14:45 – Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata tables another list of documents to which he will be questioning Dr Bawumia.
He has been cross examining Dr Bawumia on several issues including the reasons why the polling agents of the petitioners did not object to some irregularities of the alleged irregularities they (petitioners) have been calling against.
14:10 – Cross examination continues with Tsatsu Tsikata suggesting to Dr Bawumia that he has been untruthful with some facts as stated on the pink sheets he has been inspecting.
14:00 – Tsatsu Tsikata puts it to Dr Bawumia that the polling agents of the NPP, by appending their signature to the pink sheets, were attesting to the accuracy of the results declared.
Dr Bawumia holds a differing opinion.
13:52 – Dr Bawumia is reviewing documents on which he will be questioned by Tsatsu Tsikata.
13:40 – Hearing resumes at the Supreme Court. Dr Bawumia is reviewing some documents as cross examination continues.
Tsatsu Tsikata has been questioning Dr Bawumia on why the polling agents of the NPP did not voice objection to irregularities that might have witnessed on the face of the pink sheets.
12:32 – Justice Atuguba announces a lunch break and thus the court takes a short recess.
12:10 – Lawyer Tsikata indicates that he will reveal to the court a conscious effort to duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate data sets
12:00 – Dr Bawumia insists that “we have nothing to gain by having more sheets.” He maintains that the different photocopies that were made containing duplicated and quadruplicated data sets were simply errors that occurred during the photocopying process.
11:58 – “Even if they were quintriplicates, in the analysis the data were used only once.” – Dr Bawumia tells the court after questions from Tsatsu Tsikata
11:55 – Three sets of quadruplicates of documents are made available for review before questioning continues on it
11:32 – Dr Bawumia is currently reviewing some documents believed to contain evidence of triplication of pink sheets
11:20 – Questions on the electronic and manual entry of the data in the affidavit evidence filed by the petitioners is being questioned.
11:00 – Dr Bawumia continues to insist though there have been instances of duplicates, the data was used only once in the analysis
10:40 – Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata is insisting that some of the documents submitted by the petitioners have been duplicated and in some cases triplicated, thus padding it up their affidavit evidence.
10:30 – Tsatsu Tsikata submits another lot of documents which reveal that the same pink sheets were duplicated in the exhibits submitted
10:20 – Dr Bawumia insists that though there have been cases of mislabeling, the data was used once in the analysis
10:10 – instances where same pink sheets are duplicated with the same serial number
10:05 – Cross examination continues with Tsatsu Tsikata quizzing Dr Bawumia. He starts of by asking about Sammy Awuku’s role in the party
10:00 – Justice Kpegah and the panel of judges rule for the motion moved by Lawyer Amekudzi to be dismissed
Drama in Court
Hearing of the election petition case before the Supreme Court commenced on a dramatic note when lawyer Amekudzi attempted to introduce an amicus curiae brief to the court.
An amicus curiae educates the court on points of law that are in doubt, gathers or organizes information, or raises awareness about some aspect of the case that the court might otherwise miss.
The move was however objected to by Lawyer Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners, who informed the court that the intervention could not be allowed because it was partisan, lacked the necessary facts to proceed on and did not have supporting affidavits.
Lawyers Tony Lithur, Quarshie Idun and Tsatsu Tsikata all rose to support the objection raised by Philip Addison.
They noted among other reasons that the application was not properly before the court.
According to Lawyer Amekudzi however, the case before the court is not about “a mistake made on pink sheets… and they (lawyers and respondents) are here on mistakes and they said i came here without affidavits so they (justices) should dismiss!
“Then what is the legitimate legal basis why they are here when we all know that elections are not fought on pink sheets. A mere mistake and somebody is making a gesticulation of assumptions?”
In dismissing the application by lawyer Amekudzi, the President of the panel of nine justices of the Supreme Court sitting on the case, Justice William Anaam Atuguba indicated that “We are of the opinion that the intervention cannot properly be termed an application to present an amicus curiae brief it being in support of one party represented already by counsel.”