The ongoing landmark election petition at the Supreme Court seems to be witnessing an increasing number of women attending the proceedings. Besides female lawyers for the opposing sides of the case, female political leaders are storming the courtroom in their numbers to give moral support to the parties.

On the side of the petitioners, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) can boast of Otiko Afisah Djaba, Women’s Organiser; Cecilia Abena Dapaah, former MP of Bantama; Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey, MP for Anyaa Sowutuom and Akosua Frema Osei Opare, former MP for Ayawaso West Wuogon, with Jemima Anita De Soosoo, NDC Women’s Organiser on the side of the respondents.

Meanwhile, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, star witness in the ongoing landmark election petition at the Supreme Court, yesterday exposed lead counsel for the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), Tsatsu Tsikata over a document the Electoral Commission (EC) tendered at the trial.

The document, which is a letter purportedly signed by Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the First Petitioner in the presidential petition, assigning New Patriotic Party (NPP) agents to polling stations, which the petitioners are claiming were unknown to them, had been tendered by the EC through Dr Bawumia during the commission’s first day of cross-examination.

After exhaustively asking Dr. Bawumia questions on the document on Monday, Mr. Tsikata picked up the same letter again yesterday trying to discredit the witness on his earlier testimony.

Mr. Tsikata’s point was that since Nana Akufo-Addo swore an affidavit on February 8, 2013, claiming initially that the NPP could not locate 28 polling stations out of the 26,002 permitted by the EC when he (Nana) knew very well that he had signed a letter on December 5, 2012 assigning party agents to the same polling stations the petitioners claimed were non-existent, Dr. Bawumia needed to explain it to the court.

However, when handed back the exhibit (letter), the Economist and NPP vice presidential candidate for the 2012 elections, carefully scrutinised the document and said “Mr Lords, this letter is rather a curious one.”

“A careful observation shows that the letter was written on December 5, 2012 but the returning officer acknowledged receipt of the letter on December 3, 2012 which is strange because the dates are inconsistent,” Dr. Bawumia pointed out.

He said although the letter might bear the signature of the NPP presidential candidate “it is inconsistent as far as dates and receipts are concerned”.

The Exposure

Counsel: Take a look at Exhibit 3

Witness: Can I have exhibit 3E again, please? Yes my lords, this letter is a rather curious one that is why I wanted to see it. … (Counsel interrupts)

Counsel: Is it signed by the first petitioner?

Witness: Yes, my lords; that is why it is curious. It (the letter allegedly authorising polling agents to the unknown polling stations) is dated 5th December 2012, but the returning officer received it and dated it 3rd December 2012. It is inconsistent.

Counsel: But it was signed by the first petitioner?

Witness: Yes, my lords, it is electronic signature, so one would like to really see the original of this letter, but I’m saying that it was dated 5th of December 2012, but the receipt by the Returning officer is dated 3rd December 2012….they are inconsistent. And plus, my lords, the letter that you see does not refer to the polling station code. Even if the dates were consistent, we say that these polling stations are unknown because the codes on the pink sheet are inconsistent with what is in the EC listed 26,002. This letter needs further explanation; it is inconsistent, as far as the dates of sending and receipt are concerned, my lords.

Counsel: (Smiling uneasily) It still bears the signature of the first petitioner.

Witness: Yes, it does and this is why it is curious.

Counsel: You know, you recall that when these series of exhibits were being tendered by counsel for Second Respondent, I think from where you were sitting, when this letter was sent to your lawyers, it was reviewed by them and it was sent all the way back to the First Petitioner, do you recall seeing that…

Witness: To the First Petitioner? No, I don’t recall seeing that.

Counsel: (Stretches hands to retrieve the letter). Let me just have it… (Murmuring in court as counsel takes a closer look at the letter). Is this also the letterhead of the New Patriotic Party by any chance, or it’s not?

Witness: It looks like it, yes.

Counsel: It looks like it is the letterhead of the New Patriotic Party… (Pauses for several minutes). And each of those other exhibits in exhibit 3 series are also apparently on the letterheads of the New Patriotic Party?

Witness: Yes, each of them was sent 7th December 2012-the day of the election-and received on the 3rd December, 2012. It’s just not consistent.

Counsel: Have you cared to ask your colleagues about these problems that you have seen on the face of the letter, or you are just seeing them in the witness box now?

Witness: No these were tendered [by First and Third respondents] and we have asked questions. The issues that have come up are the dates on these letters.

Counsel: Very Well.

Initial Petition

Earlier, a tug-of-war ensued between Mr. Tsikata and the petitioners’ lead counsel, Phillip Addison, over the initial petition filed by the petitioners which they said they no longer relied on but Mr. Tsikata also insisted he had the right to conduct cross-examination on that piece of evidence.

Counsel: The original affidavit of the First Petitioner verifying was in respect of allegations about 4,709 polling stations, is that correct?

Witness: Yes, my lords.

Counsel: Did you provide in your affidavit any explanation in respect of that earlier number and your change to a higher number?

Witness: There is no explanation; we had an amended petition where we moved up to a higher number.

Counsel: I am going to show you the First Petitioner’s verifying affidavit….(Mr. Addison interrupts)

Mr. Addison: My lords, Counsel is referring to the original petition and affidavit in verification. We are no more relying on that, it’s been amended. The amended petition and the affidavit is the one presently before the court.

Counsel: This is an affidavit that is before this court and I’m showing it to you (Passes the affidavit around the court room for all to scrutinise. Philip Addison intervenes)….

Mr. Addison: My lords, we have raised an objection to this document being tendered through the witness for question being asked on pleadings that have been abandoned. We have before the court now, an amended petition….(Justice Atuguba clears the air)

Justice Atuguba: Sometimes we just look on because when you intervene, there are all sorts of misconceptions. When a pleading is amended, the first one is phased out, that’s the effect of an amendment…

Counsel: There’s a sworn affidavit that is part of this proceedings and I am going to cross-examine the witness in respect of this amended petition, by a reference that I am going to make to that affidavit that they earlier swore. The First Petitioner swore to an affidavit which is before this court, and the fact that they’ve amended their pleadings does not mean that I cannot refer to their affidavit and their earlier pleading in this case, especially as we have indicated in our answer. We have indicated quite clearly the inconsistencies that there have been in the case along the way. There is absolutely no reason why I cannot refer to that in cross-examination.

Atuguba: I see this is a hybrid situation; normally pleadings are not required to be verified by affidavit, but in an action like this they are. I see the point you are making relating to affidavit, but in fairness, one has to construe the amendment procedure Mutatis Mutandis also in respect of the affidavit, so that when the amendment is made, it’s not just the pleadings, but the new affidavit supporting the amended petition deemed to have amended the earlier one….

Counsel: Now, my lords, indeed, as has been famously said, there are many ways in killing a cat and I will refer to the affidavit that is filed with the amended pleadings; the second amended pleadings. The affidavit attached to that is dated 8th February 2013 and that is actually also sworn to by the First Petitioner and I will just refer you to that. Paragraph 26 of the affidavit which is on page 7 (He hands the affidavit over to Dr. Bawumia to read. The paragraph is in reference to 28 unknown polling stations.

Bawumia reads it). Now by the time that the first petitioner deposed to that affidavit on oath, he had written the letter, Exhibit 3 E and signed the letter to the second respondent [EC]; is it not?