Johnson Asiedu Nketiah
Lawyer Ampaw: There was the necessary preparation technically to show what is in the recording and the case was adjourned to today (Monday) so that that could be done.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now I believe you have seen the recording since then?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes my Lord, I have watched the copy of the video that was attached to this statement.
Supreme Court
Lawyer Ampaw: And the recordings do relate to press conferences?
Asiedu Nketsia. Yes, where I spoke.
Lawyer Ampaw: And where you didn’t speak is still related to press conferences under the 2020 presidential elections.
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes my Lord.
Lawyer Ampaw: My Lord, we may wish to have the recording played in open court, because it is our view that the recordings, as your Lordship will say, go to the credibility of the witness and the petitioner.
Tsatsu: My Lord, as we have indicated from the beginning, if we are being shown the recording in order to deal with issues of credibility, we don’t have any issue with that. Our concern is that it’s not an issue of admissibility, and, My Lord, this was why I needed to clarify your last order.
Court: But the admissibility comes first. It must be admitted before we see the relevance.
Tsatsu: My Lord, in that event we are objecting to the admissibility.
Court: I thought counsel was cross examining the witness some few moments ago and he said he had seen it and he had watched it. Maybe you have other legal objections you can be recorded as such.
Tsatsu: No, the legal objection is that it cannot be admitted through this witness. It is not admissible through this witness.
Court: But the witness said he has seen it, and he did speak to it.
Tsatsu: Yes he has seen it, but it cannot be admitted as evidence in this court through him. Court: It is not something from his custody. He says he has watched it; it is not from his custody; it is not a recording made by him. He cannot authenticate that video.
Lawyer Ampaw: Mr Tsikata, the witness hasn’t said so.
Tsatsu: My Lord, he said he has seen it, and on the basis of that, we are objecting to that document being produced in evidence through the witness. The proper thing is for them to produce it in evidence, if that is what they are seeking to do. That is why it’s an exhibit attached to their witness statement. As an attachment to their witness statement, it is entirely open for them to put it in evidence. It is, in fact, the process they have initiated but they cannot tender that through our witness. They cannot do that my lords; they cannot do that, and we respectfully object to that evidence by virtue of Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The exhibit in question is not coming from the custody this witness.
According to counsel, it is an exhibit attached to the witness statement that they are seeking to introduce before this court, and they are entitled to introduce it into evidence through their witness when he is called into court. It is a different matter when you try to ask the witness in the opposite side to be the one to tender it my lords. We cannot have it tendered through our witness.
My lords, I will respectfully also refer to section 136(1) of the Evidence Acts, which provides as follows: “Where the relevancy of an evidence depends upon its authenticity or identity so that its authentication or identification is required as a condition precedent to admission, that requirement is satisfied by evidence or other showings sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
The proponent of that document is the second respondent, and your Lordship clearly saw what happened at cross examination the other time. The witness opened the envelope in which that exhibit has been attached; a witness statement at the request of counsel for second respondent. That cannot amount to authentication, and my Lord, I cannot see what the problem is in my indicating, if your Lordship wish the witness step out while we discuss the legal admissibility of course; that can be done, but once there is an issue of admissibility, authentication is also an issue, and, therefore, my lords, I cannot see how I am not allowed to talk about authentication, if that’s what your Ladyship is suggesting.
Your Ladyship: Counsel what have I said?
Tsatsu: Your Ladyship said once the witness has…
Your Ladyship: Mr Tsikata, you are making your argument, please continue.
Tsatsu: Yeah, I am making my argument in response to what your ladyship said, because what your ladyship indicated was addressed to me, and I addressed to the whole court, and respectfully, my point is that the issue of authentication is a precondition to the admissibility of the evidence and we object.
Lawyer Ampaw: My Lordships, with all due respect, the objection being raised by counsel for the petitioner is a misconceived, and it is misconceived for the simple reason that the witness has identified the evidence that we seek to tender through him. It is evidence about what he said in the press conference, and he has admitted to this court early this morning; I am not talking about Friday; early this morning, he admitted that video and the cover statement were statements he had made at the press conference, so that is an identification and authentication of the evidence.
Secondly, he has also admitted before this court that the video also covers statements made by the petitioner, Mr Mahama, and other leading members of his party. So, my lords, it seems to me that in terms of the condition precedent that ought to be satisfied by Section 136(1), it more than met. And we, therefore, pray that the objection is dismissed.
Court: Are you objecting because the document is attached to the witness statement? Is that the ground upon which you are raising your objections?
Tsatsu: No, my Lord, I am objecting on the ground that if that document, which is their evidence; if that document is to be admitted in evidence, then it ought to be admitted in evidence through their witness.
And, secondly my Lord, as I indicated, that document’s authenticity has to be established. What my learned colleague said, with the greatest respect, about the witness seeing the video on Friday and so on, how is that evidence of authentication my Lord?
Court: Mr Tsikata, assuming this evidence is not a video but a paper and it’s under cross examination, can’t they show him the document and ask him to identify the document, and if he so identifies it can’t the document be tendered through him, because it’s under cross examination.
Tsatsu: No my Lord. It can be identified and he can be asked questions relating to it, but it cannot be tendered through him.
Court: It can be tendered through him, because he is a witness.
Tsatsu: It can’t be tendered through him.
Court: He can.
Tsatsu: My Lord, with the greatest respect, this is an important issue. If the witness is not the maker of that video, he can’t authenticate it. I mean the videos’ authenticity is important as a precondition for it admissibility. My Lord, I have said it a couple of times this morning that if its being shown to him for the purposes of questions related to credibility, we don’t have an issue about that. My Lord, in that situation, it is not about admissibility, so we don’t have any problem.
Court: Mr Tsikata, the issue is authenticity. We haven’t even seen it, how can we judge whether the thing is authentic or not? We must see the thing; we must watch the thing before we can pass judgement about whether the thing is authentic or not.
Tsatsu: You can’t do that by admitting it into evidence through him.
Court: We want to see it first. I don’t know what your challenge is. We want to see it first. The witness, the one who said he had seen it over the weekend and he is the one in the box, so that threshold has been crossed.
Tsatsu: My Lord, the threshold has not been crossed. The threshold has not been crossed, simply because he is not just being asked to identify the document my Lord, and that is why…
Court: But we haven’t asked him to do anything else. It hasn’t even be shown, so you are anticipating a question that hasn’t been asked.
Tsatsu: I am not My Lord, I am stating as a ground of objection that this is a document which the witness is not responsible for, and so it cannot be admitted through him. Its authenticity has not yet been established. It is a different matter if it is just being shown to him for the purposes of questions that would test its credibility, but if it’s about admissibility, we object to it.
Court goes silent for some few minutes. Judges consults themselves and Tsatsu comes back to make a statement.
Tsatsu: My Lord, if I may finally indicate, if it is identified it is still open to them, when their witness comes for them now to tender it, that’s how it is done.
Court: Come again?
Tsatsu: My Lord, what I was saying was that if the witness identifies it as something that he has been shown and it’s that one, its fine, they should keep it and tender it as evidence when their witness comes to stand in the box, that is my understanding. It becomes evidence from their side.
Court: And that’s the only possibility?
Tsatsu: My Lord, respectfully, that’s the only possibility?
Court: Mr Tsikata, that is not. The first principle that I said that we can tender it through him; I think we can debate it, but it’s okay, we don’t want to engage in academic exercise. It could be a debate because once he identified the document and he has seen it he has seen himself and picture in it, we can tender it through him.
Tsatsu: My Lord, respectfully, the reason why that would not work is because documents are…
Court: Witness admits he has seen himself in it; his picture is in it; they can tender it through him.
Tsatsu: My Lord, the fact that he can identify himself in the document cannot account for the content of the document, especially in these days of technology. Your Lordships are very much aware of the ways in which fake news, for instance, get created, in which things are put together which may necessarily not have happened at the same time. My Lord, I need not go into all those details, but the reality is that he is not the maker of that video, and the fact that he saw himself in it does not make it admissible through him; does not make it. It’s a different matter when he is just identifying it, that’s my understanding of the law.
Court indicates that video should be played for Mr Asiedu Nketsia to identify it.
Lawyer Ampaw:Can we request that you play the whole video so that no allegation of lifting anything?
Court: You want a prospective exhibit to be tendered. How can he truncate it at a point?
Lawyer Ampaw: No, My Lord, I was just directing him, that is all
Court: Gentleman we need to just juxtapose the normal with the electronic.
Court waits to watch video.
Court finishes watching video on the many press conferences held by the National Democratic Congress during the election period.
Lawyer Akoto Ampaw resumes questioning Mr Asiedu Nketsia.
Lawyer Ampaw: I believe you admit that the video recording that you watched showed you the saying that the petitioner had worn the election?
Asiedu Nketsia: My Lord. I have watched the video and I have watched it here, and I stand by every word, every punctuation that relates to me, Johnson Asiedu Nketsia, and there is nowhere, unless we are watching a different clip, there is no where I indicated definitively that the 1ST Respondent has won the elections. That is what I put in my answer last Friday – that we have won majority of seats in Parliament which figure I put at about 140, and the 1st Respondent is privy for victory.
Lawyer Ampaw: I am putting it to you that in the video you said, and I quote, “The NDC has won 141 seats and that gives us a clear majority. We will be given President Mahama the needed majority in Parliament to be able to conduct his business as President,” did you say that?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes, those were my words.
Lawyer Ampaw: I am putting it to you that you thereby implied that President Mahama had won the election.
Asiedu Nketsia: I implied that I expected President Mahama to win the elections, because every evidence was pointing to President Mahama’s victory. And, in fact, my lords, if you will permit, in all the seven presidential and parliamentary elections that have been held in this country before this one, the political party which wins and controlsParliament ends up winning the presidential election, so I have…
Lawyer Ampaw: Mr Asiedu Nketsia don’t lecture us; you answer the questions I put to you. You can’t lecture us here.
Tsatsu: He is not lecturing, he is answering the questions.
Lawyer Ampaw: No. he is lecturing.
Lawyer Ampaw: You have answered the questions don’t give us a lecture of what happens in politics in Ghana. please.
Someone laughs
Court: Counsel, by way of case management, we would have to give you one day to cross examine the witness. That’s the maximum we can give.
Lawyer Ampaw: Very well.
Lawyer Ampaw: Mr Asiedu Nketsia, we see in the video various clips of your Deputy, Mr Otukonor, is that correct?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes my Lord.
Lawyer Ampaw: In the video,Otukonor says Mahama has won this election by some 6,166,385 and that constitutes 50.15%, is that not so?
Asiedu Nketsia: I heard him say so in the video, but my Lords, I indicated this last Friday that I was present at the press conference addressed by my good self and the petitioner,and I did indicate clearly that I will not be in the position to testify about whatever any other official of the NDC has said at their various press conferences, that’s what I said.
Lawyer Ampaw: I am putting it to you that the press conferences that have been shown are press conferences organised by the NDC as a party.
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes my Lord, the NDC has 38,000 branches, and each branch can organise a press conference in their own right, and at the national level we have various departments who can organise press conferences in their own right, and the General Secretary does not have to be present at all such meetings.
Lawyer Ampaw: As the General Secretary, these press conferences were organised with your consent?
Asiedu Nketsia: My Lord, I am the Chief Executive of the party, so in that sense I take some responsibilities about whatever happens in the party, but clearly,when a statement is made by a junior officer that contradicts what the Chief Executive has said, it is the Chief Executive’s word that prevails.
Lawyer Ampaw: You are invited to add the total voter population of Techiman South, which is 128,018, to 13,119, 460?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, when you add the total registered population of Techiman South to 13,119,460, I got the figure 13,247,478.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, can you tell the court what is the percentage of the 2nd respondent’s 6,730,587, of that figure?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, it comes up to 50.806%
Lawyer Ampaw: If you add the whole of Techiman South votes to the petitioner’s valid votes as at that time, tell the court how much it comes to?
Asiedu Nketsia: Petitioner’s valid voters, as per these figures.
Lawyer Ampaw: Yes,that is 6,213,132 128,018?
Asiedu Nketsia: 47.867%.
Lawyer Ampaw: And, you can clearly see that if you add the whole of Techiman South registered voter population to the petitioner’s total valid votes and calculate the percentage 47.867% for the petitioner?
Asiedu Nketsia: If the figures are correct, yes, but the problem is with the changing figures. Every time new figures emerge, and we don’t know which figures you are using.
Lawyer Ampaw: Don’t create problems for your heart, we will get there. Now, if you go to the 9th December declaration, and you add the whole voter population of Techiman South to the total number of valid votes cast, what total would you have?
Asiedu Nketsia: If you add the whole of Techiman South voter population to the declared total number of valid votes cast, as per the Electoral Commission declaration, you will get 49%.
CJ: Mr Akoto Ampaw, did you not ask a question. (Question shot down).
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, let’s proceed to your summary sheet; your ‘Exhibit E’ or before then, now subsequent before all these things, the results of Techiman South were declared, is that not so?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes, my lord.
Lawyer Ampaw: And the total number of valid votes cast in Techiman South was known?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes my lord.
Lawyer Ampaw: And that number is 99,436, not so? You can check it from your exhibits which you have attached. It is attached to your ‘Exhibit C’;the first presidential election result summary sheet of the constituency of Techiman South. So look at your ‘Exhibit C’ and your first document, after that you will see it.
Judge: Mr Akoto Ampaw, which figure are you referring to?
Lawyer Ampaw: I’m talking about the total number of valid votes cast.
Judge: And it is 97,227
Lawyer Ampaw: No my lords, if you do the actual calculation, you will get 99,436 votes; it is the actual sum of the valid votes here.
Judge: You are saying that the figures on the exhibit are wrong?
Lawyer Ampaw: The total of the figures are wrong, but the specific figures that each candidate obtained is correct. If you do the total you will find out that the total valid votes is…
Judge: Then you have to go through that exercise, but do what you are doing.
Lawyer Ampaw: Yes,very well.
Lawyer Ampaw: So can you do the addition for the2nd respondent; he obtained 46,397, the petitioner obtained 52,034, Christian Andrews obtained 720, IvonGreenstreet obtained…, AkuaDonkor, 24, Henry Herbert Lartey, 60, HassanAyariga, 64, KwesiAkpaloo, 24, David Apasera, 45, Bright Dzorbgenuku, 19, Nana KonaduAgyeman Rawlings, 29, Alfred AkwameAseidu Walker, 46.
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, the total is 99,436.
Lawyer Ampaw: Correct. So now if you add the 46,379 to…
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, on the face of the pink sheet the valid votes cast was 97,227.
Lawyer Ampaw: So does that make the actual votes you just got wrong?
Asiedu Nketsia: I thought that we are dealing with figures that have been signed to by agents. If you are correcting the figures, then that is the invitation we gave for all of us to sit down and correct the figures,but if…
Lawyer Ampaw: We are currently in court, so the court is looking at the figures to make a determination of the correct figure. And I am saying that when you do the additions of the actual figures obtained, you will get 99,436. Do you dispute that?
Asiedu Nketsia: I don’t dispute that.
Lawyer Ampaw: Fine, let go on.
Asiedu Nketsia: But the total indicated is different.
Justice Gertrude: Mr AseiduNketia, kindly ensure that you don’t speak at the same time as counsel.
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes, my lady.
Tsikata: My lord, when he is giving an explanation, he should also be allowed to complete the explanation.
Lawyer Ampaw: When the explanation has nothing to do with the matter?
CJ: Mr Akoto Ampaw, address the panel not counsel.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, so if you add the total valid votes from Techiman South to…
Judge: Mr Akoto Ampaw, mention the figure that you are referring to, because, as the witness is pointing out to you, there is another figure as a different figure that the total valid votes cast. So refer to the figure that you are using.
Lawyer Ampaw: I’m saying that if you add the total valid votes of 99,436, which you have confirmed to…
Asiedu Nketsia: I’m confirming the total…
Lawyer Ampaw: Will you allow me to ask my question?
Lawyer Ampaw: If you add this figure to the actual total valid votes announced on 9th December, that is 12, 921,111, what total do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, I never heard 13,121,111.
Lawyer Ampaw: You see Mr Nketia, you have gone through the calculation of the actual figures with you, and we arrived at 13,121,111.
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes, but my problem is with the announced…
Lawyer Ampaw: Please, if you add the 99,436 to that figure, what is the total valid votes?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, if I can hear the figures so I can add them for you?
Lawyer Ampaw: 99,436 13,121,111, what do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: 13,220,547,which is also a new figure.
Judge: On that exhibit the total valid ballots is 97,227. And the total votes cast is 99,437. So which one are you referring to? And rejected ballots 2,209.
Lawyer Ampaw: My lords, this obviously a clerical error, because if one was to add the actual figures you will get as the total valid votes cast in Techiman South, the figure is 99,436, and the witness has just confirmed the actual votes cast.
Judge: That is based on assumption. Clearly, it is based on assumption of which of the figures are correct.
Lawyer Ampaw: My lords, these are the figures we have. There are no other figures we have, these are the official figures. When you add the votes obtained by each candidate in Techiman South, my lords, you will get the figure of 99,436. So what is down below is clerical errors in doing simple arithmetic.
Justice Gertrude: if you can remind us, what is the question?
Lawyer Ampaw: The question is, if you add the 99, 436 to the 13, 121,111 that is the total?
Asiedu Nketsia: When I add the two figures you quoted, I had 13, 218, 896.
Lawyer Ampaw Yes that is correct. Now so if you add the 46, 379 that the 2nd respondent obtained in Techiman South to the figure announced, declared for the 2nd respondent, at the press conference of 9th December, which is 6, 730, 413. What do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: 6, 766, 792
Lawyer Ampaw: You are invited to add the total voter population of Techiman South, which is 128,018 to 13,119,460.
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, when you add the total registered population of Techiman South to 13,119,460, I get the figure 13,247,478.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, can you tell the court; what is the percentage of the 2nd respondent’s 6,730,587, of that figure?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, it comes up to 50.806%.
Lawyer Ampaw: If you add the whole of Techiman South votes to the petitioner’s valid votes as at that time, tell the court how much it comes to?
Asiedu Nketsia: Petitioner’s valid voters, as per these figures?
Lawyer Ampaw: Yes,that is 6,213,132 128,018.
Asiedu Nketsia: 47.867%
Lawyer Ampaw: And, you can clearly see that if you add the whole of Techiman South registered voter population to the petitioner’s total valid votes and calculate the percentage 47.867% for the petitioner?
Asiedu Nketsia: If the figures are correct, yes, but the problem is with the changing figures. Every time new figures emerge and we don’t know which figures you are using.
Lawyer Ampaw: Don’t create problems for your heart, we will get there. Now if you go to the 9th December declaration and you add the whole voter population of Techiman South to the total number of valid votes cast, what total would you have?
Asiedu Nketsia: If you add the whole of Techiman South voter population to the declared total number of valid votes cast, as per the Electoral Commission declaration, you will get 49%.
CJ: Mr Akoto Ampaw, did you ask a question. (Question shot down).
Lawyer Ampaw: Now let’s proceed to your summary sheet, your ‘Exhibit E’ or before then; now subsequent before all these things, the result of Techiman South were declared, is that not so?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes, my lord.
Lawyer Ampaw: And the total number of valid votes cast in Techiman South was known?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes my lord.
Lawyer Ampaw: And that number is 99,436, not so. You can check it from your exhibits which you have attached. It is attached to your ‘Exhibit C’ – The first presidential election result summary sheet of the constituency of Techiman South. So, look at your ‘Exhibit C’ and your first document, after that you will see it.
Judge: Mr Akoto Ampaw, which figure are you referring to?
Lawyer Ampaw: I’m talking about the total number of valid votes cast.
Judge: And it is 97,227?
Lawyer Ampaw: No my lords, if you do the actual calculation, you will get 99,436 votes; it is the actual sum of the valid votes here.
Judge: You are saying that the figures on the exhibit are wrong?
Lawyer Ampaw: The totals of the figures are wrong, but the specific figure that each candidateobtained is correct. If you do the total you will find out that the total valid votes is…
Judge: Then you have to go through that exercise, but do what you are doing.
Lawyer Ampaw: Yes,very well.
Lawyer Ampaw: So can you do the addition for the2nd respondent; he obtained 46,397; the petitioner obtained 52,034, Christian Andrews obtained 720, Ivor Greenstreet obtained…, AkuaDonkor, 24, Henry Herbert Lartey, 60, HassanAyariga, 64, KwesiAkpaloo, 24, David Apasera, 45, Bright Dzorbgenuko, 19, Nana KonaduAgyeman Rawlings, 29, Alfred KwameAsiedu Walker, 46.
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, the total is 99,436.
Lawyer Ampaw: Correct. So now if you add the 46, 379 to…
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, on the face of the pink sheet, the valid votes cast was 97,227.
Lawyer Ampaw: So does that make the actual votes you just got wrong?
Asiedu Nketsia: I thought that we are dealing with figures that have been signed to by agents. If you are correcting the figures, then that is the invitation we gave for all of us to sit down and correct the figures,but if…
Lawyer Ampaw: We are currently in court, so it is for the court to look at the figures to make a determination of the correct figure. And I am saying that when you do the additions of the actual figures obtained, you will get 99,436. Do you dispute that?
Asiedu Nketsia: I don’t dispute that..
Lawyer Ampaw: Fine, let go on.
Asiedu Nketsia: But the total indicated is different.
Justice Gertrude: Mr AseiduNketia, kindly ensure that you don’t speak at the same time as counsel.
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes, my lady.
Tsikata: My lord, when he is giving an explanation, he should also be allowed to complete the explanation.
Lawyer Ampaw: When the explanation has nothing to do with the matter?
CJ: Mr Akoto Ampaw, address the panel, not counsel.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, so if you add the total valid votes from Techiman South to…
Judge: Mr Akoto Ampaw, mention the figure that you are referring to, because, as the witness is pointing out to you, there is another figure as a different figure than the total valid votes cast. So refer to the figure that you are using.
Lawyer Ampaw: I’m saying that if you add the total valid votes of 99,436, which you have confirmed, to…
Asiedu Nketsia: I’m confirming the total…
Lawyer Ampaw: Will you allow me to ask my question?
Lawyer Ampaw: If you add this figure to the actual total valid votes announced on 9th December, that is 12,921,111, what total do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, I never heard 13,121,111.
Lawyer Ampaw: you see Mr Nketia, you have gone through the calculation of the actual figures with you and we arrived at 13,121,111.
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes, but my problem is with the announced…
Lawyer Ampaw: Please, if you add the 99,436 to that figure what is the total valid votes?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, if I can hear the figures so I can add them for you.
Lawyer Ampaw: 99,436 13,121,111, what do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: 13,220,547which is also a new figure.
Judge: On that exhibit the total valid ballots is 97,227. And the total votes cast is 99, 437. So which one are you referring to? and rejected ballots 2,209.
Lawyer Ampaw: My lords, this obviously a clerical error, because if one was to add the actual figures you will get as the total valid votes cast in Techiman South, the figure 99,436, and the witness has just confirmed the actual votes cast.
Judge: That is based on assumption. Clearly, it is based on assumption, which of the figures is correct?
Lawyer Ampaw: My lords, these are the figures we have. There are no other figures we have; these are the official figures. When you add the votes obtained by each candidate in Techiman South, my lords, you will get the figure of 99,436. So what is down below is clerical errors in doing simple arithmetic.
Justice Gertrude: If you can remind us, what is the question?
Lawyer Ampaw: The question is, if you add the 99,436 to the 13,121,111 what is the total?
Asiedu Nketsia: When I add the two figures you quoted, I had 13,218,896.
Lawyer Ampaw: Yes, that is correct. Now, so if you add the 46,379 that the 2nd respondent obtained in Techiman South to the figure announced, declared for the 2nd respondent, at the press conference of 9th December, which is 6,730, 413. What do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: 6,766,792.
Lawyer Ampaw: What is the percentage of a 13,218,896 that you mentioned a moment ago?
Asiedu Nketsia: 51.266%.
Lawyer Ampaw: So, you can see that if you were to add the actual votes that the 2nd Respondent obtained in Techiman South to his total votes as of 9th December, 2nd Respondent still would have crossed the 50 1 percent threshold?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, I won’t know because the figures that we are contesting here have the same agent signing onto tallies allocated to presidential candidates and signing onto totals. My lord, you are calling it clerical errors; I don’t know whether the error was in the totals or the error was in the tallies allocated to the various candidates.
Lawyer Ampaw: But, you see, you do a tally based on the primary figures, is that not so? You don’t do the total first from the air and come and fix in the specific figure. Your totals are based on the primary figures, is that correct?
Asiedu Nketsia: That is correct. But if the primary figures are wrong the totals will be wrong.
Lawyer Ampaw: So the totals here are the ones we are dealing with sum up to 99,436, as you have calculated?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, the totals on the various tallies, when you put together, is 99,436, but I can’t attest to the validity of the various figures.
Lawyer Ampaw: That is your problem.
Asiedu Nketsia: And then the totals, because both of the totals and tallies have been signed to by the 1st Respondent’s representative and the representatives of the political parties.
Lawyer Ampaw: But, I’m saying that from these totals, 2nd respondent crossed the 50 % threshold?
Asiedu Nketsia: Well, from the figures we see here.
Lawyer Ampaw: And the petitioner was below that threshold? The petitioner obtained 47.396%?
Asiedu Nketsia: From the figures we see here, yes.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, again, if you go to 10th December, that is when you look at your ‘Exhibit B’, you will notice that when you add the 99,436 to the total of 13,119,460 in the press release, what figure do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: You will get 13,218,896.
Lawyer Ampaw: Very good. Can you tell the court, if you add the total number of valid votes obtained by the 2nd respondent, that is 46, 379 in Techiman South, to the total valid votes obtained in the press release, that is 6,730,58, what figure do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: You are talking about total valid votes and we haven’t agreed on the total valid votes. So I will prefer you mention the numbers so that I add them for you.
Lawyer Ampaw: Okay. If you add 99,436 to the total number of valid votes of 13,119,460, as in the press release of 10th December, what do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: You will have 13,218,896.
Lawyer Ampaw: Very well. So if you add the total number of valid votes obtained by 2nd respondent of 6,730,587 to the total number of valid votes he obtained in Techiman South, which is 46,379, what do you get?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, as I have said, mention the figures and let me add for you, because what is in the total valid votes is still in contention.
Lawyer Ampaw: Yes. So the figure is on ‘Exhibit B’. The 2nd respondent obtained 6,730,587 46,379?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, it gives a total of 6,776,966.
Lawyer Ampaw: Good. Now is this figure you just mentioned a percentage?
CJ: Are you not taking us back?
Lawyer Ampaw: My lords, what I did originally was to add the total votes for Techiman South all of it to the petitioner. What I’m doing now is the actual.
Lawyer Ampaw: So what is the percentage of the 6,776,966 of 13,218,896?
Asiedu Nketsia: 51.267%.
Lawyer Ampaw: And you add the 52,034 to the total valid votes of the petitioner as in you Exhibit ‘B’, which is 6,213,182.
Asiedu Nketsia: 6.
Lawyer Ampaw: And what is the percentage of the figure you obtained 13,218,896?
Asiedu Nketsia: 47.396%.
Lawyer Ampaw: Correct. So, here again, if you add the actual votes obtained by the two candidates to their total votes, as published in the press release, 2nd respondent crosses the 50 % threshold?
Asiedu Nketsia: We haven’t agreed on the actual votes.
Lawyer Ampaw: But I’m saying that in terms of the face of the document 2nd respondent crosses that threshold?
Asiedu Nketsia: On the face of this press release, yes.
Lawyer Ampaw: And on the face of the document the petitioner obtains 47.396%?
Asiedu Nketsia: My lord, the figure on the face of this document is 47.396%. I can’t tell whether it is … or not.
Lawyer Ampaw: I’m happy your concern is only that it is not… Now let us now look at your summary sheet of the 275 polling stations that you have attached Exhibit ‘E’ to your witness statement. (Correction: 275 constituencies). Now you will notice that at the detail end of that exhibit you will find the summation of the total figures or votes each candidate obtained, and you also indicate that from your calculation, each candidate obtained, on the side, that is a difference of 568?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes my lord.
Lawyer Ampaw: So, let’s look at the total valid votes obtained by 2nd respondent, on that spread sheet summary sheet. It is 6,276,066?
Lawyer Ampaw: And the total number of valid votes obtained by the petitioner is 6,265,276?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes.
Lawyer Ampaw: Yes, aAnd from the EC’s calculation, based on the EC’s total valid votes of 13,218,633?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes. And this is different from what was announced and what was subsequently corrected.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, you will find that from the EC’s calculation 6,776,066 obtained by the 2nd respondent yields a percentage of overall valid votes of 13,218,633, is 51.261%, correct?
Asiedu Nketsia: That is correct..
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, you claim you did your own calculations with these figures, and by your own calculations, you claimed that the 2nd respondent obtained a percentage of 51.263% of the total valid votes cast. That’s your calculation?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes. 51.264%.
Lawyer Ampaw: So I’m putting it to you that whether it is the EC’s calculations or your calculation, definitely the 2nd respondent crossed the threshold?
Asiedu Nketsia: If we are going by the data supplied by the EC, yes. But the data is eternally inconsistent.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now, let come to Exhibit ‘C’.
CJ: Exhibit ‘C’ was struck out.
Lawyer Ampaw: Let’s come to your ‘Exhibit D’, it is your famous letter of complaint to the Chairperson of the 1st respondent, where you claimed that result which were collated and signed by all the parties were not the ones transmitted from the region to the Electoral Commission office in Accra. And your second allegation…
CJ: Was the letter addressed to you or the 2nd respondent?
Lawyer Ampaw: It was addressed to the 1st respondent.
Lawyer Ampaw: Now you sent two complaints, complaints A&B. Complaint ‘A’ is that in the Eastern Region the result in the presidential election, which were collated and signed by all the parties, were not the ones that were transmitted from the region to the EC’s office in Accra. And the second point, ‘B’ complaint about Ashanti Region. You said the Ashanti Region provides a fundamental problem that requires investigations. We have found out that almost all across board the aggregates on the summary sheets don’t reflect the individual result on the pink sheet. Further, the results collated and declared for the region don’t reflect the aggregate result on the pink sheet in our custody. Now, itis a fact that you wrote this letter on 9th December, and I believe in 2020, is that not so?
Asiedu Nketsia: Yes, 9th December 2020.
Transcription by Agnes Ansah & Bernice Bessey
The post Gruelling cross examination of Gen Mosquito’by Akoto Ampaw appeared first on The Chronicle Online.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS