<<Print>>

There was a clash at the Supreme Court on Tuesday when Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, witness for second respondent, was confronted with a set of exhibits. His lawyers claim the exhibits do not correspond with those at their disposal. Mr James Quarshie Idun, Counsel for second respondent, who raised the objection said the exhibit numbers provided by the petitioners were neither before the court nor filed or served on them. Mr Philip Addison, Counsel for petitioners at the time of the objection, had presented a bunch of pink sheet exhibits to the witness to identify and continue with the cross-examination. Mr Addison, however, expressed surprise at the protest from Mr Quarshie Idun. He admitted that although there were mislabelling on the pink sheet exhibits, all the exhibits have been tendered in evidence in court. He said unlike Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, who introduced pink sheets which are not in evidence and not in the KPMG report, every single pink sheet exhibits he intends to introduce is already before the court. At that juncture Mr Tony Lithur stood up and accused the petitioners of introducing fresh pink sheets to the witness. He said because the pink sheets were not stamped at the registrar's office any pink sheet at all can be introduced adding that the court should not take the issue lightly. Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for third respondent, who supported the assertion of Mr Lithur said he finds it interesting that Addison would accuse him of introducing a pink sheet which is not in evidence. He said if that were the case, it strengthens their position because he has not introduced any pink sheet to the court. He said the entire pink sheet he used to cross examine Dr Bawumia on were pink sheets that were supplied by the petitioners. Mr Tsikata said if the lead counsel of the petitioners would now turn around and say that those pink sheets are not in evidence then the court would have to take a serious look at the matter. Mr Addison insisted that all the pink sheets they are relying on are before the court. He said the respondents may have an issue with the mislabelling but all the exhibits have been filed before the court. Justice William Atuguba, President of the panel asked Mr Addison if it is possible for him to continue his cross examination on other matters so that when the issue of the KPMG is sorted he would return to the pink sheets which appear to have caused the stand-off. KPMG, which is a global network of professional firm providing audit, advisory and tax services, is auditing pink sheets before the court. Mr Addison said he prepared his cross examination for the today on issues to do with the pink sheets and would not be able to continue on other areas. Earlier, Dr Afari Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission stated that the total number of ballots printed nationwide was 15,434,968 including the 10 per cent given to each polling station. He also gave the breakdown of the booklets as follow, 100s � 141,597, 50s � 12,627 and 25s � 38,401. Dr Afari Gyan denied claims by Mr Addison that the number of ballots from the 11,115 polling stations in contention amounts to 11,511,207 and the ballots that would be left may be barely three million. When asked by Mr Addison if he had checked on when the order for the pink sheet was made? Dr Afari Gyan in answering said he does not remember telling the court he would check on that information. When Mr Addison again reminded the witness of his earlier comments that said the pink sheets printed abroad came by sea. Dr Afari Gyan stated that he did not give any such emphatic evidence explaining that what he meant on Monday was that electoral materials bought from abroad were usually brought by sea and not by air because it was relatively cheaper by sea. Mr Addison then asked the witness if he can now be emphatic and tell the court the means through which the pink sheets came. Dr Afari Gyan answered by saying he does not remember but can cross check and provide the evidence to the court.