Mr. Nii Amanor Dodoo, a partner at KPMG and the Head of the Audit Practice Section at the International Accounting & Auditing firm, who was undergoing cross-examination under the hands of Philip Addison, Counsel for Petitioners yesterday virtually succeeded in confusing everybody in the court room when he provided answers on software instead of softcopy.
Lawyer Addison put it to Mr. Amanor Dodoo that contrary to the evidence he gave last Monday that it was against the internal practice of the International Accounting & Auditing firm to give out soft copy of commissioned work to its clients, the internet was abound with numerous works by KPMG which were in its softcopy form.
However, the KPMG representative replied that he had anticipated that line of questioning from Lawyer Addison and had therefore prepared well for that encounter. True to his statement, Mr. Amanor Dodoo pulled out “a print out of our (KPMG) Quality and Risk Management Manual” and read out portions.
Although Lawyer Addison indicated he was not interested in that document but only wanted a simple answer to whether there were occasions where KPMG gave out softcopy, Mr. Dodoo insisted on reading out the document but stated that, “ordinarily” KPMG does not give out soft copies.
He then moved on to read the contents of the print out of the Quality and Risk Management Manual of KPMG which was supposed to cover issuance of softcopy to clients but interestingly not a single mention of softcopy was made. All that he read out concentrated on software instead of softcopy. Indeed many people have stated that it would be absurd if the Petitioners were interested in the software instead of the softcopy.
A soft copy (sometimes spelled "softcopy") is an electronic copy of some type of data, such as a file viewed on a computer's display or transmitted as an e-mail attachment. Such material, when printed, is referred to as a hard copy.
Computer software, or just software, on the other hand, is any set of machine-readable instructions (most often in the form of a computer program) that directs a computer's processor to perform specific operations.
During the cross-examination Mr. Dodoo confirmed to the Supreme Court sitting on the Presidential Election Petition that the count of the pink sheets in the custody of the registrar of the court and the President of the panel of Judges sitting on the petition, Justice William Atuguba, revealed that there were pink sheets in the custody of the President of the panel which were not in the set of the registrar and also some sheets in the set of the registrar which were not in the set of Justice Atuguba.
It would be recalled that KPMG was appointed as referee to do a true and faithful count of the pink sheets in the custody of the registry and the President of the Panel.
While being cross examined by lead Counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison, Mr. Amanor Dodoo stated that the count revealed that 2,876 Pink Sheets in Justice Atuguba’s set were not in the set of the Registrar while similarly 6,629 pink sheets in the set of the registrar is not in the set of the President of the Panel.
The Petitioners’ lead counsel also stated that 1,097 pink sheets out of the 4,089 pink sheets used by the respondents in their cross examination of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia were not in the set of the registrar, while 2,230 Pink Sheets out of the 4,089 used by the respondents in their cross examination are not in the set of the President of the panel.
In all, Philip Addison stated that 648 pink sheets used by the respondents in their cross examination, were neither in the set of the registrar nor that of the President of the panel.
While following up on questions on the pink sheets used by the respondents in their cross examination of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia which were duly filed by the petitioners but are not in the sets of the President of the Panel or that of the registrar, Counsel for John Mahama and the NDC objected to the particular line of questioning indicating that the referee was not competent enough to answer those questions and that the questions were not relevant to the work of the referee.
However, Counsel Addison countered their argument by saying that pink sheets which had been duly filed by the petitioners and which had been presented in open court in cross examination and which were in the records of the court, could not be described as irrelevant to the matter on board especially because what precipitated the whole count of the pink sheets was the need to determine the specific number of pink sheets which had been filed by the petitioners and since those presented during the cross examination of Dr. Bawumia were also in evidence as having being filed, then it could not be irrelevant.
The Court however overruled the objection and allowed Counsel for the Petitioners to continue with his questions.
Mr. Amanor Dodoo also stated that in all 13,926 pink sheets were counted in the registrar’s set and that 9,860 pink sheets were also counted in the set of the President of the panel though he also indicated that the set of the President of the panel was short by one box which had been stated in the final report.
Source: Gordon Asare-Bediako/New Crusading Guide/Ghana
|Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority.|