<<Print>>

An attempt by the lawyers of respondents in the ongoing presidential election petition to persuade the Supreme Court to allow pink sheets in the custody of the nine-member panel to be used by international auditing firm, KPMG, in its count of the sheets, was yesterday refused by the court. The respondents had alleged that the documents being worked on by KPMG had been compromised. The court�s ruling followed concerns raised by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), who was supported by Mr Tony Lithur and Mr James Quashie-Idun, lead counsel for President John Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC), respectively. Lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr Phillip Addison, had vehemently opposed the attempt, describing it as one of the cooked-up stories of the respondents, thus generating heated arguments between counsel. Mr Tsikata, before the day�s proceedings, told the court that at the close of proceedings on Monday, they became aware of a very significant development in respect of the court�s order about the counting of the exhibits, namely the pink sheets. �Your Lordships will recall that you ordered counting of exhibits that are filed with the registrar of the court and provided to the respondents,� he said, adding that in order to ensure the sanctity of the exhibits it was agreed that there should be a sort of control mechanism of the exhibits, which meant that one of their Lordship�s exhibits be used by KPMG for its counting. He said it emerged that a number of boxes of exhibits had been added to the boxes of exhibits they were aware were before the referee, saying that was a very serious issue because as many as seven boxes appeared to have been added. According to Mr Tsikata, significantly all the respondents had the same number of boxes of exhibits tendered and that checks by counsel for the first and second respondents indicated that 24 boxes were provided for the start of the referee�s work and not 31 as was the present situation. He said as of last Thursday when the preparation for the count was going on, it was confirmed that there were 24 boxes with the registry, with the representatives of the petitioners confirming that number. Mr Tsikata said how the boxes got increased bordered on criminality but that they could not be distracted by that, which was why on Monday they sought with the participation of counsel for the petitioners to have audience with the referee and also notify the court about the new development. He said one of the petitioners� counsel who was present said he was going to consult the lead counsel and return, but counsel never showed up again. Counsel said it was evident that the control mechanism agreed upon was such that the exhibits in the custody of the presiding judge had to be resorted to, to ensure a true and faithful count of those exhibits. Mr Tsikata said since the exhibits had been compromised, the control mechanism had to be widened to include copies of exhibits of the presiding judge and at least two other judges. He said following that development, it was not possible to proceed with his cross-examination and that the court had to consider certain steps while he did not want the criminality aspect to affect the matter, since that could be proved accordingly. Both Mr Lithur and Mr Quashie-Idun associated themselves with the concerns raised by Mr Tsikata. However, Mr Addison in his objection, said it was obvious that somebody had a sinister agenda to deprive the petitioners from pursuing their case and also an attempt to delay the process agreed upon by the parties. He said the court�s order to the parties regarding the count was a consent order agreed to by the parties and that the counting had started well except that for some people it did not. That assertion made Mr Lithur to react that they all knew there were about 24 boxes but that number had suddenly shot up to 31. Mr Addison then said the attempt was one of the cooked-up stories of the respondents because he was unaware that an inventory had been taken of the boxes at the registry of the court. �Our representatives were not called into any such meeting or we are not aware the referee engaged in any such exercise,�� Mr Addison said, and added that the respondents might be having meetings with the referee behind the back of the petitioners. Mr Tsikata replied that there was absolutely no basis for the assertions made by Mr Addison and when Mr Lithur joined to make some comments he was booed by a section of the audience in the courtroom. That behaviour compelled Mr Justice Atuguba to sound a warning that the courtroom was not a stadium and that situation should be avoided, saying that clear language should be used across the board while the parties should forget about insinuations and rather stick to the real facts at hand. Mr Justice Sophia Adinyira asked Mr Lithur to resume his seat, while Mr Justice Atuguba continued that there should be no firing of missiles but all should address the bench. Continuing, Mr Addison said the things being done by the respondents were strange and without any bearing on the court�s order, because the representatives who were appointed by the parties were to observe the referee�s work and nothing more. Mr Addison likened the petitioners to pampered children who after they had brought their ball to play with some friends, quickly caught the ball and said they were no more playing immediately a goal was scored against them. Even before Mr Addison could be stopped by the bench he had said what he wanted to say and Mr Justice Atuguba remarked that the statement was an insinuation. According to Mr Addison, anytime an issue was not going the way of the respondents they backed out and they were in the process of stopping the counting, which, but for the distraction, could have been completed yesterday. He said the concerns raised were based on suspicion and that while KPMG had not made any report to the court regarding any such development, the petitioners were comfortable with the work being done as to the counting. Mr Addison said if anything at all, whatever concerns that were being raised by the respondents would be incorporated in the report of KPMG and there was, therefore, no need to stop the process. In reply, Mr Tsikata said his application was within the framework of the court�s orders and that to ensure a true and faithful record of the exhibits there should be a further expansion of the control mechanism. After the arguments, the court rose at about 11 a.m. and resumed at about 12.55 p.m. to deliver its ruling before going on lunch break for further cross-examination of Dr Bawumia to resume.