station name, code and exhibit number of the first pink sheet exhibit. He mentions the code as H201103A, name- Kamina Primary School AA, EXHIBIT MBV00007570
The second one H201113A Kamina Primary
Can you confirm they have the same code. Yes one was for the main election and another was for the special voting.
Addison asks that on the face of the pink sheet what shows that one was for the main election and the other for special voting. I don't see anything to that effect but i can say that one was for main election and the other for special voting.
Special Voting do not have polling station, Addison fires. If they take place at the polling station they will have the same polling station code Afari Gyan answers.
Addison: On the collation form results are entered using polling station codes so how do you determine which results is from the main election and which is for the special voting.
Afari Gyan answers saying special voting results are normally entered first.
Addison: Pink sheets are not used for special voting. Afari Gyan says pink sheets are used because it is treated as a polling station activity.
Addison takes him to the next pink sheet with a repetition of the code. Afari Gyan admits there is a repetition but says one is for special voting the other is for main election.
Addison then asks if the polling station names are the same but Afari Gyan says no they are not same.
Addison takes witness to the next on the list 15 the polling station code is H180403 and the name is Canteen Savelugu. exhibit MBV000002
For 16 H180403 and the D/A Primary School Palang and the MBV000003.
Here again the polling station names are different but they share the same code. Afari Gyan admits yes but says like the previous scenario one is main election and the other is special voting.
Addison says that the witness has told the court that special voting shares the same polling station name and code with that of the main election but in this scenario, there are two distinct polling stations using the same code and yet the witness wants to tell the court that one was for main election the other for special voting. He accuses witness of misleading the court.
He takes witness through another list which has the following information No 17 code is J031203, Adda Primary School A No 18 J031203 Balobia JHS B.
Addison: In this scenario too there are two separate polling stations using the same polling station code. Afari Gyan admits they are two but the same explanation stands.
The official list of 26,000 polling stations are there duplicate polling station code, Addison fires. No i don't know, Afari Gyan answers.
Addison then tenders the list through the witness. No objection raised.
Addison asks witness if he has checked the extract of a register from the Mampong Constituency as he promised to do. Afari Gyan says yes.
Addison asks him if he is satisfied with the extract. Afari Gyan says his search revealed some interesting things. He says the first thing that aroused his curiosity is that the EC does print its register in colour but this extract has been printed in colour. He says the actual register was used in the 2012 elections and had 365 voters in the polling station code and name F331701, MA Primary school respectively in the Nyinampong in the Mampong constituency. He says when he looked at pages five and six of the EC's original register the names and identities there were different from the pages five and six given by the Petitioners in their extract.
One of the judges draws the attention to the court of a mix up. He says even though the first page says it is Mampong Municipal, the extract in actual fact talks about MA Primary School Nyinampong but it Anglican MA school Mampong.
Afari Gyan then intervenes saying he was coming to that. He says when he printed the copies of the Nyinampong Register they found the names but not in the arranged format in the extract given by the Petitioners.
Addison says the Register the EC provided was had pictures captured in colour and the EC gave soft copy of the register. So therefore anybody can print in colour. Afari Gyan accepts the analogy of Addison.
Addison goes ahead and tells witness to identify the identity of woman in extract of the register. Afari Gyan mentions Adwoa Gyamfua. That woman has another name but with the same features and different age.
Addison suggests to witness the pictures are the same persons but with different names. Afari Gyan says as far as he can see, one of them is 47 and the other is 75 years old even though they appear to the eye as the same.
Addison attempts to tender the document.
Quarshie Idun raises an objection to the tendering of the document. He says the witness doubts the authenticity of the document being tendered.
Tsatsu Tsikata joins in the objection. He says that document is lacking authenticity in many respects. He argues that pictures that appear scattered in the actual register suddenly appears in the two pages of the Petitioners' extract of register. It constitutes a document that lacks the authenticity of the evidence. To try to tender a document whose authenticity has been shattered by the witness cannot be acceptable.
One of the judges agree with the arguments by the Respondents. He says extracts must be extracts and the Petitioners ought to know this.
Addison disagrees with the judge. He says the witness has confirmed that the details in the extract are the same in the EC's own register. He says the witness also affirmed that the EC gave all the parties soft copies of the register and so he finds it strange why anybody will object the same information that has been confirmed by the witness. He offers to withdraw the document.
Quarshie Idun says once they have raised an objection, they expect a ruling on it. So Addison cannot withdraw.
Tsikata also joins in. He says Addison cannot withdraw now. Dr Bamba for the First Respondent also joins the chorus and says the Petitioners cannot withdraw now. Its too late now, they argue.
The judges in a unanimous ruling allows the withdrawal.