<<Print>>

Lead Counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison has likened the actions of the 1st and 3rd respondents, John Mahama and the National Democratic Congress respectively, to that of a �pampered child� who calls for a game of football to be played but turns around to seize the match ball immediately a goal is scored against him. Philip Addison made this comparison while responding to oral applications made by the respondents in the case to have the copies of exhibits in the possession of the Presiding Judge, Justice William Atuguba, used in the audit of the pink sheet exhibits submitted by the petitioners which is being undertaken by KPMG. The respondents made the application following what they claimed were the discoveries of seven new boxes of pink sheets which had increased the number of boxes from 24 to 31. The respondents indicated to the court, on Tuesday morning, that it was on this basis that they pulled out of the counting process which was being undertaken by KPMG and for which reason the counting was suspended. Responding to these claims by the respondents, Counsel Philip Addison stated that it was now very obvious that the respondents had a sinister agenda to deprive the petitioners of their right to put forward their case and have justice. He noted the order given by the court was a consent order agreed to by all the parties, adding that the counting exercise started well and progressed steadily until the respondents realised that they couldn't sustain the case of shortage in exhibits and thus resorted to �cooking stories� and the claims which they had outlined in court. Counsel Addison pointed out that no inventory of boxes was taken by the parties at the registry last week Thursday. In reacting to statements by Tsatsu Tsikata, Philip Addison noted that the respondents seemed to know much more and had even given indication that they had had some private meetings with the referees without the knowledge of the petitioners. Indeed, senior partner of KPMG, Joe Winful, has had cause to state that it knows nothing about the said �inventory� being claimed by the respondents. The lead counsel of the petitioners reminded the respondents that not long ago, Tsatsu Tsikata had stated in open court that they had so much confidence in the registry and that the registry cannot be blamed for errors of the petitioners and wondered why the sudden U-turn. Lawyer Addison stated that for the petitioners, there were not aware of the number of boxes in the vault of the Supreme Court strong room though the respondents seemed to be in full knowledge of this number and had stated the numbers in open court. Lawyer Addison added that the representatives chosen by the parties were to be mere observers but that it had now been revealed that the representatives had now also become auditors who were counting boxes and pink sheets. Counsel Philip Addison cited a long list of instances during the ongoing hearings where the respondents, particularly, the 1st and 3rd had initiated processes but turned around to back out after the petitioners agreed with their applications. He cited, for example, the early days of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia�s evidence where the respondents asked the witness to tender in notes he was referring to, only for them to object to the tendering later when the petitioners agreed and sought the leave of the court to tender in the notes. He again mentioned the first request for pink sheet auditing made by Counsel for the 1st respondent, Tony Lithur which the petitioners agreed to and asked for full auditing to be done, only for the respondents to back out. He then cited the bold claims by Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata that the number of exhibits on the face of the petitioner�s affidavit did not add up to 11,842, and when the calculation was then by the court, their claims were found to be false and they backed out. For Counsel Philip Addison, this consistent behavior of the respondents was like pampered children who back out of a game of football anytime a goal is scored against them and asked the court to throw out their application as it lacked any merit whatsoever. Counsel Philip Addison stated that for the disruptive behavior of the respondents, counting would have been completed by Tuesday as the referees had already counted a significant number of exhibits and asked how the respondents were contesting the credibility of the registry but at the same time trusted the exhibits in the possession of the Judges which was distributed to the Judges by the same registry they distrusted. Counsel Philip Addison also reminded the Court that after the order to audit the pink sheets, the National Security apparatus which is controlled by the 1st and 3rd respondents came to the court in their numbers to provide 24 hour surveillance and was amazed at how in the face of all that security, the respondents could imagine that the petitioners had still been able to smuggle in boxes of pink sheets. The Judges after a short break threw out the application of the respondents and asked the respondents to send their issues to the referee, KPMG.