The much anticipated cross examination of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia by Counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Tsatsu Tsikata has failed to live to its billing two days into the questioning as the much touted ‘legal Maradona’ of the NDC has virtually failed to deliver the fireworks promised.
In the run up to his cross-examination, agents of the NDC virtually billed it as the encounter which would totally demolish the case of the petitioners and establish very concretely that the case before the nine justices of the Supreme court is frivolous and without merit.
However, with two days gone into his cross-examination of the main witness of the petitioners, what Lawyer Tsatsu-Tsikata has obviously delivered is, what can best be described as, an anti-climax especially for all the observers whose hopes were raised and who believed that the learned counsel for the NDC would crush the case of the petitioners.
Against all expectations, what Lawyer Tsatsu-Tsikata has delivered is almost an exact flashback of the cross-examination rendered by counsel for John Mahama, Tony Lithur, 1st respondent in the case.
It would be recalled that Counsel Tony Lithur in his cross-examination pulled out some pink sheets from the 11,138 polling station pink sheets submitted by the petitioners, from which he raised issues about and contended were wrongly categorized.
Similarly, Counsel Tsatsu-Tsikata on the first day brought up few dozens of pink sheets from polling stations affected by voting without biometric verification which he suggested had been wrongly categorized.
Counsel Tsikata’s contention was that if a polling station had recorded that one (1) or two (2) people had voted without going through proper biometric verification, then it was improper to classify them as ‘illegal’ as it was impossible to verify if indeed those persons who voted without biometric verification were legally authorized to do so or not. He again suggested that where the number of persons indicated to have voted without going through biometric verification was equal to the number of people who voted at the particular polling station then it was an error made by the Presiding officer.
However, Dr. Bawumia explained in all instances that since the pink sheets were the only official records of the elections at any polling station, it would be wrong for anybody to make conjectures different from what is captured on the pink sheets.
This cross-examination mode of Mr Tsikata was the exact same one as the one Counsel Tony Lithur had embarked on while cross-examining Dr. Bawumia.
To make matters worse, Tsatsu-Tsikata proceeded to pull out duplicate exhibits, just as Lawyer Tony Lithur had done, but again it was met with the same response from Dr. Bawumia who just as he told Lawyer for John Mahama told Tsatsu-Tsikata that though there were instances of duplicate exhibits, those exhibits did not affect the analysis of the petitioners and that every polling station entered the analysis only once.
With two days already gone into the much anticipated cross-examination, it remains to be known what other strategy Counsel Tsatsu – Tsikata would unleash to truly crush the case of the petitioners as had been promised.