The Supreme Court on Thursday overruled an objection raised by counsel for second respondent that a list of seven pink sheets, which the petitioners seeks to do cross examination with, do not tally with KPMG report.
The petitioners want to question Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission on the pink sheets.
The Court said the objection by the respondents was pre-emptive since no question has been put before the witness.
The Court gave the ruling when Dr Afari Gyan, witness of the second respondent mounted the witness box again after a long break to allow KPMG to audit the pink sheets in the custody of the registrar.
Mr James Quarshie Idun, Counsel for second respondent who raised the initial objection said the new list numbering seven do not match with the content of the KPMG report and they have duly alerted Mr Akoto Ampaw a member of the Petitioners legal team.
Mr Tony Lithur, Counsel for first respondent, who associated with the objection said it could be highly prejudicial if counsel for petitioners should ask questions on the set of pink sheets.
He said they have concluded their cross examination and have begun writing their addresses based on 24 exclusive categories of irregularities, adding that any change in labelling and categories would affect their case.
Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for third respondent argued that it does not lay with anybody, not even the judges, to reconstruct the case of the petitioners.
He said the petitioners have categorised their allegations into 24 but it appears a new category has been introduced.
He said the pink sheets now labelled as MBG which the petitioners are threatening to cross examine the witness on, is found in the KPMG report as MBF and that is unacceptable.
�We cannot as we speak have the petitioners seek to relabel their exhibits,� he added.
Mr Tsikata said if for any reason petitioners have challenges, they are still opened to make amendments but they cannot introduce new categories which is alien to them.
Mr Philip Addison, lead Counsel for petitioners though admitted there is a need for re-categorisation said his understanding of the order given on Wednesday was that the petitioners must show that whatever pink sheet they introduce in cross examination must have been captured by the KPMG report and that is what they did.
Justice William Atuguba, President of the panel said he remembered Dr Mahamudu Bawumia saying some of the exhibits have been recategorised but unfortunately that new categories were not tendered before the court and that is a problem.
Earlier, Mr Addison provided the witness with a list of 179 pink sheets, which Dr Afari Gyan confirmed it was unsigned.
Mr Addison explained that the list of the unsigned pink sheets were not included in the list of 905 pink sheets, which the EC admitted had not been signed.
Mr Addison also presented another list of 183 pink sheets in the MBQ series which witness confirmed that none of them were signed by the Presiding Officer.
Justice Baffoe Bonney intervened and asked the witness to bring the list of the 905 pink sheet exhibits so that the court can tell whether the new 183 pink sheets are not part of those in the 905.
Mr Addison noted if that is to happen, then it means the petitioners would have to wait till the witness supplies the information.
Dr Afari Gyan after perusing through the 183 pink sheets said only one exhibit had name and a signature on them but the 182 exhibit were unsigned by the Presiding Officer.
Mr Addison subsequently provided the witness various sets of pink sheets including 55 from the MBJ series, 114 pink sheets from the MBS series, and 12 pink sheets from the MBQ series, which Dr Afari Gyan confirmed there were no signatures on them.
<<Print>>