The Court is determining whether there were irregularities not mislabeling – Bawumia

Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, lead witness to the petitioners in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition hearings has reminded Counsel for the 3rd respondents, National Democratic Congress (NDC), Tsatsu Tsikata that the issues the Supreme Court is determining border on whether there were irregularities in the conduct of the December Presidential Elections.

According to Dr Bawumia, that is where the Counsel’s concentration should be and not on the mislabelling of exhibits “which do not affect the analysis” or the numbers the petitioners are asking the court to annul.

Dr. Bawumia made the statement on the 9th day of his cross examination by Tsatsu Tsikata who had spent large parts of the day and preceding days concentrating on pointing out to the witness mislabelling and duplication of pink sheet exhibits submitted by the petitioners to the court.

However, as the lead witness has consistently stated, he informed the court that the mislabelling and duplication of exhibits did not affect the analysis of the petitioners and that each polling station was used once in the analysis.

He also reminded the Counsel that the reason why the petition was being heard was to determine whether there were malpractices like over voting, voting without biometric verification, no signature of presiding officers or the use of duplicate serial numbers for different polling stations and that the court was not determining whether there was mislabelling in the exhibits submitted.

Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata like previous days used the sitting on the irregularity identified by the petitioners as the use of duplicate serial numbers for different polling stations and tried to suggest that in the category of exhibits identifying such polling stations, there had been mislabelling and duplications.

Dr. Bawumia acknowledged the mislabelling but informed Tsatsu that the critical issue was whether, indeed, it was the case that the polling stations listed by the petitioners to have been affected by the irregularity of duplicate serial numbers had pink sheets with same serial numbers as other polling stations which had inevitably called into question the integrity of the polls in those polling stations as the security of the sheets had been breached.

He tasked the Counsel for the NDC not to hide behind mislabelings and make accusations of double counting and to look at the analysis which showed no double counting if he was not afraid of the truth of there being no duplication or padding in the analysis as the Counsel tries to suggest.

On the significance of the occurrence of duplicate serial numbers which had been downplayed by the Counsel, Dr. Bawumia disagreed and said the issue of unique serial numbers which had been breached was very important and that till date the 2nd respondent had not been able to come out with a tenable rationale for printing two sets of pink sheets for only the presidential election and going ahead to release all two sets for the elections.

He added that the use of duplicate serial numbers was very clever and difficult to detect. He said that the issue of duplicate serial numbers could not be detected by polling agents or observers and that it was only through the use of computer programmes that the irregularity could be unearthed.

Source: NPP Communications Directorate


Justice Atuguba averts Tsatsu, Bawumia ‘fight’

The presiding judge in hearing on the petition challenging results of the 2012 Presidential Polls, Justice William Atuguba, had to timely intervene during Tuesday’s proceedings after lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and witness-in-chief of the petitioners were nearly embroiled in exchange of words.

“This is not a free fight,” Justice William Atuguba intervened.

Tsatsu Tsikata had accused Dr Mahamudu Bawumia of being dishonest to the court by submitting inaccurate pink sheets to the Supreme Court.

In a riposte to Mr Tsikata, Dr Bawumia said NDC’s lead counsel was afraid of the truth and that can only be the reason why he is accusing him of being dishonest.

This drew in the presiding judge, who stated that counsel had a right, within the confines of the law, to label anyone in the witness box but it is wrong for a witness to cross-label counsel.

“My lord, with the greatest respect we must not take this likely. This witness is saying I am afraid of the truth,” Mr Tsikata complained.

This provoked the petitioners’ lead counsel, Phillip Addison, who said counsel on the other side got what he wanted because he had accused the witness several times of being dishonest.

“Don’t fight the battle beyond these confines,” Justice Atuguba advised Mr Tsikata and Dr Bawumia.

“Just limit yourselves through the extent of the fashion.”

Calm was restored for cross-examination to continue.

Meanwhile, an application filed by Mr Tsikata on Monday to cross-examine some of the petitioners’ witnesses who swore affidavit  in their evidence, has been deferred to Thursday, May 16, 2013.

Announcing the deferment date, Justice Atuguba indicated that counsel for the first and second respondents have also filed similar writs and it was appropriate for ruling to be given on a single day.



EC have been economical with the truth on the motive for duplicate serial numbers – Bawumia

Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, lead witness for the petitioners in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition hearings has stated that the Electoral Commission (EC) lied about the rationale for the use of duplicate serial numbers on various pink sheets during the December presidential elections, adding that the lack of truthfulness on the part of the EC exposes a mischievous motive for the printing of pink sheets with duplicate serial numbers.

Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia made the statement on Monday, the 15th day of his cross examination by Counsels to the respondents in the case.

Responding to queries from counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Tsatsu Tsikata, on the duplicate serial numbers, Dr. Bawumia stated that the Electoral Commission in their response to the amended petition of the petitioners stated that they printed two sets of pink sheets with same serial numbers because they anticipated that there would be more presidential candidates in the election necessitating the use of two sheets.

Dr. Bawumia, however, described this justification as an obvious untruth as the EC printed the sheets in exactly the same format as the candidates appeared on the ballot papers meaning that the printing could only have been done after the 19th of October, 2012 when the balloting for positions on the ballot paper waas done, and by which time the EC also knew exactly how many candidates were contesting for the December Presidential Elections.

The lead witness said that this untenable justification by the EC on its use of duplicate Pink Sheets exposes the fact that there was a motive to the phenomenon other than the EC was telling the court and Ghanaians.

Dr. Bawumia also noted that the case of duplicate serial numbers was not frivolous especially because of its relation to the other categories of malpractices.

He explained to the court that, for example, 75% of all polling stations being challenged for over voting also had the use of duplicate serial numbers on its pink sheet, while 77% of all polling stations where voting without biometric verification took place also had the use of a duplicate serial number. 75% of all polling stations, according to Dr Bawumia, which were not authenticated by the presiding officer’s signature also were polling stations where a duplicate serial number was used.

“These statistics cannot be mere coincidences”, Dr. Bawumia added.

On the suggestion by Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata that the serial numbers were not security features and really insignificant, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia disagreed and said that like serial numbers used in passports, currencies etc. the serial numbers on the pink sheets were key identifiers of the polling stations.

He stressed that for the elections, it was even more key because all the other identifiers on the pink sheet, including name of polling station, polling station code, presiding officer signature and details etc. as had been mentioned by the Counsel, were all handwritten into the form and that the serial number was the only identifier of the polling station which came already embossed and which could not be tampered with easily.

Dr. Bawumia who is being cross examined by Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata for the eighth day said that the impression the EC was seeking to create that the serial numbers are insignificant was difficult to buy because money was spent on the forms and for the forms to have those unique serial numbers, adding that the serial numbers on the forms were not embossed for mere decorative purposes.

The NPP Vice-Presidential candidate for the 2012 Elections said that the petitioners were challenging the occurrence of polling stations which had duplicate serial numbers because the integrity of the process had been called into question in those polling stations.

Per the updated figures before the court, the petitioners are praying the court to annul a total of 9,921 polling stations which had the occurrence of duplicate serial numbers as well as other infractions (over voting, voting without biometric verification and no signature) in some of the cases.

Source: NPP Communications Directorate


Tsatsu suffers collateral damage as ploy to destroy Bawumia’s credibility backfires – NPP

After seven (7) days of cross examination of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia by Counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Tsatsu Tsikata, in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition hearings, what has become apparent is the failure of the Counsel to damage the credibility of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, but rather the unintended damage suffered by Tsatsu to his own image in various incidents which have gone a considerable way to also weaken the case of the respondents.

It became very obvious from the cross examination of Tony Lithur, Counsel for John Mahama, earlier in the trial that the key strategy was to dent the image and credibility of the petitioners, particularly Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia who led the team that uncovered the irregularities that affected the conduct and outcome of the December 7th Presidential Elections.

With Counsel Tony Lithur obviously failing to achieve this goal after almost four days of cross examination, the onus fell squarely on Tsatsu Tsikata to accomplish the mission of destroying the image of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia as well as Nana Akufo-Addo, 1st Petitioner in the case, and in extension destroy the case of the petitioners.

For the past seven days, the preoccupation of Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata in his cross examination of the witness has been impugning the credibility of Dr. Bawumia time and again and even after valid objections on the choice of language by the Counsel from both lawyers of the petitioners and the nine member panel adjudging the case.

However, after brazen attempts, what has also become obvious so far is that Tsatsu Tsikata, as well failing in his legal task of destroying the case of the petitioners, has rather become the biggest casualty in the trial as a result of various incidents which have placed on him a tag of notoriety which he would have rather avoided.

The first major slur on Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata’s image occurred on the 1st day of his cross examination when he had to receive key lessons from the witness on the electoral processes after he suggested that the Form 1C used in the elections was for disabled voters only, in his attempt to justify the incidents of voting without biometric verification. This was quickly disproved by the witness who showed that indeed every voter was issued with a Form 1C.

Subsequently, the witness also educated the Counsel on the fact that even disabled voters were verified by the Biometric Verification device by face only as had been indicated by the Electoral Commission prior to the elections and that the argument that those who voted without being verified by the device were the disabled was untenable.

These early body shots painted a picture of a counsel who was ill-informed on the processes and the issues around the case itself.

The next major slur on the Counsel’s image was to occur on the 2nd day when in apparent attempt to tear down the petitioner’s categorization of twenty-two (22) polling stations as unknown, introduced some letters which he claimed were signed by Nana Akufo-Addo, the Presidential Candidate for the NPP in the 2012 Elections, authorizing some agents to represent him at those polling stations.

However, when the letters were scrutinized by Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia it turned out that the letters which supposedly were dated between the 5th and 7th of December (Election Day) were however stamped to have been received on the 3rd of December, three to four clear days before they were supposedly written.

These strange features of the letters led to Dr. Bawumia questioning them and calling for their originals to be tended, a challenge which till date remains unaccepted as Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata quickly moved away from questioning on the letters and has since not returned to them.

Another landmark event in the trial so far occurred when contrary to all the ethics of the legal profession and good behaviour, Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata in open court vented his frustration on lead Counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison who had tried to raise an objection. The NDC Lawyer in open defiance of established court room practice and disregard for the eminent justices angrily told the lawyer for the petitioners to shut up, a language which has since attracted condemnation from many lawyers and large sections of the society. Till date, Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata has refused to apologize sending a clear message of disregard for all involved in the case.

Another key moment of disgrace for Tsatsu occurred on the 7th day of his cross examination when he made a bold declaration to the court that on the face of the affidavit deposed to by Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, the polling stations in contention could not be up to 11,842 as the petitioners had claimed in their affidavit. The Counsel then applied to the Court for a quick calculation to be done on the numbers on the face of the affidavit to prove the case he had made consistently that the petitioners were arithmetically challenged.

Three Justices of the court all took up the challenge and calculated for themselves the numbers in the affidavit and in a matter of minutes confirmed the position of the petitioners that there were 11,842 polling stations in contention for which pink sheets were submitted as exhibits to the court. This really exposed the NDCs Counsel as the one who was arithmetically challenged.

Generally, the 7 day cross examination of the witness has demystified what had almost become the legend of Tsatsu Tsikata who for a long while had been held as a legal genius and colossus who perhaps had no equal.

Instead of delivering fireworks to collapse the case of the petitioners, what Tsatsu Tsikata has done is to, more or less, duplicate the cross examination of Counsel Tony Lithur whose cross examination had been graded as a disappointing show even for NDC faithful and as a result of which all hope was thrust on Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata to save the presidency of John Mahama.

Source: NPP Communications Directorate


Blame EC for doing a bad job, not us – Bawumia tells Tsatsu

Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia on Wednesday told Lawyer for 3rd Respondents, Tsatsu Tsikata that since it was the Electoral Commission that produced the pink sheets which detail the various irregularities that occurred at various polling stations, they would be the ones who have to stand accused for doing a bad job.

Dr. Bawumia, main witness of the petitioners in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition case seeking to overturn the declaration of John Mahama as winner of the December Presidential Elections, made these comments while answering to questions from the Counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) who has been cross examining the witness for the past six days and is set to continue on Thursday.

Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata had suggested during his cross examination that the petitioners had selected some pink sheets which, in his view, showed over voting as a result of what he termed administrative and mathematical errors as part of their case in court.

However, Dr. Bawumia disagreed and pointed out to Counsel that the justification of the irregularities as errors could not hold because one could not exactly state where on the form or in the electoral process other errors occurred and that it was best for everyone to address himself to the evidence on the face of the pink sheets and avoid going into conjectures on what might have happened or what did not happen.

The lead witness for the petitioners who has been in the witness box for a total of 12days further reminded the counsel for the 3rd Respondents that if anything it is the 2nd Respondent, the Electoral Commission, that would stand accused for supervising an election riddled with irregularities or errors as the Counsel termed it and not the petitioners since it was the EC that produced those pink sheets with irregularities evident on its face.

At another point in the hearing, Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata suggested that the annulments the petitioners were seeking in court would hugely disadvantage John Mahama because the petitioners had deliberately selected polling stations where John Mahama won and were seeking to annul them and that there were more polling stations which had similar irregularities which had not been presented by the petitioners.

To this query, Dr. Bawumia explained that that could not be the case because the 11,842 polling stations the petitioners were seeking to annul were in 272 out of the 275 constituencies and thus no conclusion of selectivity could be made.

He also explained that as had been stated earlier, the petitioners had had access to and analyzed only around 24,000 pink sheets out of the 26,002 polling stations across the country and that that was the reason why the petitioners at the pretrial case requested that the Electoral Commission be made to submit all the 26,002 pink sheets.

He noted that it was possible that if the petitioners had gotten access to all 26,002 polling stations, they would have found more irregularities in more polling stations and indicated that it would be good if the NDC could also bring out new cases of such irregularities in case the party wanted to now become co-petitioners.

In all, Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata as has become trademark used a large part of the day to go through various pink sheets which he claimed did not show over voting.

The witness however justified most of such exhibits and showed to the court why such exhibits pointed to over voting in the various polling stations where they emanated from.

Source: NPP Communications Directorate


Bawumia raises doubt over letter

Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, the second petitioner on Tuesday raised doubts about a letter tendered by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for NDC purported to have been written and signed by Nana Akufo-Addo, the first petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing.

Dr Bawumia said though the signature and letter head appeared to be that of the first petitioner, it was curious that a letter written on December 5, 2012 would be received by the Electoral Commission (EC) on December 3, 2012.

He raised the suspicion when Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) continued his cross-examination of the witness on the ninth day of hearing.

Dr Bawumia said there was inconsistency with the date on the letter received by the returning officers and that the petitioners had asked the EC to explain the contradiction.

He said he was not initially aware of the presence of the letter but his attention was later drawn to it, adding that there was something interesting about the letter.

Earlier, Mr Tsikata asked the witness whether CI 75 provided for what happened when there was a breakdown of the verification machine. Dr Bawumia answered and said he was aware that when a machine breaks down, voting must stop and the machine replaced.

Mr Tsikata also asked if the “no verification no vote” saying by the witness and the petitioners meant that people should not be allowed to vote if their hands had not been passed through the verification machine. He added that there were several other processes of verifying a voter so the understanding of the law by the witness was flawed.

Dr Bawumia said per the instruction by the EC, which had been clearly emphasized in the CI 75, one would have to pass through all the processes of verification, including biometric verification before voting.

He named two polling stations in the northern region where the entire results were annulled because two people did not go through the process of biometric verification.

Dr Bawumia further explained by saying that even by law, disabled persons still have to be biometrically verified.

Mr Tsikata asked the witness if the terms of reference of the Committee set up to investigate the alleged irregularities, was to ensure that the first petitioner becomes the president.

Dr Bawumia said the Committee was to ensure that there was justice to all Ghanaians.

Mr Tsikata asked again if it was the wish of the Committee members to make the first petitioner, President and he Dr Bawumia the vice president.

Dr Bawumia said he did not asked members of the Committee whether it was their wish to make Nana Addo President and him the Vice President.

Mr Tsikata also asked the witness that as the Chairman of that committee did he give directive to his members to pick out everything in C3 and use that as evidence of irregularity. He further asked how the witness came about with irregularity on the alleged duplication of serial numbers.

Dr Bawumia said they had knowledge on the various irregularities and so they coded the irregularities and the computer did the rest.

Mr Tsikata picked another set of pink sheet exhibits for further cross examination and said on those pink sheets there were no exhibit numbers and asked the witness if it was a mistake on the part of the petitioners.

Dr Bawumia conceded but said it might be a problem for the Commissioner of Oath.

Mr Tsikata said it might well be an error and that human beings are fallible.

Dr Bawumia insisted that though human beings could make mistake that was different from violations of the law.

Tsikata also presented to the court several other pink sheet exhibits in which some spaces for exhibit numbers have been left blank, others have been filled; some left unstamped by the Commissioner of Oath. He then asked Dr Bawumia what accounted for the anomaly.

Dr Bawumia said the exhibit numbers were generated electronically and manually, adding that those that have not been labeled and unstamped were supposed to have been done by the Commissioner of Oath.

Mr Tsikata further presented a list of pink sheets exhibits for the witness to check and to confirm if they were mislabeled.

Dr Bawumia confirmed they were mislabeled but insisted that they were entered once in their analysis of evidence.

After an hour recess, Mr Tsikata continued with his cross examination and brought out a new set of pink sheet exhibits and asked witness if he could confirm that two of the pink sheets were from the same polling station.

Dr Bawumia confirmed they were separate pink sheets from the same polling station.

Mr Tsikata asked the witness if it was a mistake that the exhibits did not have the stamp of the Commissioner of Oath.

Dr Bawumia said if that was what was supposed to happen then it was a mistake.

Mr Tsikata then asked if any of the petitioners were present when the Commissioner of Oath was packaging the exhibits and whether or not they saw all the exhibits being tendered.

Dr Bawumia said the other two petitioners were not present when the exhibits were being packed by the Commissioner of Oath but insisted they looked through every single pink sheet before they were tendered.

Mr Tsikata also asked the witness if he admitted that there was an error in not filling the space for the labeling of pink sheets exhibits.

Dr Bawumia admitted it was an error but ironically said those errors must not affect “somebody’s presidency.”

Mr Tsikata presented another list of pink sheet exhibits to be checked by the witness.

At that juncture, Mr Philip Addison, Counsel for the petitioners raised an objection and said the exhibit being tendered by the counsel of the third respondent was struck out in the amended petition and so counsel could not ask the witness questions on exhibits that were no longer before the court.

Mr Justice William Atuguba, the Presiding judge upheld the objection and asked Mr Tsikata to find other ways to continue his cross-examination.

Case adjourned to the Thursday May 2, 2013.

Source: GNA


We’ve noticed inconsistencies in Bawumia’s evidence, NDC’s Amaliba says

A member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Abraham Amaliba, has laughed off evidence presented by Dr Mahamudu Bawumia in court, saying they have noticed half-truths in what he presented on Wednesday, April 17, 2013.

Mr Amaliba, thus, observed Ghanaians will get to know that the star witness and second petitioner in the landmark election 2012 petition was not telling the truth.

Dr Bawumia mounted the witness’ box on Wednesday to deliver evidence over the alleged violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities during the December 7/8 Elections.

Speaking on TV3’s News@10 on Wednesday, Mr Amaliba, who is also a legal practitioner, said: “We have noticed some inconsistencies in his evidence.”

“We shall cross-examine him so that he will look in the Ghanaian eyes as one who is not saying the truth,” he added.

He talked down the praise members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) have heaped on their vice presidential candidate during the elections, stressing “he did what they wanted him to do”.

“They don’t know what is up our sleeves,” he said.

He mentioned the NPP will realize they are jumping the gun if “Bawumia is not able to answer simple questions in the cross-examination”.



Election 2012 Petition: Akufo-Addo, Bawumia and Jake file evidence

The petitioners in the Supreme Court case challenging the results of the 2012 Presidential election on Sunday afternoon satisfied the Supreme Court’s order of 2nd April, 2013, by filing affidavits of witness evidence they intend to use to prove their case that the 1st petitioner, Nana Akufo-Addo of the New Patriotic Party, should have been rightfully declared as winner of the December polls and not John Mahama, the candidate of the ruling National Democratic Congress.

The filing of the three petitioners’ affidavit evidence means that the three respondents in the case have up to Friday, 12th April to file their respective affidavits, as well, for hearing to begin on Tuesday, 16th April.

Messrs Egbert Faibille and Alex Quainoo, two of the lawyers for the petitioners, were seen carrying truck-load of boxes of evidence to the office of the Supreme Court Registrar. Over 400,000 documents in all were expected to be filed, with 15 copies of each, supplied to all parties in the suit, plus the nine justices on the panel.

The main affidavit contains 83 paragraphs, which spells out the case for the petitioners, supported by boxes of documentary evidence from polling stations. Thus, in addition to the handful of affidavits filed, the petitioners submitted evidence in the form of colour photocopies of pink sheets (Statement of Poll and Declaration of Results Form) from 11,842 polling stations, where they are disputing the results as declared.

The petitioners have based their case mainly on the facts and figures on the pink sheets, the official document that the Electoral Commission relied on to declare the results of the presidential poll held on 7th and 8th December. They have also grounded their case on clear breaches of the Constitution and other electoral laws and practices in Ghana.

Also, evidence in the form of video, audio and newspaper clippings were submitted by the petitioners Sunday to support their case.

According to the 3 petitioners, Nana Akufo-Addo, Mahamudu Bawumia and Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, there are six main categories of irregularities, malpractices, violations and omissions in various combinations which affected the results of the election in the 11,842 polling stations, which have irredeemably damaged a total of 4,637,305 votes in the process, and must, therefore, be annulled.

These are laid out in 24 grounds, which are “distinct and mutually exclusive categories in which no polling station can belong to more than one category, thereby avoiding double counting,” the affidavit by Dr Bawumia, the NPP running mate in the election, says.

Also in his affidavit, the 2nd petitioner, Dr Bawumia, makes a startling revelation by stating that many of the 2,883 names supplied by the Electoral Commission as representing the people who were registered abroad to vote were forged, repeated and fell way below the 241,000 which the EC first told the court it registered abroad.

The six broad categories of infractions are (i) over-voting, (ii) voting without biometric verification, (iii) multiple pink sheets with the same serial numbers, (iv) pink sheets without the signatures of the presiding officer or their deputies, (v) same polling station codes for different pink sheets and (vi) unknown polling stations, 23 in all.

To support their case for annulment of votes in affected polling areas, the petitioners have attached a video tape of the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari Djan, the returning officer in the presidential election. It shows him on 5th December, 2012, addressing the public at a press conference held at the Ghana International Press Centre, Accra.

He is quoted as saying in the video: “Let me also share with you some of the firm decisions that we have taken together with the political parties: NVNV – NO VERIFICATION, NO VOTING. And by verification we mean everybody will have to be verified biometrically. We have agreed in principle that where the votes found in the ballot box outnumber the persons verified to vote, the results of that polling station will be cancelled”.

The petitioners say that the true result of the 2012 presidential election, after it is cured of all the infractions through the necessary annulments, should see Nana Akufo-Addo earning 59.55%, with the first respondent, John Mahama, obtaining 39.17% of the valid votes cast.

They are therefore asking the court to declare that John Mahama was not validly elected and that the court should invoke its constitutional and statutory powers to declare Nana Akufo-Addo as the validly elected president of the Republic.

Over-voting, as explained in the affidavit, were uncovered in polling stations where either 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 Constitution and Regulation 24 (1) of C. I. 75.

To underline the strength of their case, which, according to the issues laid down by the court, the petitioners have shown in clear terms that most of the six categories, can on their own, show that John Mahama, the presidential candidate of the NDC, who was declared winner by the EC on December 9, was not validly elected, which requires over 50% of the valid votes cast.

The affidavit of Dr Bawumia, the head of the NPP research team that undertook the statistics analysis of the election results, says that “if the only violations complained of in this petition were the over-votes in the 2065 polling stations and the votes in those polling stations were annulled as required by law, the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, would have 49.1% of the valid votes cast, and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo would have 49.3% of the valid votes cast.”

Furthermore, “if the only violations complained of were voting without biometric verification in the 2,279 polling stations and the votes in those polling stations were annulled, the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, would have obtained 49.13% of the valid votes cast, and 1st Petitioner, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo would have obtained 49.38% of the valid votes cast.”

Also, “if the only malpractice complained of were the instances of same serial numbers for different polling stations with different results in the 10, 533 polling stations and the votes in the polling stations where these occurred were annulled, the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, would have obtained 41.1% of the valid votes cast, and the 1st Petitioner, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo would have obtained 57.55% of the valid votes cast.”

Again, “if the only violations complained of were absence of the signatures of the presiding officers in the 1,826 polling stations and the votes in these polling stations were annulled, the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, would have obtained 49.45% of the valid votes cast, and the 1st Petitioner, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo would have obtained 49.03% of the valid votes cast.”

He goes on to show that, “as a matter of fact, however, these violations, irregularities and malpractices occurred in different combinations in as many as 11,842 polling stations. In the result, I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that what must be taken into account is the impact of the combined effect of these violations, irregularities and malpractices on the outcome of the election as declared by the 2nd Respondent.”

Thus, “if the impact of the combined effect of these violations, irregularities and malpractices on the outcome of the election as declared by the 2nd Respondent is taken into account, the 1st Petitioner is the person who ought to be declared as having been validly elected as President of the Republic of Ghana.”

Source: NPP


Bawumia’s accident: Sir John winces at NDC’s umbrella spokes; Asiedu Nketia says it’s comic relief

General Secretary of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie has cited the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and its leadership, especially President John Dramani Mahama, in the motor accident that occurred in Bole Bamboi involving the 2012 vice presidential candidate of the Party, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia.

Mr Owusu Afriyie – also known as Sir John – says for the accident to happen in Bole Bamboi “of all places”, “we are calling on President John Dramani Mahama, otherwise known as John Dumso dumso Mahama to come clean,” he said at a press conference held on Monday, March 18, 2013.

He said the NDC is aware the presence of Dr Bawumia provides key witness in the Election Petition that he, together with Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and Jake Obetsebi Lamptey, filed at the Supreme Court.

“I have looked at the case. We have examined it and noted the modus operandi of the NDC and the national security and I can tell you we can feel the spokes of the umbrella in this matter,” Sir John told journalists.

“The NDC knows that if [Mahamudu] Bawumia is not there, then our case was dead and therefore, whatever it takes for them to eliminate Dr Bawumia and some key members of our legal team including some key members of our party executives, they will do so. So [Sunday’s] incident was the part of the grand scheme of the NDC to get rid of Dr Mahamudu Bawumia,” he added.

But this allegation has been sharply dismissed by Sir John’s opposite number in the NDC.

John Asiedu Nketiah said those who would seriously want to get rid of Dr Bawumia will be dissatisfied members of the NPP.

He urged Ghanaians to consider Sir John’s allegations as a comic relief.

“I think that this should be taken as a comic relief. Fortunately, nobody in this country takes the utterances of Sir John seriously again,” he said.

“Why should we be interested in the assassination of [Mahamudu] Bawumia. Those who should be interested in killing Bawumia must be those who are dissatisfied. They have served NPP. It has come to their turn to ascend to the presidency and that somebody is being foisted [on them]; somebody who has not been an NPP member for [even] a period of five years would just come forward to be their flagbearer,” Mr Asiedu Nkwetiah argued.


He noted the allegations smack of desperation on the part of NPP.

“It is coming out of desperation. It is coming out of a party that has no credible leadership and so anybody can just get up and say anything in the name of the party and just walk away with it,” he stated.

He, however, asked the “leadership” of NPP to bring to order some of these “characters”.

“I think time has come that the leadership of NPP, if there is any remaining, will call such characters to order,” he admonished.

Dr Bawumia was on Sunday involved in a motor accident on the Bole road on his way to Kumasi. He was travelling with Kwabena Boadu, his press aide, Tanko, his bodyguard and Emmanuel, his driver. All escaped unscathed.