<<Print>>

Pink sheets continued to arouse controversy and confusion at the ongoing presidential election petition hearing, as it caused a stir yesterday and forced the Supreme Court to adjourn proceedings. First, it was the interpretation given to portions on the pink sheet by the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, during his continued cross-examination by the lead counsels for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison. Then an attempt by Mr Addison to cross-examine the witness on a set of pink sheets was fiercely resisted by counsel for the respondents, who described it as an ambush and also bringing fresh pink sheets into the matter. According to the respondents� lawyers, those fresh pink sheets had neither been filed nor exhibited in the court by the petitioners and, therefore, counsel should not be allowed to cross-examine using same. They wanted the court to wait until the final report of the international auditing firm, KPMG, was released to ascertain whether or not those sets of pinks sheets were among those filed as exhibits by the petitioners. However, when the dust settled, it was held to be fair to the respondents regarding their objection, Mr Addison ought to cross-examine on areas not related to the pink sheets in contention until the report of KPMG was released. Mr Addison said he could do that but that he was not ready to continue the cross-examination yesterday and consequently hearing was adjourned. How it started The controversy started when Mr Addison gave the set of pink sheets to the witness to ascertain if they were part of the pink sheets which the petitioners claimed had not been signed by presiding officers in the December 2012 presidential election. According to counsel, the respondents said those same pink sheets which the petitioners claimed were not signed had, in fact, been signed. Dr Afari-Gyan then said he could only refer to pink sheets that were in their possession. Before the witness could finish answering the question, the EC�s lead counsel, Mr James Quashie-Idun, objected, saying those pink sheets had not been served on the EC. He was supported by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, the lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), who said since those pink sheets had not been served on the NDC it would be prudent to wait for the KPMG to present its report, so that the court could ascertain whether or not, indeed, 11,842 pink sheets had been filed by the petitioners. ��We cannot have a cross-examination that pulls up new exhibits,� he said. But Mr Addison expressed surprise at the objection, since each of the pink sheets involved was on the list of what was given the KPMG. He said none of the pink sheets that Mr Tsikata used during his cross-examination was captured by the KPMG, adding that those pink sheets that he (Addison) intended to ask questions on were in evidence. He said it was in the interest of justice and the truth that questions be allowed on those documents because the petitioners had indicated that they filed both manual and an electronic version of their exhibits, which were before the court. At that stage, Ms Justice Rose Owusu enquired from the respondents whether those documents had been served on them. �All we are saying is that what they are bringing is completely different from what they had exhibited. They are bringing fresh pink sheets,�� was the argument from Mr Tony Lithur, lead counsel for President Mahama. He said the petitioners did not file those pink sheets because they bore different exhibit numbers and polling stations from those filed and that respondents� accusations were not a light one because pink sheets had been brought to the office of the registrar. Mr Tsikata did not take kindly to the assertion by Mr Addison that none of the exhibits relied on by Mr Tsikata was captured by KPMG in its report. Mr Justice William Atuguba said it seemed the lawyers for the petitioners and respondemnts had been going back and forth regarding the matter and asked them to remain focused and deal with necessary matters. Mr Addison said the pink sheets were part of the further and better particulars which had been filed before the court and that none of them was outside, for which reason the witness should be allowed to answer his questions. Mr Lithur said that was not an opportunity for the petitioners to bring fresh pink sheets into the matter, claiming that it was a contested matter which went to the foundation of the whole petition. He added that accepting those pink sheets would be extremely unfair to the respondents. Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie read out some numbers from one of the pink sheets and asked the EC�s counsel whether that had been served on the commission, but the response was negative. Mr Tsikata, after that, asked Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie whether the exhibits that the court had were not served on the respondents, to which the judge responded that what he read out was a soft copy of the exhibits. Mr Justice Victor Jones Dotse asked that the cross-examination be confined to matters that were not before the KPMG. According to Mr Tsikata, some of the statements by petitioners� counsel that exhibits used by him (Tsikata) were not captured by the KPMG were false and that the only way to find out the truth was to get the report. �Some of the exhibits being brought now are not filed and that will be reflected in the KPMG report so they cannot be used,� he said, and added that that would prejudice the case of respondents, while the court would also not advance the cause of justice. Mr Addison said having filed all exhibits, what the respondents should have done if they did not get everything was to have alerted the court or the petitioners, but they did nothing to that effect. Early Proceedings General proceedings that preceded the last objection of the day had been interesting and confusing, as Dr Afari-Gyan had been confronted with a pink sheet and asked to explain its components. The answers provided confused the witness himself, as well as the judges, compelling petitioners� counsel to suggest to Dr Afari-Gyan that he did not understand or know what a pink sheet was. Dr Afari-Gyan was given a two-page extract from the voters register relied on by the EC in its declaration of the December 2012 presidential results, but the EC�s counsel objected, on the grounds that the document was not in evidence. According to Mr Quashie-Idun, the EC had exhibited the full list of the voters register of the polling stations in controversy and what was being given the witness did not look like an extract of that because it had not been certified by the EC. Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie intervened that if the document was an extract, then questions could be asked on it. He was supported by Mr Justice Dotse. Mr Justice Atuguba said there should not be any ambush in litigation and that if the petitioners had the register, they should bring it up, instead of using an extract. Following the arguments, the court ruled to sustain the objection. Arrival of pink sheets Another question by Mr Addison relating to how the pink sheets used during the election arrived in the country and whether it was possible for the witness to find that out was objected to but it was overruled. Dr Afari-Gyan then said he would have to check on how the pink sheets arrived in the country. Counsel suggested to the witness that the correct figure regarding the number of pink sheets that were printed was 15,742,075 and not the figure that was given by the EC if the denominations of booklets were considered. Dr Afari-Gyan said he had not computed the figure and that either someone had to do that for him or he did that because the election was conducted using a specific voters register. He said he did not see the pink sheets before the declaration of the election results because doing that would have delayed the declaration by four months. Asked on what basis the declaration was done, witness said results from the polling stations were moved to the collation centres in the presence of political parties or their agents and to the district offices of the EC before the regional offices, from where the results were relayed to the national headquarters in Accra. The witness disagreed that the serial number on a pink sheet was a unique feature. As to whether the pink sheet was distinguishable, the EC�s counsel objected, saying that the question had been answered already. Mr Justice Dotse asked the witness to tell the court if there was any other distinguishing feature on the pink sheet and Dr Afari-Gyan said there were the presidential and parliamentary pink sheets. Mr Addison, who was not satisfied with the response, still persisted that he wanted the witness to answer that question. After interventions by Mr Justice Dotse and Ms Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo, the witness finally answered that two polling station pink sheets could be distinguished from each other if they were blank. Tamper evidence aThe court overruled an objection regarding a Tamper Evidence Envelope which was shown to the witness and on which petitioners� counsel asked some questions. Dr Afari-Gyan said the envelope looked like a property of the EC, except that it did not bear the mark of the EC. The witness found it difficult when he was asked by Mr Addison to read certain numbers on the envelopes, which numbers Dr Afari-Gyan indicated were not serial numbers. However, on the intervention of the bench, he read the numbers on the three envelopes. The witness denied that the decision by the EC to order two sets of pink sheets for the election was a grand design to aid the manipulation of the election results. By Stephen Sah