The Petitioners challenging the results of the 2012 elections are likely to continue the cross-examination of the star witness of the second Respondent Kwadwo Afari Gyan when hearing enters Day 38.
The cross-exanimation was halted mid-way following controversy over un-served or un-filed pink sheet exhibits- a situation which gave rise to the appointment of a referee-KPMG- to audit the pink sheet exhibits.
The referee has since concluded its audit but the controversy according to the Petitioners remains unresolved.
They will continue to cross-examine Dr Afari Gyan, hoping they will not be confronted or distracted with claims by the Respondent, that the pink sheet exhibits they intend to cross examine the witness with has not been served on them.
The Respondents will also be watching closely to prevent what they claim is the attempt by the Petitioners to introduce new pink sheets.
The judges, fresh from jailing two persons for criminal contempt will seek to steer affairs at the court.
Proceedings begin.
Quarshie Idun is up. He says he was handed three fat envelopes containing pink sheets at 10;35 this morning by the Petitioners. He says if the Petitioners wanted to use the pink sheets to cross examine their star witness, they ought to have provided these pink sheets yesterday so that the EC’s IT personnel will cross check them before proceeding to cross examine Afari Gyan with them.
Addison says they do not intend to use those set of pink sheets this morning. He adds that there are still issues the court have to resolve regarding the KPMG report. He insists that the Petitioners filed 11,842 pink sheets and the KPMG report confirms it.
He gives a breakdown that the KPMG counted a unique 8,675 pink sheet exhibits in the Registrar’s set. He adds that KPMG excluded 1,545 pink sheet which they claim did not have qualification- ie exhibit number, polling station and polling station codes. He says the reason for the exclusion is untenable. He argues if there is no polling station name on the pink sheet, the polling station code can still be used to identify the polling station. On other pink sheets which had no pink sheet codes, the polling station name on the pink sheet can be used to identify the polling station. He wonders why KPMG will exclude those 1,545 pink sheets merely because some did not have polling station name or polling station codes.
One of the judges appear to agree with Addison and says there has to be further explanation from KPMG. He initially thought there was no information at all on the pink sheets but says if there is a polling station name but no polling station code it could well be identified and counted and so he is at a loss why those pink sheets were not counted.
Tsatsu Tsikata is up. He says KPMG counted every single pink sheets filed. He jabs the Petitioners saying if they claim the report vindicates them then they should go ahead with the address of the court rather than raising issues on a day that they have to cross-examine the witness for the second Respondent. “Is there something they want to apply to the court to be done,” he asks.
Tony Lithur is also up. He says his understanding for why the 1545 was excluded was that they did not have the three requirements spelt out. He would rather the Petitioners raise their concerns in their address instead of seeking to make comments during cross-examination.
Quarshie Idun makes an intervention. He reads portions of the KPMG report in which an explanation is given by KPMG for the exclusion of the 1545 pink sheet exhibits.
Judge Bonney cautions against the suppression of evidence. He says addresses may not be the solution to the problem.
Atuguba also intervenes. He says he is surprised as to why this should be an issue. He says, if the comments by the Petitioners’ lawyer is anything to go by, then the only thing is to get KPMG back to find out if it possible to locate the 1545 pink sheets.
Tsatsu Tsikata is up. He says even if the claims by Addison is true, if you add the 1545 to 8,675 you will still get a limited number contrary to the claims that they filed 11842 pink sheets.
Addison is up. He says Tsikata is jumping the gun because he, Addison, did not complete his submission.
Atuguba asks Tsikata to resume his seat.
Addison goes ahead. He says it is erroneous for people to suggest that it is the fault of the Petitioners that there is no polling station number or polling station codes on the pink sheets. He says it is the failure of the Presiding officers to fill those portions. Be that as it may, those pink sheets can be identified he adds. He says there were 2,876 sheets found in the President’s set but not in the Registrar’s set. Out of these 2,876 sheets, 871 are unique. He adds that 648 pink sheets used by the first and third Respondents in cross examining the second Petitioner are also unique. They are not in the Registrar’s set, neither are they in the President’s set. He says the total of all that brings the pink sheet exhibit 11,485.
One of the female judges objects to the procedure by Addison. What are you doing this morning, she says.
She says Addison cannot give these detail as evidence. He can only give those information through a witness. He says if it is the wish of the Petitioners to make an application, then they better do it instead of using this procedure.
Addison says he is only seeking direction from the court. He adds that they will apply for these information to be considered, except that they thought because the court gave an oral order for the KPMG audit it was well within their to make an oral application for their concerns to accepted.
The female judge again intervenes. He says the Petitioners can go ahead with the cross examination. If the Respondents claim they do not have those pink sheets and they are not bothered to finding them then it is their business.
She says, the Petitioners should be concerned about cross examining on only pink sheet exhibits that are before the court and judges will find those pink sheets.
Atuguba after a brief consultation announces a short recess for the parties to sort out pink sheet exhibits which will be used for the cross examination of Afari Gyan.
He says the court will in principle return at 130 to continue with the cross-examination.
