Election Petition: EC’s lawyer to verify pink sheet figures
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned sitting to enable Counsel for second respondent to verify whether figures on the pink sheets provided by the petitioners matches with the number in the KPMG report.
The adjournment followed a request by Mr James Quarshie Idun, Counsel for second respondent that certain figures on the pink sheets provided by the petitioners do not tally with the numbers in the KPMG report.
He therefore prayed the court to defer the matter to enable them to ascertain which of the pink sheets tallies with the KPMG report.
The Court subsequently adjourned the case to tomorrow to enable Counsel for second respondent to cross-check the pink sheets.
Earlier, Mr Philip Addison, lead Counsel for the petitioners drew the court’s attention, seeking to clarify whether KPMG had finished all the counting because there was still no certainty of that in the report.
He said there were still issues the court has to resolve regarding the KPMG report, and insisted that the Petitioners filed 11,842 pink sheets, which the KPMG report confirms.
Mr Addison also gave a breakdown of the figures in the KPMG report which stated that it counted 8,675 unique pink sheet exhibits in the Registrar’s set.
He said the KPMG excluded 1,545 pink sheets, which they claimed, did not have qualifications such as exhibit number, polling station and polling station codes.
He said the reason for the exclusion is untenable, arguing that, if there is no polling station name on the pink sheet, the polling station code can still be used to identify that particular polling station.
Mr Addison further noted that other pink sheets which had no codes can be identified by the polling station name.
He wondered why KPMG would exclude those 1,545 pink sheets merely because some did not have polling station names or polling station codes on it.
Justice Anin Yeboah intervened in the matter and said there has to be further explanation from KPMG.
He said initially he thought there was no information at all on those 1,545 pink sheets but if there is a polling station name but no polling station code it could well be identified and counted and so he is at a loss why those pink sheets were not counted.
Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for third respondent said the KPMG counted every single pink sheet filed.
He said the Petitioners claim the report vindicates them so they (petitioners) should go ahead with the cross-examination of the witness for the second Respondent, rather than raising issues.
“Is there something they want to apply to the court to be done” he added.
Mr Tony Lithur, Counsel for first respondent intervened, saying that, his understanding of the 1545 pink sheets being excluded was that they did not have the three requirements spelt out.
He said the Petitioners should rather raise their concerns in their addresses instead of seeking to make comments during cross-examination.
Mr Quarshie Idun, who also made an intervention, read portions of the KPMG report, which explains why KPMG excluded the 1545 pink sheet exhibits.
Justice Baffoe Bonney at that juncture cautioned against the suppression of evidence, adding that, addresses may not be the solution to the problem.
Justice William Atuguba, President of the panel expressed surprise as to why the KPMG report should be an issue.
He said if the comments by the Petitioners lawyer were anything to go by, then the only thing was to get KPMG back to find out if it’s possible to locate the 1,545 pink sheets.
Mr Addison further argued that, it is erroneous to suggest that the pink sheets without polling station numbers and codes was the fault of the Petitioners, saying that, it was a failure on the part of the Presiding officers to fill out those portions, adding that, nonetheless, those pink sheets can still be identified.
He said there were 2,876 pink sheets found in the President’s set but not in the Registrar’s set, out of these 2,876 sheets, 871 are unique.
He said the 648 pink sheets used by the first and third Respondents in cross examining the second Petitioner are unique but not in the Registrar’s set, neither are they in the President’s set adding that, the total of all that brings the pink sheet exhibit number to 11,485.
Justice Sophia Adinyera at that moment intervened and said Mr Addison cannot give those details as evidence.
She said he can only give that information through a witness, adding that, if it is the wish of the Petitioners to make an application, then they should that, instead of using this procedure.
Mr Addison said he is only seeking direction from the court, saying that, they would apply for this information to be considered, except that they thought because the court gave an oral order for the KPMG audit it was well within their power to make an oral application for their concerns to be accepted.
Justice Sophia Adinyera intervened again by saying that, the Petitioners can go ahead with the cross examination.
She said if the Respondents claim they do not have those pink sheets and had not bothered to find them then it is their business.
She said the Petitioners should be concerned about cross examining on only pink sheets exhibits that are before the court and judges.