The installation of Rev. Renner became necessary following many developmental projects that he championed in the area.

Father Renner has lived in the community for over forty years.

He first came to Ghana in 1970, and moved to the district in 1975 as an evangelist of the Catholic faith.

He settled at Chamba in 1977, and established the Catholic parish and a health facility there.

Rev. Fr. Renner, however left Ghana to Germany in the early 1980s, and upon his return in 2000, he established a number of educational facilities ranging from Kindergarten to Senior High School in and around Chamba.

In total, he built 5 Primary Schools, 3 Junior High Schools, Holy Spirit Senior High, the only SHS in the in Chamba community and several kindergarten centres.

Father Joseph Renner Maligu Naa has also established a sponsorship scheme for brilliant but needy students in the community.

He has also sunk several boreholes in different communities around Chamba to provide potable drinking water for residents in those communities.

He has mentored a number of personalities from the area including the Member of Parliament for Bimbilla and Defense Minister, Dominic Nitiwul.

The Chief of Chamba on behalf of the people of Chamba expressed their profound gratitude and love to father Renner for the development he has ensured in the area, and asked for God’s blessings upon him.

The Catholic Bishop for the Northern Region, Most Reverend Vincent Sower Boi-Naa, on behalf of the Catholic Church, thanked father Renner for the good works done.

He, however challenged father Renner to establish a college of education in the area, whilst donating 100 bags of cement to support his development projects.

The District Chief Executive for Nanumba North District, Abdulai Yaqoub, also expressed gratitude to father Renner for the development, describing him as someone with a great love for people.

He said father Renner has demonstrated his love for people saying despite all the disturbances in the area ranging from the Nanumba Konkomba ethnic conflict in 1981, 94 and 95, and the Bimbilla disagreements, father Renner has remained with them and continues to bring more development to the area.

He, therefore, encouraged the people to own the projects by taking good care of them and not see them as belonging to an expatriate.

He pledged that the Nanumba North district will help provide electricity poles for father Renner for the extension of electricity to other parts of the Senior High School.

Reverend father Joseph Renner, Maligu Naa, expressed his gratitude to the people for the love and support they have given him over the years, and urged the people to continue with the support and cooperation to enable him complete many more developmental projects.

He further appealed for assistance from corporate organizations and other individuals to enhance development in the area.

–

By: Mohammed Aminu M Alabira/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post N/Region: German Catholic priest installed as Chief at Chamba appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The petition had been brought by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) candidate in the election, Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia and the then Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey.

So high was the tension, apprehension and uncertainty that characterised the eight-month hearing of the petition that even after the court had given its ruling, many were left in doubt as to whether the case was over.

Before the declaration of the ruling, many were wondering what would happen if the court declared the petitioner the winner; at the same time, there were doubts as to what the petitioner would do if President Mahama was declared winner.

But the beauty of Ghana’s democracy came into play when not too long after the announcement of the ruling, Nana Akufo-Addo gracefully accepted it and the country returned to ‘normalcy’, to the admiration of Ghanaians and the rest of the world.

The election petition hearing and the subsequent ruling has brought to the fore, the need to undertake reforms to avoid a recurrence of events that could lead to a similar situation.

We are aware that the Electoral Commission has asked all political parties to submit proposals for reforms. It is our hope that such proposals will be forthcoming, if they have already not been submitted, for the necessary steps to be taken to address any shortcomings that may have been identified.

Within the past year also, one issue that has dominated the political scene is that of ‘winner takes all’, which has become an item that may possibly be reformed in our electoral process. The Daily Graphic  calls on all to thoroughly discuss and debate this issue before any reforms are carried out.

Already, the EC has also conducted a limited registration exercise to capture prospective voters. It is our conviction that the voters register will be cleaned thoroughly and made acceptable to all political parties to avoid challenges about its authenticity.

We once again congratulate the nine-member panel led by Justice William Atuguba, with Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Justice Jones Dotse, Justice Anim Yeboah, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Akoto-Bamfo as members.

No doubt, they have contributed immensely to the deepening of our democracy by using a non-violent, constitutional means to secure the integrity of the 2012 elections and future ones.

The future of democracy, peace, stability and development in Ghana and Africa has, to a significant measure, been enhanced and we all have to pat ourselves on the back for not allowing the events of the 2012 elections and the petition thereafter to degenerate into confusion and chaos, as has happened in other parts of the world.

–

Source: Graphic Online

The post [Article] Let’s avoid another election petition appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, yesterday began his evidence-in-chief in the presidential election petition at the Supreme Court and denied claims of irregularities during the polls.

He led evidence on four categories of irregularities as spelt out by the petitioners and rebutted each of the allegations.

For instance, Mr Nketia stated that it was not true for the star witness for the petitioners, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, to state that polling stations were recognised by their serial numbers.

He explained that in his 34 years of observing elections in the country, polling stations had always been recognised by their names and unique codes, adding that serial numbers did not impact on the results of elections.

Mr Nketia, who is popularly called General Mosquito, stated that polling station names and codes were crafted such that anyone conversant with elections would recognise polling stations by letters of the alphabet, except I, for each of the 10 regions of the country.

He said, for example, that the code number for the Brong Ahafo Region begins with G, while those for the Greater Accra and the Ashanti regions began with C and F, respectively.

According to him, no polling agent, as far as he was concerned, had received training on serial numbers as security features.

Led by the lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Mr Nketia refuted allegations of over-voting, voting without biometric verification, the call for the annulment of votes at the polling stations which had the same serial numbers, no signature of some presiding officers on some pink sheets, as well as voting taking place at some 23 unknown locations.

He gave contrary evidence to the petitioners’ claim and stated that each of the alleged infractions was false and made in bad faith.

Testifying on behalf of President John Dramani Mahama and the NDC, Mr Nketia formally informed the court that the President had given him the power of attorney to testify on his behalf.

Over-voting

Responding to the petitioners’ claim that over-voting was recorded during the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential poll, the witness replied that there was nowhere that over-voting took place.

To him, over-voting meant the number of ballot papers in ballot boxes exceeded the number of people at a particular polling station and stated that in that particular instance, there was no complaint from any polling agent, as well as an indication that any polling agent had registered any form of protest.

Reacting to Dr Bawumia’s claim that over-voting meant ballots cast exceeded the number of ballots issued, Mr Nketia said, “I have heard of it. This is the first time over-voting has been defined that way in my 34 years of observing elections in this country.”

In any case, Mr Nketia stated that he was not aware of anyone filing a formal complaint at any polling station with regard to the issue of over-voting.

Voting Without Biometric Verification

On the petitioners’ allegations that some voters were allowed to vote without undergoing biometric verification, Mr Nketia indicated that it was not true and further pointed out that he was not aware that there was any formal complaint in that regard.

Touching on allegations that the President directed the EC to allow persons to vote without undergoing biometric verification, he disagreed with assertions that that statement amounted to instructing the EC, adding that several prominent personalities also appealed to the EC not to disenfranchise anyone because of biometric verification.

Mr Nketia further indicated that the petitioners’ party also issued a counter press statement, adding that the EC eventually declined the request to allow persons to vote without undergoing biometric verification.

The witness was shown copies of some pink sheets which said persons voted without undergoing prior biometric verification but he repudiated that assertion and attributed such errors to “clerical errors”, adding, “All polling agents have certified these results.”

Polling Stations with Same Serial Numbers

Reacting to calls by the petitioners for some votes to be annulled because some polling stations had the same serial numbers, Mr Nketia said the petitioners did not appreciate how voting was organised and explained that polling stations where special voting took place had two declarations of results on double pink sheets.

He described special voting as polls conducted for persons who would not be available at their various polling stations on the day of polls and further indicated that sorting and counting of ballot papers for those special votes were not done until the close of polls on voting day.

Mr Nketia indicated that in that instance, one would find same polling station numbers and codes on two pink sheets but different signatures of polling agents and presiding officers, adding that every political party knew in advance areas where special voting took place.

Blank Spaces on Pink Sheets

Touching on allegations by Dr Bawumia that blank spaces on pink sheets gave room for over-voting, Mr Nketia denied that assertion and said, “Blank is blank.”

He also explained that such blank spaces could also be attributed to clerical errors and further pointed out that there was no protest recorded on any pink sheet.

No Signature on Pink Sheets

Witness admitted that the EC had trained polling agents and presiding officers to sign pink sheets after the declaration of results and then forward the sheets to the collation centre.

He stated, however, that nowhere had a presiding officer lodged a formal complaint on why he/she had not signed a pink sheet.

Voting at Unknown 23 Polling Stations

Rebutting the petitioners’ claim that voting took place at 23 unknown polling stations, Mr Nketia said that was not true because the alleged polling stations were all part of the originally designated 26,002 polling stations.

He further explained that polling agents of the petitioners and the other polling agents were all present to observe elections at the said unknown locations.

Preamble

The witness said he had been involved in meetings of the Inter-Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) prior to the conduct of the December 2012 presidential and parliamentary elections and at those meetings the modalities and processes to be adopted before and during the elections had been spelt out and agreed upon by the Electoral Commission (EC) and political party representatives.

He said 52,004 people were selected and trained to represent the NDC at all the 26,002 polling stations across the country.

He explained that two agents were deployed to each polling station across Ghana to ensure that: persons who were not entitled to vote did not vote, there was no multiple voting, no one tampered with the content of ballot boxes, focus on the tally of votes cast to avoid cheating, as well as ensure that electoral officers conducted their duties in accordance with the rules that apply to the elections.

Mr Nketia also indicated that all the political parties were involved in the printing of ballot papers and indicated that the NDC had three shifts which stood by every eight hours for 24 hours during the printing of the ballot papers to ensure that extraneous materials were not introduced into the ballot papers.

He said the move was also to ensure that ballot papers tallied with polling station codes and further indicated that representatives of the various political parties were also allowed to track the distribution of ballot papers to the various regions, constituencies, districts and polling stations.

He also informed the court that the EC organised training for all agents of political parties and went ahead to show the court a copy of the guidelines issued by the EC for the conduct of the polls.

The witness also took the court through the voting process he underwent on voting day and was asked if he visited other polling stations on the day of the polls.

But counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, objected to that line of evidence on the grounds that it was immaterial and had not been pleaded to by the President and NDC.

Mr Tsikata responded and indicated those issues had been pleaded and were, therefore, relevant to the determination of the case.

The court, in a 5-4 majority ruling, overruled the objection.

Mr Nketia is expected to continue his examination in chief on Tuesday, May 28, 2013.

The Petition

The hearing of the substantive petition, which has the Presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, as petitioners began on April 17, 2013.

The petitioners have alleged that the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election was fraught with malpractices of over-voting, non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers or their assistants, voting without biometric verification and duplicated serial numbers of pink sheets.

However, President Mahama, the EC and, the NDC have denied that any such irregularities occurred during the election.

Amicus Curiae

The hearing of a motion for review filed by Mr Tony Benony Amekudzi, the lawyer whose application seeking to pray the court to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the President cannot be sued, has been adjourned to May 28, 2013.

–

Source: Graphic Online

The post Asiedu Nketia denies irregularities during polls appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

SUPREME COURT, ACCRA

(Writ No J1/6/2013)

IN RE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION;

AKUFO-ADDO, BAWUMIA & OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY (No 4)

MAHAMA, ELECTORAL COMMISSION  &

NATIONAL  DEMOCRATIC  CONGRESS (No 4)

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS: ATUGUBA,  ANSAH, SOPHIA  ADINYIRA, R  C OWUSU,

DOTSE,  ANIN  YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE, GBADEGBE, AND VIDA  AKOTO-BAMFO JJSC

Judgment on  August  29, 2013

The relevant facts were the same as the facts published in PART 1A on Thursday, February 13, 2014. On these facts, the Supreme Court dismissed (per holding (4))  by a five to four majority decision, the petitioners’ claims based on voting without biometric verification (per Atuguba, Sophia Adinyira, Dotse, Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo JJSC — Ansah, R C Owusu, Anin Yeboah and  Baffoe-Bonnie JJSC dissenting) for the following reasons:

Per Atuguba JSC. The evidence clearly establishes that the 2012 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections started on December 7, 2012; and due to difficulties with the biometric verification machines, continued on December 8, 2012.  The evidence also shows that Form 1C which was meant for those voters who had biometric voter ID cards but their names were not on the register, was not taken to the polling stations due to opposition from the political parties.  In consequence, Form C3 was not to be filled but a few presiding officers still filled it in error.  Dr Afari Gyan’s conflicting evidence as to the date of the printing of the pink sheets and the instructions concerning Form C3 is such a technical error of recollection that not much weight should be attached to it. The complaint about voting without biometric verification cannot, in addition to the foregoing reasons, therefore hold in the absence of some other contrary evidence…In the circumstances, I do not think that the petitioners have established their allegation of…voting without biometric verification, except to the limited extent admitted by the Chairman of the  Electoral Commission, which cannot impact much on the declared results.

Per  Sophia Adinyira JSC. …I would hold that the respondents…failed to demonstrate a corresponding interest equally weighty to justify the non- application of regulation 30(2) of CI 75. What has weighed on me to come to this conclusion is that the Electoral Commission during the registration exercise made special provisions to ensure that persons who because of trauma cannot go through fingerprint verification are not disenfranchised by being verified by face only.  To prevent abuse, FO (“face only”) is embossed on the voters ID card; indicated in the voters register; and in the biodata on the BVD. I would accordingly  hold that the requirement by regulation 30 (2)  for a voter to go through fingerprint identification before casting  his/her vote does not infringe his or her constitutional right to vote. The requirement is necessary to prevent those who are not entitled to vote from voting and thus ensure the free and fair elections as protecting the integrity of the democratic process is a central core principle of Electoral Justice – citing Opitz & Attorney-General of Canada  v Wrzensnewskyj (2012) SCC 55 at para 38 and New National Party of South Africa (The)  v The Government of the Republic of South Africa, CCT 9/99; [1999] ZACC 5; 1999(3) SA 191; [1999] 5 BCLR 489…

Opportunity was given to the parties in pursuance of the court’s direction on the mode of adducing evidence to file affidavit evidence. The third respondent National Democratic Congress (NDC) filed thousands of affidavits from its polling agents and other persons testifying that they participated in the election that was regularly conducted at their various polling stations and all who voted went through biometric verification. Even though counsel for the petitioners tried to downplay the evidential value of  their affidavits, I am of the view that some weight is to be attached to them as they recounted the procedure that everyone went through at the polling stations.

Per Dotse JSC. The claim on no biometric verificatoin,…in my estimation, fails in its entirety…Having considered…the evidence of Dr Afari-Gyan on why the C3 column was initially created but later abandoned at the insistence of the political parties, I am left in no doubt that the whole contention of voting without biometric verification has not been properly made out.

Per Gbadegbe. The petitioners, who bore the initial burden of proof on the allegation of absence of biometric verification, did not file any process that has the effect of challenging those depositions. The effect of this is that in the face of the depositions by persons who actually voted at some of those polling stations and testified from their own knowledge to what actually they saw and participated in, the evidence of the second petitioner, who was not at any of those polling stations, cannot be preferred. I think it is a basic rule of evidence that in considering the credibility of a witness one of the factors to be taken into account is: “the capacity and opportunity of the witness to perceive, recollect or relate a matter about which the witness testifies”: see section 80(2)(d) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323).

One question that the failure by the petitioners to make available a single affidavit from a person who was present at any of the polling stations continually brings up,  is: why were they not called? Since the petitioners had polling agents at all the polling stations as appear from the pink sheets exhibited before us, the reasonable inference therefrom is that the said agents are available. It being so, the failures to have them testify to affidavits in support of the allegation of absence of biometric verification has a decisive evidential attribute. The circumstances of this case in as far as the positive allegation of absence of biometric verification is concerned is that those agents have a duty to speak in the face of the depositions made by witnesses for the respondents and as such their silence has the effect of rendering the version testified to by their adversaries unchallenged and also deemed to be an admission: see  Bessela v Stern (1877) 2 C P D 265.

Per Vida Akoto-Bamfo JSC. Where a dispute arises as to whether a voter had been verified, the best evidence should be the verification machine. Even if the pink sheet were the primary document, it is not conclusive; for it is  my respectful view that,  prints out from the verification device would have put to rest any arguments as to whether those persons went through the verification process or not.

It is to be noted that when the petitioners made the allegation which was denied by the second respondent Electoral Commission, it was not enough for the second petitioner to have mounted the witness box and repeated the averments since those facts are capable of proof by some other means, ie producing the prints out of the machine as a form of proof. See Majolagbe v Larbi [1959]1 GLR 190.

–

Source: Graphic Online

The post Presidential election petition: Reasons for judgment (Part 4A) appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

SUPREME COURT, ACCRA

(Writ No J1/6/2013)

Published Thursday, February 13, 2014

IN RE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION;

AKUFO-ADDO, BAWUMIA & OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY (No 4)

v

MAHAMA, ELECTORAL COMMISSION  &

NATIONAL  DEMOCRATIC  CONGRESS (No 4)

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS: ATUGUBA,  ANSAH, SOPHIA  ADINYIRA, R  C OWUSU,

DOTSE,  ANIN  YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE, GBADEGBE, AND VIDA  AKOTO-BAMFO JJSC

Judgment on August 29, 2013

On 7 and 8 December 2012, the second respondent, the Electoral Commission, the constitutional body established under article 43 of the 1992  Constitution to conduct elections and referenda in Ghana, conducted parliamentary and presidential elections in all the constituencies  of Ghana. At the end of the elections, the Electoral Commission, through its chairman, declared John Dramani Mahama, the Presidential Candidate on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress, a political party, as having been validly elected as President of the Republic of Ghana. Thereafter, on December 11, 2012, the Declaration of President-Elect Instrument, 2012 (CI 80), was published under the hand of Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission.

Upon the declaration of the results of the presidential election, three persons: Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the Presidential Candidate of  the New Patriotic Party (NPP); his running mate,  ie the Vice-Presidential Candidate, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia; and Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the Chairman of the NPP, filed in the Supreme Court, a petition, pursuant to article 64(1) of the 1992 Constitution,  for a declaration that: (i) John Dramani Mahama was not validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana; (ii) that Nana Akufo-Addo, the first petitioner, was rather validly elected President of Ghana; and (iii) for any consequential orders as the Supreme Court might seem appropriate.

The respondents to the petition

The first respondent to the petition, John Dramani Mahama, was the Presidential Candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC);  the second respondent was the Electoral Commission, the constitutional body mandated under article 45(c) and section 2(c) of the Constitution and the Electoral Commission Act, 1993 (Act 451), respectively, to conduct and supervise public elections and referenda in Ghana and to declare the results of the 2012 Presidential Election; whilst the third respondent National Democratic Congress (NDC), the political party on whose ticket the first respondent had contested the election, was later joined as a party to the action on its own application, following the six to three majority decision of the court given on January  22, 2013.

The case of the petitioners 

The case of the petitioners was that there were constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the 2012 Presidential Election; and that those violations, malpractices and irregularities, affected the outcome of the elections.

The petition was based on six categories of violations,  malpractices and irregularities, namely:

(i) over-voting, ie widespread instances of polling stations where votes cast exceeded the total number of registered voters; or  votes exceeded the total number of ballot papers issued to voters on voting day in violation of article 42 of the 1992 Constitution and regulation 24(1) of the Public Elections Regulations, 2012 (CI 75);

(ii) absence of signatures of presiding officers or their assistants on the statements of poll and declaration of results (otherwise known as the pink sheets), in clear violation of article 49(3) of the Constitution and regulation 36(2) of CI 75;

(iii) voting without biometric verification in breach of  regulation 30(2) of (CI 75);

(iv) duplicate serial numbers, ie occurrence of the same serial numbers on pink sheets for two different polling stations, when the proper and due procedure established by the second respondent Electoral Commission  required that each polling station had a unique serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls;

(v) duplicate polling station codes, ie occurrence of different results recorded on the pink sheets in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station code, when by the second respondent’s established procedure, each polling station had been assigned a unique code in order to avoid confusing one polling station with another which could not be explained by a reference to special voting; and

(vi) unknown polling stations, ie results recorded for polling stations which were not part of the twenty-six thousand and two (26,002) polling stations created by the second respondent for purposes of the December 2012 Elections. Regarding the complaint of over-voting, the petitioners relied only on the entries on the pink sheets completed at the end of the elections at the various polling stations. No reference was made by the petitioners to the register of voters at any polling station.

The respondents’ case

The three respondents denied the substance of the petitioners’ claim. The first respondent John Dramani Mahama contended that even if there were violations, malpractices and irregularities in the December 2012 Elections, the declared results of the election would not be affected.

Regarding the absence of the signatories of the  presiding officers on the pink sheets, the first respondent further contended that such failure could not invalidate the results.  The claim of over-voting was also denied and so was the claim for voting without biometric verification.

The second respondent Electoral Commission, partly admitted the incidents of presiding officers not signing the pink sheets. However, the  Electoral Commission contended that, nobody voted without being biometrically verified.

Counsel  for the second respondent Electoral Commission further submitted that the absence of the signature of the presiding officer was not sufficient to annul the votes of persons who had exercised their franchise under the Constitution, particularly, in a situation where the accredited representatives of the parties or the candidates had duly signed to authenticate the regularity of the conduct of the polls.

The right to vote as guaranteed under the Constitution was paramount and not only must it ensure that persons qualified to vote exercise it, but it must also be ensured that peoples’ votes, once regularly exercised, were not annulled on the basis of technicalities. Failure to sign by the presiding officer, ought to be seen as an irregularity that did not affect any party or conduct of the polls.

The  case of the third respondent National Democratic Congress was substantially the same as that of the first respondent. Counsel for the third respondent NDC contended that nowhere in the petition or the affidavit of the second petitioner, Dr  Bawumia, was it alleged that any voter had voted more than once, thus infringing the one man, one vote principle.

The respondents also contended, inter alia, that a strict interpretation of regulation 30(2) of CI 75 would disenfranchise a lot of people especially those without fingers and those whose fingerprints have been so eroded that the biometric verification  device (BVD) could not pick them.

The issues for determination

On  April 2, 2013, the Supreme Court set down the following issues for trial:

(i) whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the Presidential Election held on 7 and 8 December, 2012; and

(ii) whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and  irregularities, if any, affected the results of the election. And to expedite the trial, the court decided that same shall be by affidavit evidence.  The parties were, however, given the option to lead oral evidence  only where the court was satisfied that there were compelling reasons for so doing.

Counting of pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results)

The Supreme Court by its order given on  May 9, 2013, appointed Messrs KPMG, an International Accounting and Auditing Firm, to make a count of all the exhibits of pink sheets filed by the petitioners. KPMG duly carried out the order of the court.  Its report was tendered through its Partner, Nii Amanor Dodoo as court exhibits 1, 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D.

The report at least assisted in clarifying the issue of the number of “pink sheets” filed. The report indicated that 13,926 were counted from the set of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The report indicated that out of that, 8,675 were unique as to its polling station name, code and exhibit numbers.

Out of that  were 5,470 which were not duplicated.  1,545 pink sheets could not be identified by the team because according to them, they were unclear and so marked by them as “incomplete data” in the registrar’s set. However, the petitioners were able to identify 1,219 whereas the second respondent Electoral Commission also identified fifteen more to make the total 1,234.

A control check, using the set of the President of the court showed that there were 2,876 pink sheets  which were not in the registrar’s set. Out of that, 804 of them were identified as unique and distinct by the petitioners.  From the remaining 1,366, which the team described as unclear, according to the petitioners, 60 more were counted. The petitioners finally based their case on 10,119 exhibits of pink sheets.

The issues for determination

On  April 2, 2013, the Supreme Court set down the following issues for trial:

(i)whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the Presidential Election held on 7 and 8 December, 2012; and

(ii)whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and  irregularities, if any, affected the results of the election. And to expedite the trial, the court decided that same shall be by affidavit evidence.

The parties were, however, given the option to lead oral evidence only where the court was satisfied that there were compelling reasons for so doing.

–

Source: Graphic Online

The post [Article] Presidential election petition: Reasons for judgement (Part 1A) appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.