Election petition: Supreme Court summons three social commentators for contempt
The Supreme Court on Thursday summoned three people who are alleged to have made some contemptuous statements regarding the on-going Election Petition to appear before it on Tuesday, July 2.
The three are Stephen Atubiga, a member of the National Democratic Congress’ (NDC) Communication Team, Kweku Boahen, Ashanti Regional Youth Organiser of the NDC and Ken Kuranchie, Managing Editor of the Searchlight Newspaper.
Stephen Atubiga and Kweku Boahen were alleged to have made some contemptuous comments on Asempa FM, Boss FM and Angel FM on June 25, which was later published in the Statesman Newspaper.
Ken Kuranchie is also to answer for a front page comment published in the Thursday June 27, 2013 edition of his newspaper.
Justice William Atuguba, President of the panel after returning from lunch break, announced the list and issued instructions for the three persons to appear before the Court to defend the comments they had made on the case.
Atubiga was reported to have stated on Asempa FM that even if the ruling party was to lose the on-going court case, it would never hand over power.
He had said the party would meet the New Patriotic Party (NPP) boot for boot and that “Ghana cannot contain all of us if the NPP wins the court case”.
Boahen is also reported to have said the NDC party would not sit down and allow the Supreme Court of Ghana to overturn the results of the Presidential Election in favour of the opposition NPP.
“Do you think the NDC will sit aloof and watch the court hand over power to the NPP, never! It will never happen in Ghana and anyone can mark it on the wall,” he had stated.
Ken Kuranchie is to respond to a front page statement published on the Thursday, June 27, 2013 edition of his newspaper.
Earlier, Mr Nii Amanor Dodoo, an official of KPMG, who mounted the witness box to clarify the auditing procedures of the firm, said his organization did not take inventory of pink sheets in the custody of the Registry prior to the counting.
He said his outfit received the petitioners’ comments and appropriately incorporated the information into the final report because the comments were pertinent.
He denied claims by the petitioners’ that 171 errors were inadvertently made by KPMG in the auditing, adding that 34 of those errors were captured and rectified.
Mr Dodoo stated that the number of pink sheets in the custody of the Registry was 13,926 excluding the 1045 pink sheets from the unique count.
He admitted that the petitioners’ gave them a list of 850 pink sheets from the 1,045 pink sheets on which those remarks were made but the mandate of KPMG was not to identify those pink sheets by the code.
Mr Dodoo also indicated that the number of unique pink sheets counted in the Registrar’s set amounted to 9,860 but did not include a set of series which was not counted.
He said the number of pink sheets in the President’s set but not in the Registrar’s set was 2,876, whiles the number of pink sheets in the Registrar’s set but not part of the President’s set numbered 6,629.
Mr Dodoo said he had no basis to confirm or deny whether the 1,097 pink sheets out of the 4,089 that were used by counsel for the First and Third Respondents were not part of the Registrar’s set.
When Mr Addison, petitioner’s counsel asked Mr Dodoo whether the KPMG was given the list of the 26,000 polling stations for counting, his response was in the negative.
When asked whether he told the court the total unique pink sheets from the President’s custody, Mr Dodoo said the institution was limited to checking the President’s set in comparison to that of the Registrar’s. “So I cannot tell the total unique pink sheets.
Source: GNA