International accounting firm, KPMG has finally presented its report to the Supreme Court concerning its audit of election results slips or pink sheets.

The audit, according to Spokesperson for the Petitioners legal team, Gloria Akuffo, found 13, 926 pink sheets, of which there were duplicates of about 3,593.

Without the duplicates, the number of pink sheets that were found to have been tendered by the petitioners at the court registry would be 10, 333.

As far as the lot of the President of the Bench is concerned, KPMG found 9,860, out of which 871, according to Ms Akuffo, were found to be pink sheets not contained in the lot submitted to the court registry.

The report was submitted to the court at the resumption of sitting on Monday June 24, 2013, after a 10-day break.

It was tendered in evidence by KPMG Partner and Head of Audit Practice, Nii Amanor Doodoo.

Fifteen copies of the report, which contains five volumes, were tendered.

The petitioners prayed the court to grant them two days to study the final report, but the lawyers for the respondents argued that the report could be studied in just a day since all the parties involved had been given drafts of the report days earlier.

Additionally, the petitioners requested a soft copy of the final report for study, but the Lawyer for President John Mahama, Mr. Tony Lithur fiercely opposed that request on the basis that the terms of engagement and ground rules that governed the audit barred any of the parties, except the referee from having access to the soft copy.

Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents, Mr. Quashie-Idun and Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata respectively, associated themselves with the concerns expressed by Mr. Lithur.

Lead Counsel for the Petitioners, Philip Addison, however, described as “strange”, the opposition by the counsel for the respondents to the request.

He said a soft copy will speed up their study of the report.

The tussle between the two parties necessitated a recall of the referee, KPMG, back into the Witness box to clarify the issue.

Mr. Amanor Doodoo said from the “risk management perspective”, KPMG ordinarily does not give out soft copies of its work to the parties involved.

“We categorically mentioned that we will not be in a position to provide the parties involved with soft copies,” Mr. Amanor Doodoo emphasised.

The Bench ruled by a 7-2 majority decision that the Petitioners cannot have access to the soft copy of the report vis-à-vis the explanation given by the KPMG Head of Audit practice.

The case has been adjourned to Wednesday June 26, 2013 for continuation.

The petitioners had always insisted they tendered 11,842 pink sheets, based upon which they are seeking the Supreme Court to overturn the presidential results of the 2012 elections.

The respondents, on the other hand, had insisted in Court that they received far less than the number touted by the Petitioners.

KPMG was invited to audit the sheets at the instance of Mr Tsikata.

The Daily Guide Newspaper reported a few weeks ago that over 13,900 pink sheets were counted by KPMG after its audit of the sheets in the custody of the Court registry.

The Respondents demanded an explanation as to how the number far exceeded the 11, 842 the Petitioners insisted they tendered.

Their demand for explanations followed an earlier threat to boycott the auditing on suspicion that seven alien ballot boxes stuffed with pink sheets were smuggled into the Court’s registry by the Petitioners to shore up the numbers to make up for the deficit. The court later ruled that KPMG should use the President of the Bench’s pack of pink sheets to cross-check those audited at the registry.