A member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has on Joy FM’s Top Story, accused the Electoral Commission of hiding evidence from the court in an attempt to surprise the witness in chief of the petitioners who are challenging the results of the 2012 general elections.
Yaw Boabeng Asamoah said the EC was “in a sense” hiding evidence because its lawyer, Quarshie Idun sought to “tender in evidence through the opponent [Dr. Bawumia]” and not through the “mode of trial” established by the Presiding Judge William Atuguba.
He said although the petitioners had early on applied to obtain 26,000 pink sheets from the EC, the Commission “flatly refused”.
Instead the EC filed a mere “four-paged affidavit” as a response to the petitioners. Their affidavit also had no pink sheets, he said.
“What stops you [EC] from exhibiting all of them [pink sheets used for special voting]?”,he wondered.
The NPP lawyer summarized the “mode of trial” issued by Presiding Judge.It was to “come by affidavits, put it on paper, don’t surprise anybody”. This he thought was “clear”.
But lawyer Victor Adawudu of National Democratic Congress (NDC) thought differently. The EC was not hiding anything. From his point of view, that should be clear enough to Mr. Boabeng Asamoah.
Adawudu echoed comments by NDC lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata. He said the document tendered by counsel for E.C was “original”.
Early on in court, lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata suggested the petitioners had submitted in court “same pink sheets” with “different signatures”. He claimed one of those duplicate documents “must be a forgery”.
He argued that Quarshie Idun, counsel for second respondent tried to submit original documents as evidence through the witness to “cure” a “possible case of fraud”. He thought it was not prudent to “rely” on the “evidence of your opponent”.
Victor Adawudu also debunked suggestions that Quarshie Idun together with lawyers, Lithur and Tsatsu Tsikata,were “ganging up against one person [Dr. Bawumia]”.
This amounted to “crying more than the bereaved”.
The NDC lawyer offered a quick lesson on the law. Lawyers,Lithur and Tsatsu as “parties to the suit” had more rights than one, he said. It included the ” right to objection, cross examine and lead evidence”.
And he reminded everyone that of the precious and prized position of the EC. The “respondent don’t have anything to prove”, he submitted.
But despite disagreements,both counsels found a place to agree. For the first time, they used the same phrase to describe the pace of the trial. “Yes”, the court was making “good progress”.