1000 All is set for Day Four of the substantive hearing. Petitioners’ chief Witness Dr Mahammudu Bawumia mounts the witness box and is reminded of his oath.
10:12am Lithur remarks he has complied with Supreme Court directive to furnish the court with list of polling station exhibits which has been duplicated. He says he complied with “a heavy heart”.
Presiding Judge remarks that the Supreme Court has received it with a “light heart”.
Lithur continues with his cross examination of the petitioners’ chief witness Dr Mahamudu Bawumia and asks if witness can confirm that the exhibits supplied and which are currently before him are the same exhibits supplied by his counsel.
Dr Bawumia answers in the affirmative.
Lithur says there are same pink sheets which have been photocopied twice to make up the numbers.
Dr Bawumia says indeed there are photocopies of same polling stations but have only been analysed once. “All the 47 polling station is zero impact on the analysis,” he says.
Lithur lifts another set of pink sheets to begin a new trend of cross examination.
Presiding Judge, W. Atuguba reminds the counsel for the first respondent to use the “Bulk Haulage” approach and not the piecemeal approach.
Counsel for the Petitioner, Philip Addison requests the panel judges to provide copies of the exhibits submitted by counsel of the respondents in order to be sure that the exhibits provided to the court by the respondents’ counsel are the same ones they provided to the petitioner.
Presiding judge is reluctant. Tony Lithur interjects and asks if the counsel on the other side is suggesting that they the respondents are deliberately photocopying the pink sheets. He takes serious exception to the allegations by Addison but continues with his cross-examination.
Lithur asks if the bulk of pink sheets provided him has been repeated.
Bawumia answers in affirmative but insists they were entered once in the analysis.
Lithur brings another set of pink sheets which he describes as “lot one”. He sends it for perusal by the counsel on the other side. They do so and send it Dr Bawumia.
Lithur asks can you confirm that in lot one, from 37 to 56 have the copies have been repeated?
Bawumia responds in the affirmative the copies have been repeated but were analysed once. He says even if the copies were repeated more than five times they could only be analysed once.
1100 Lithur brings lot two of the pink sheets and sends it round to be perused by counsel on the other side and then to the witness. He asks if the witness can confirm that the pink sheets have been repeated and whether they have been stamped by the Court.
Bawumia confirms the exhibit numbers are the same but were only entered once in the analysis. He also confirms that the pink sheets have been stamped.
Lithur sends lot three of duplicated pink sheets for perusal. Bawumia affirms that the pink sheets have been duplicated but were analysed once.
Philip Addison says if there are photocopies of the pink sheets of 11,138, it means there could 24,000 of the photocopies of the same pink sheets.
“Are we going to go through 24 thousand pinks sheets. He should have informed us before hand because we didn’t bring our lunch packs.”
Tony Lithur says, well the petitioners ought to have thought about the burden they heaped on them when they provided them with the duplicated pink sheets but hints they will liaise better with the petitioners later on in order to fast track the proceedings in court.
Lithur then asks if the pink sheets in lot four have been repeated. Bawumia answers in the affirmative but says they were only analysed once.
“You will search till thy kingdom come and you will not find that the information has been entered twice,” Bawumia adds.
Presiding Judge cautions witness to desist from rally ground talk.
Lithur: I suggest to you that these pinks sheets were not up to number. You deliberately repeated the pink sheets to make up the number. “If we count one-by-one we are no where the 11,000 pink sheets you told the court,” he Lithur avers.
Bawumia insists that as far as he is concerned 11,138 polling stations with irregularities were presented; they might have been duplicated but were only entered once in the analysis.
12:15 Court goes for recess to have lunch. It resumes at 1:30
1330 Court returns
Tony Lithur continues with his trend of repeated and duplicated pink sheet cross examination. He is now on “lot six”
Lithur posits there is “substantial duplication” of pink sheets by the petitioner to make up the numbers. If we count the pink sheets that have been presented we will not have 11, 138 polling station that have been brought before the court. He says the respondents do have only about 8000 pink sheets as exhibits and not the 11, 138 as claimed by the petitioners.
Bawumia insists there has not been substantial duplication to make up the numbers. He adds the respondent’s counsel has only brought forward 348 polling station of what he claims to be substantial duplication and that even if 6,000 polling stations were taken out of the petitioners’ request, the first petitioner would still win by first round.
Lithur requests for a referee to count the total number of pink sheet exhibits brought before the court by the petitioners.
Counsel for the third respondent Tsatsu Tsikata also agrees to the proposition by Tony Lithur. He calls for “independent verification” in the presence of all the parties.
Counsel for the second respondent Quarshie-Idun all agrees with the proposition.
One of the judges calls for an aggregation of the number of votes in the polling stations brought by the petitioners. She says if it were the case that only 8000 exhibits were tendered by the petitioners then the court could still go ahead to look at the effect of the votes from the 8,000 polling station on the elections.
Tsatsu Tsikata respectfully disagrees with the judge and argues that the petitioners brought before the court allegations of irregularities in 11 000 plus polling stations and the court asked them to provide better and further particulars. He says if the petitioners failed to provide exhibits covering 11,000 plus polling stations then it is a case of disrespect to the court. He said the count is an important first step to establish the case of the petitioners.
Addison agrees there should be an audit of the exhibits of the polling station and the votes. “For us what is important is the number of votes and not so much the number of polling stations”. He pleads the court to use the exhibits supplied to the court and not the ones being provided by the respondents.
Presiding Judge calls for a recess so the panel will confer and return with a decision.