The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the counting of the pink sheet exhibit in the custody of the President of the panel to help corroborate the KPMG audit.
The court said for �the avoidance of doubt and in line of consent agreement� an additional set of exhibit of a justice of the court should be counted.
The court order follows an earlier ruling that KPMG would cross check the exhibits with those of the president during its auditing process.
Justice William Atuguba, President of the panel said during the consent order for the count it was agreed that the KPMG audit could be cross checked with the set of exhibits in the custody of the presiding judge.
He said even though it was not stated explicitly in the order of the ruling that KPMG would cross check the exhibits with those of the president during its auditing process, it was implicit that where there are doubts KPMG could fall on the exhibits of the President as a controlled check.
Justice Atuguba said the court now wants to incorporate that order in the initial ruling and make a clarification that the referee must go ahead in terms of the order.
Mr Philip Addison, Counsel for the Petitioners who was not happy with the decision told the court that the new ruling appears a bit strange, especially when KPMG has concluded the task assigned it and has presented a draft copy to which the parties must peruse and make their observations on Monday.
He cited the May 21, ruling in which the application by Mr Tony Lithur, counsel for first respondent call for a controlled check was refused by the court.
He said he finds it rather strange that the court would be ruling on the matter now, adding that he would however not push the issue any further.
In related development, Mr Addison also started his cross-examination of Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, witness for the second respondent.
When asked by Mr Addison whether at the time of declaring the December 2012 election he had the results from all the 26002 polling stations?
Dr Afari-Gyan in answering said he had no basis of knowing that and in all his declarations in the past he did not see all the pink sheets before declaring.
He said the introduction of the biometric verification device was to identify the prospective voter before giving him the ballot paper and to prevent multiple voting.
He however explained that in some cases not everybody was verified.
He cited a scenario where a chief known to all the agents can be allowed to vote without being verified.
When asked by Mr Addison what kind of information can be obtained from the Biometric Verification Device (BVD)?
He said the only information that can be obtained from the BVD is the number of voters at the polling station.
Case was adjourned to June 6.
<<Print>>