Lead counsel for the Petitioners in the Election Petition hearing has said they have been vindicated by the KPMG audit report because it proves they filed 11,842 pink sheets.
Even though, Amanor Dodoo of KPMG testified that only 8,675 pink sheets were uniquely counted and must be used, Philip Addison maintained a thorough scrutiny of the KPMG report showed that the Petitioners filed in excess of 11,000 unique pink sheet exhibits.
Philip Addison made the comment, Wednesday as he prepared to continue with the cross-examination of the Electoral Commission’s star witness, Dr. Afari-Gyan.
He explained that even though KPMG had concluded its audit and submitted a report, there are still some issues “hanging out” and needed the court’s direction to proceed.
He explained that apart from the 8,675 pink sheets the referee counted as unique polling stations, that are additional 1,545 pink sheets which had been excluded from the report by KPMG on grounds that it was not readable.
He said the reasons for excluding those pink sheets were not tenable. Philip Addison read out the reasons and explained the alternative means that could have been used to identify a pink sheet.
NPN – No Polling Station Name: But Addison explained the polling station code could be used to identify these ‘irregularities’.
NPC – No Polling Station Code: The polling station name could be used.
UPN – Unclear Polling station Name: The polling station code could be used.
UPC –Unclear Polling station Code: The polling station name could be used.
CWA – Code without Alphabet: The polling station name could be used.
LBAI – Low Ballot Accounting Information: This is not part of the remit of the referee.
Addison complained that KPMG rejected any pink sheet with at least one of these index missing when they could have used another visible index to identify any contentious pink sheet.
Justice Baffoe- Bonnie said all along he thought that a pink sheet was rejected because it lacked all the features outlined.
Addison went on to provide a breakdown of the over 11,000 pink sheets they claim to have filed.
He said apart from the 8,675 counted by KPMG, there are an additional 1,291 out of 1545 rejected pink sheets by the referee but which have been identified. 2,876 pink sheets were found in the President’s lot but which are not in the Registrar’s set.
871 unique pink sheets were also found in the president’s set although KPMG did no unique count of that set.
He mentioned some 485 and 655 more sheets were not taken into consideration in the final count.
He said the sum of these figures goes to prove they filed about 11,842 pink sheets.
But the Respondents are unimpressed. Tony Lithur said his understanding of the reasons for the exclusion of the 1,545 pink sheet exhibits by the referee were that those pink sheets in question did not have the three requirements.
He would rather the Petitioners raise their concerns with the KPMG report in their address to the court instead of raising those concerns during cross examination.
 Tsatsu Tsikata |
He noted 648 pink sheets were used by Tony Lithur and Tsatsu Tsikata but was “not at all” in the referee’s or president’s set of pink sheets.
He also explained the reason for unreadable nature of the pink sheets was not the fault of the petitioners but presiding officers.
Tsatsu Tsikata counsel for the ruling NDC reacted that if the petitioners believe they have been vindicated by the report, then there was no point clarifying anything as Addison was doing.
Another judge said the report by KPMG leaves room for the court to determine if the alleged 1,545 are qualified to be included.
A couple of judges explain to Addison that this is not the time for an address, he should file a motion for a proper determination on his position.
Quarshie-Idun counsel for Electoral Commission also reacted that it was too late for the petitioners to revisit an issue after Amanor Dodoo witness for KPMG had been discharged.
Tony Lithur counsel for president Mahama expressed worry that the address by the petitioners could require the audit to be re-done, send the process back and delay the need for expedition.
Philip Addison clarified that the witness was given a conditional discharge and could be brought back to be re-examine. He also acknowledged the advice given by the judges to file a proper motion for a determination of his claim.
Nonetheless, “we have filed what we said we had filed” Addison asserted.
