<<Print>>

Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, witness of the second respondent on Tuesday stated that the non-signing of a pink sheet by the presiding officer does not invalidate the election results. He admitted though that failure to sign the pink sheet is an irregularity it still would not affect the legitimacy of the election. Dr Afari Gyan made the revelation when he continued with his evidence-in-chief at the on-going election petition at the Supreme Court. He said where the presiding officer has not signed but the agents of the parties have signed the results is accepted by the Electoral Commission (EC). He said he had examined the claim by the petitioner�s that votes be annulled at polling stations where presiding officers did not sign pink sheets saying the number of pink sheets involved in that irregularity were about 1900. Dr Afari Gyan said only 3.5 percent of the 26002 pink sheets were not signed which indicate that more than 96 percent of the presiding officers signed the sheets and also about 99 percent of all polling agents signed the pink sheets. He explained that on Election Day the presiding officer has a lot of work to do and signing of the pink sheet is only one of them. Dr Afari Gyan also maintained that he still standby his statement he made on December 5, 2012 press conference that No verification No vote. He however said each occurrence of over-voting must be looked at on its own merit because there could be various scenarios. He said to proof that there was over-voting some test must be carried out to be 100 per cent certain. Dr Afari Gyan said under normal circumstances we do not expect a 100 percent turn out so if we see more than a 100 percent turnout there is no hesitation to annul the result. He stated emphatically that nowhere in Ghana did the classical definition of over-voting occur. He said the Electoral Commission (EC) adopted a new technology of Biometric Registration and Verification which has a firm way of determining those who voted. Dr Afari Gyan said if there are excess votes on the face of the pink sheet there would be a firm scrutiny before deciding on what to do. He also explained that when there are excess votes at a polling station he would not immediately presume there is wrong doing. He said what he would do is by looking at the ballot papers thoroughly before calling for annulment. Dr Afari Gyan also stated that he disagrees with the petitioners claim that people were not verified before voting adding that verification machines were provided at all polling stations. He said in places where the machines developed faults the voting was postponed to the following and they were used. Dr Afari Gyan before closing his evidence-in-chief stated that the reliefs being sought by the petitioners should not be granted because in the view of the commission no firm basis has occurred to merit the grant of those reliefs. In related development, Mr Tony Lithur, Counsel for first respondent has started his cross-examination of Dr Afari Gyan. Even before he started the cross-examination there was drama in court as to which of the parties would go first with the cross examination. Mr Addison at that juncture stood up and said the respondents must begin, if they are not interested in cross examining the witness at all, then the petitioners were ready to start. He quoted section 70 of the Evidence Act to support his argument insisting that the interests of the respondents are the same or similar and are at variance with that of the petitioners so the respondents must allowed to go first. Mr Tony Lithur also took his turn and said the petitioners must go first sating the business of lumping the three respondents together was not on. He said each respondent was an independent entity with separate interest and must be treated as such. He said does not see why when it comes to raising objections against the second respondents they would be told not to contribute to the objection because they are separate entities and yet when it gets to cross-examination they would lumped together as one. �The petitioners must go first� he added. Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for the third respondent concurred with Mr Lithur also cites portion of the Evidence Act and made claims to some conditionalities under which the requests by Addison could be granted adding that this particular instance does not satisfy the conditionality. The court after short recess ruled by citing Section 69 of the Evidence Act which says the court shall exercise reasonable control over cross examination. The court said given the initial experience in the court which the second respondent re-examined the witness instead of cross examining him, the court has decided that the first and third respondents must go ahead with the cross examination to be followed by the petitioners to avoid such a pitfall.