By Nana Akua Tweneboah-Koduah

In case you missed it, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, the second petitioner in the on-going Supreme Court challenge to the 2012 Presidential Election results, has made tons of references to his analysis of the election results.

Never a day passes in court that you will not hear Dr Bawumia saying that if you happen to check our analysis you will find that we used the information once even though there appears to be double counting on a certain pink sheet. At other times, he will say that our analysis will prove that there were massive irregularities. And there have been a couple of times that Dr Bawumia has even challenged the respondents to refer to his analysis and counter it if they are not afraid.

This has been Dr Bawumia’s usual theme or mantra in court, and anytime he makes references to his analysis, the NPP supporters go gaga. Perhaps, Dr Bawumia and the NPP supporters falsely believe that there will be a point in time that the Supreme Court justices will set some time and review the so-called analysis on the CD-ROM that he sent to the court.

Either Dr Bawumia is totally ignorant about court proceedings or his lawyers are not telling him the truth about the analysis. The truth is: courts do not consider self-styled analysis as evidence. If they do, many innocent people would have been convicted and languishing in jail.

No court worth its salt will admit someone’s own interpretation of events or analysis as evidence. It has never happened, and therefore, Bawumia should never go to bed thinking that his so-called evidence will be considered as part of the overall evidence that they sent to the Supreme Court.

If indeed the first petitioner, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, was part of the team that gathered the so-called evidence, he should have told Bawumia there and then that he was just wasting his time analysing the election results, because there was no way the court will consider such analysis as evidence.

But here we are with Bawumia daily preaching or drawing attention to his yet-to-be analyzed analysis. Perhaps just as Bawumia is still in a trance about the role of polling agents, he may still be dreaming that his analysis will be considered as part of his evidence and eventually analyzed by the justices of the Supreme Court, which is why he keeps reminding everybody in court.

In court, judges base their decisions on hard core evidence. They don’t base their decisions on hearsays and second guesses by people. That is the reason why if I were Dr Bawumia I will stop making references to the analysis because I don’t believe the nine justices will waste their time and review the CD-ROM.

What even makes the review of the CD-ROM a remote possibility is that, it is full of boo-boos or mistakes. Dr Bawumia under cross-examination by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel of the third respondents, has admitted multiple of times that his own evidence gathering which he has put on the CD-ROM is flooded with mistakes.

Having made such admissions in open court, why on earth does Dr Bawumia think that the justices will review such tainted self-styled analysis.

It’s just about time somebody informs Dr Bawumia that people are fed up with his references to his analysis which is not evidence and can therefore never be considered as one. He will be better off to continue with his weaving and dancing around questions which has received several scolding from the justices.

I will end by telling Dr Bawumia that self-styled analysis can never and will never equate to evidence. And no justice worth his or her salt would want to be the first to admit analysis as evidence and destroy his or her career.

nakuakoduah@yahoo.com