Election 2020 Petition Hearing: Day 7 - News Desk on JoyNews (1-2-21)

[Music] [Music] uh and that's in respect of the issue of admissibility of the evidence in the video recording our view is that at this stage we will only play the video recording for purposes of identification if you want the court to have it in evidence you can do the right thing yes but i then wish to apply for leave tender [Music] you haven't shown it as i said the object of the video evidence is to demonstrate the video man by letting them play it then he can see it and then you can start from there in the witness box you are being reminded of the previous route that you took date we sought to refer to our exhibit a this is a video recording and you did not seem to have exhibit six which is our video recording of certain press conferences and you did not seem to have looked at them and also my i believe this is really where i started off from could he finish so i can record what he's actually saying it doesn't seem to me that he finished and also there was not the necessary preparation technically to show what is in the recording and the case was again to today so that that could be done now i believe you have seen the recording since then yes my lord i have watched a video of the copy of the video that was attached to this statement and the recordings do relate to press conferences yes where i spoke yes and why you didn't speak it's still related to press conferences on the 2020 presidential elections yes my lord now my lords we may wish to have the recording played in open court because it is our view that the recordings as the anarchists will see go to the credibility of the witness and the practitioner as we have indicated from the beginning as we have indicated from the beginning if they are being shown 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 because the admissibility comes first it must be admitted before we see the relevance of it in that event we are objecting to that miscibility in that event if if the issue of that miscibility i thought the witness council was crossing him some few moments ago and he said he had seen it and he maybe you have other legal objections you can be recorded as such no the legal objection is that it cannot be admitted through this witness it is not admissible through this world no the witness said he did speak says he has seen it but it can't be admitted in evidence in this world through him it is not 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 there is no he cannot authenticate he cannot authenticate that video the witness has not special they would not have no sessions [Music] 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 in the evidence if that is what they are seeking to do that's why is an exhibit attached to their witness statement as a as an attachment to their witness statement it is entirely open for them to put it in evidence it is in fact the process that they have initiated but they cannot tender that video through our witness they cannot do that without they cannot do that and we we respectfully object to that evidence by virtue of section 6 of the evidence act the exhibit in question hey the exhibit in question is not coming from the custody of this witness it is it is according to council 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 if you try to ask the opposite the witness on the opposite side to be the one to tender it's my lord we cannot have intended through that witness and the roads i would respectfully also refer to section 136 one which indicates which provides us for of the everyday times 1361 of the evidence act i'm sorry [Music] where the relevancy of evidence depends upon its authenticity or identity so that authentication authentication or identification is required as a conditioned precedent to admission that requirement is satisfied by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims the proponent of that document [Music] is the second respondent and your lordships clearly saw what happened in cross-examination the other time the witness literally opened the envelope in which that exhibit had been attached to a witness statement at the request of second at the request of second council for the second respondent that cannot amount to authentication and my lord i cannot see what the problem is in my indicating if if your lawsuits wish the witness to step out was we discuss the legal admissibility of course that can be done but once there is an issue about admissibility authentication is also an issue and therefore my lords i cannot see how i'm not allowed to talk about authentication if that's what your leadership is suggesting because you apparently whatever i said well you suggested that i authentication the witness has said he has mr chicago you're making arguments can't you make your argument yes i'm making my arguments in response to what your leadership indicated because what your leadership indicated was addressed to me i believe and addressed 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 fellowships with all due respect the objection being raised by council for the petitioner is 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's admitted before this court early this morning we are not talking about friday talking about early this morning he admitted that he had looked at the videos and he admits that the cover statement that he had made at press conferences so that is an identification and authentication of the evidence secondly he's also admitted before this course that the video also covers statements made by the petition now and other leading members of his party so my my lord it seems to me that in terms of the conditioned precedent that ought to be satisfied by section 136 1 it is more than met and we therefore pray that the objection be dismissed are you objecting because the document is attached to their witness statement is that the ground upon which you are raising objection nobody was i'm objecting on the grounds that if if that document which is there evidence if that document is to be admitted in evidence it ought to be admitted in evidence through their witness and secondly my laws secondly as i indicated that documents authenticity has to be established what my leonard friend just said with the greatest respect about the witnessing that he has seen the thing that he was shown on friday and so on how is that evidence of authentication my lords i believe i mean the word authentication assuming this evidence is not a video there's a paper a paper like this and he's on the cross ambition can't they show him the document my lord likes me if can they show him the document and then ask him to identify the document and if he so identifies can't the document determine it truly no matter what i'm listening it can be identified yes and he can be asked questions relating to each other it cannot be tended through him eternal dream cannot be tender he can with a various respect this is an important issue which we really cannot um just gloss over my lords and then the reason why it's important is that if the witness is not the maker of that video he cannot authenticate it i mean the videos the videos authenticity is is is important as a precondition for its address i have stated clearly that if it's credibility and i've said that a couple of times this morning i've said that if it's being shown to him for the purposes of questions related to credibility we don't have an issue about that so my lord in that situation it is not about admissibility with the greatest respect in that situation the issue is authenticity we haven't even seen it yeah how can we judge whether that is authentic or not he said he has sin authenticity but we must observe that we must see the thing then we can pass the admission whether the thing is authentic you can't do that by admitting it into evidence through him and then seeing it well that's the problem you cannot you have to see this thing first yeah but i don't know i don't know what the current um difficulty is we have to say it's right the gentleman the witness is the only person who said he had seen it over the weekend and he's the one in the box so that blind has been that threshold has been crossed the threshold has not been crossed because the threshold has not been crossed simply because he is not just being asked to identify the documents and that's why in in in it has to do anything yet it hasn't even been shown to him so so he anticipating a question that hasn't been asked i'm not my lord i'm stating as a ground of objection that this is a document which the witness is not responsible for it cannot be admitted through him and 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 will test his credibility but if it is about admissibility we are objecting may just finally indicate that if it's identified it is still open to them when their witness comes for them now to tender it that's happened my lord what i was saying respectfully is that if the witness identifies it as something that he has been shown at the point in time where their witness comes in that id1 can become evidence that is my understanding of the of the that id1 then becomes admitted as evidence from their side another another possibility that is possible respectfully that's the only person no that is not the first principle that i was saying that they could tender through him i think we can debate on it but not here we don't want to we don't want to engage in academic exercise there could be a debate because i think that once he identifies the document and he finds that he has seen it he is he's seen his picture in it he has seen himself in it we can identify they can turn it through him but not respectfully the reason why that would not work is because respectfully [Music] documents are in their total context scripture in it he has seen himself in it he can identify they can turn it through him respectfully the reason why that would not work is because respectfully documents are in their total context the fact that he can identify himself in a part of the document cannot account for the context of the documents because my lord i mean especially in these days of technology your lordships are very well aware of the ways in which you know fake news for instance gets created and which things get pieced together which may not necessarily have been happening at the same time i need not go into all those visa but the reality is that he is not the maker of that video and the fact that he hears his voice he identifies his face and it does not make it admissible to him it does not make it authenticated by him and it's a different matter where he is just identifying it it's mind as such he is cross-examined to the extent that is required as to credibility and then when their witness comes in he's able to transform it from being something identified into something that he puts in evidence that's my understanding of the lord video to be played for him to identify it [Music] hello can can we request that you play the whole video the whole video so that no allegation of lifting anything you you you want a prospective husband as elizabeth to be tended yes how can he truncate it at a point in time i'm just [Music] a gentleman we need to just just oppose a manual with an electronic this is just like in the manual world very well yes what we do in the manual world is what we are doing in this electronics i understand that's the beginning which is a majority and no attention we need to subvert that i've looked at the results we've created so far and i'm excited i'm happy with the results and we won in 10 regions out of 16 and um people have expressed confidence in us we will resist any attempts to separate the will of the people have won this election by some six million 166 thousand 385 and that constitutes 50 point one five percent only two kenpo expressing my deepest gratitude to you from your tremendous support which you express overwhelmingly and convincingly at the post [Music] there's no doubt that ghanaians from every region of this great nation of ours voted for change and we did so in both the presidential and parliamentary elections has won 141 in a clear majority and will be given president mohammed the needed majority empowerment to be able to conduct his business as president what the claim majority presidential candidate of the national democratic congress with the president's elections his excellency john grammar will address the nation and speak to issues pertaining to the presidential resource declared by the team messages the national democratic congress is still holding off to aids parliamentary majority as our general very soon come out to declare the next president let me repeat let me use this opportunity to ask a matter of agency [Music] in the interest [Music] [Music] and it's very important is foreign [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] foreign [Music] our hours [Music] is is um and [Music] elections a system of governance that allows the ultimate decision-making power to rest in the hands of you the good people of canada we the people to us the future a trust it must be protected and that is why i stand before you tonight i'm willing to accept the fictionalized results claudius my brothers and sisters it is important to remember that a government that is all of the state resources and overseas all of the state's institutions the line interests between his loyalty to the power that is that more and overseas the state's institutions despite all of the ruling parties inducements use of monetary enticements [Music] has for themselves [Music] given to us by the good people of knowledge we lead the respect of the presidential elections the tracks and figures available to us from pages and other evidence that has unfolded across the country indicate that numerous commission it is now obvious to many objective minds that the commission and its shared lessons have been used to manipulate the jobs from the various consequences and in that process seek to suffer the sovereign will is [Music] has lost while unprecedented election officers during these supports recurrence we will not accept oh i said we will not accept have always been declared within a 72-hour period to allow for formal and digital coalition relations surprisingly this electoral commission is announced quite suspiciously and for reasons known to has admitted that she made unacceptable errors to the part of the entire electoral process and cast deep doubts on the credibility of the announced outcome the electoral pollution never brought this credibility to this historic law at such a crucial moment um is is is 140. tempo yes my lord i believe you admit that the video recording that we've watched show you saying that the petitioner had won the elections i have watched the video i watch it here i stand by every word every punctuation every sentence that relates to me john cena and there is no way unless we are watching different clips there's nowhere where i indicated definitively that the first respondent has won the relations what i said was what i i put in my answer last friday that we have one majority of seats in parliament which is about which figure i put at 140 one seat and that we are proving that the first respondent is pushing for victory and that is precisely what has shown up in all the various speeches i have made which have been clipped together so let's understand you admit everything on the video coming from your image on the video from my mouth those are my pictures very well and those are the words that need from my mouth i'm putting it to you that in the video you said and i quote the ndc has won 1416 and that puts us in a clear majority and will be given president muhammad the needed majority in parliament to be able to conduct his business as president yes did you say that those are my voice i'm putting it to you that you thereby imply that president muhammad had won the elections i implied that i expected president muhammad to win the elections because every evidence was was pointing at president muhammad victory and in fact my loss if you permit me in all the seven parliamentary and presidential elections that have been held in this country before this one the presidential candidate and the political party which wins and controls parliament ends up winning the president the presidency so i have mr said i don't lecture us we've answered the question don't give us a lecture of what happens in politics in ghana please now yes my lord is by way of grace management we want to give you one day to cross i mean the witness yes you have to manage because not more than one that is the maximum we can give you well now we shall say you will see in the video various clips of your deputy one is that correct yes my lord in that in the video has won this election by some 6 million 166 385 and that constitutes fifty point one five percent is that also i had him say so in the video but my lord i indicated last friday that i was present at the press conferences addressed by my good self and the petitioner and i did indicate clearly that i would not be in the position to testify about whatever any other official of the ndc has said at the avery ross press conferences that was what i said hello i'm putting it to you that the press conferences that have been shown at press conferences organized by the ndc as a party yes my lord the ndc has 38 000 branches each branch can organize a press conference in their own right and we have regions each region can organize press conferences in their own right and there are messena at national level we have very large departments they can all organize press conferences and their own right and the general secretary does not have to be present at all such press conferences now as a general secretary these press conferences were organized with your consent and knowledge lord i am the chief executive of the party so in that sense i take some responsibility about whatever happens in the party but a statement is made by a junior officer that contradicts what the chief executive has said it is the chief relative's word that prevails now again you saw mr sammy dunphy stating that introducing the petitioner as president-elect in the video yes my lord i saw it in the video then again your deputy who works under you said let me announce to all our supporters that you are free to jubilate you are free to express your excitement because the ndc is forming the next government of the republic of ghana is that correct that's correct my lord my lord i'm not aware of any restrictions on jubilations of the right of party university for violation results in the world and then your representative from ashanti region world regional secretary said that president muhammad will be declared as president-elect of ghana in the ndc historically whenever ndc gets more than 25 in ashanti they go to the flagstaff house yes my lord i heard it so i'm putting it to you mr assyrian that the trust of all these statements in the various clips is that president mohammad had won the 2020 presidential election my lord these statements according to the videos were made at different times some of them were made after declaration some before declaration and so on so it is difficult to put all sides together and say that at this point this was what was said no i'm putting it to you that these statements were made before declaration my lord my viewing of the video indicates that some of the statements were made after declaration even better and so you admit that some of the statements saying that the petitioner had won the elections were made after the declaration also from what not through from what i have watched here with everybody here i can see that this is not a video of one event these are videos picked and pieced together and some of them relate to a time period before declaration and others relate to a time period after declaration now it is no secret that intersperse between these press conferences the ndc android direction had organized several demonstrations in accra stating that the petitioner had won the election and warning the first respondent not to subvert the will of the people my lord the ndc had organized several demonstrations with three main objectives one please have not asked the killing of innocent place voters at polling stations by security officers and nothing seemed to be happening and easy with that was one of the purposes of the of the press conference the other purpose of the press conference please i have not asked you the purpose so answer my question please and don't be taking inspiration closer to them than you we've not witnessed anything please please please please yes please answer my question and you had your opportunity to write your witness statement so now you answer the questions you understand grace i'm asking the question again and i answer according to my ability and what i consider to be the answer i'm saying that interspersed between these press conferences yes the ndc organized a series of demonstrations the object of which was true the thing is loaded you see it is double barracks organize a number of demonstrations is that so yes we did and one of the clear objectives of these demonstrations was that the petitioner had won the elections and the issue should not celebrate the will of the people the objective that relates to the presidential lessons was that the results are declared or flawed and the commission itself has accepted that there is also a flood and that's why they kept changing the figures so you admit that you said that the results were flawed yes who in your view on the results the elections my lord who we are not interested in winning or losing a fraud election very well we want the election we want to be witness of an election that is credible now it is also true that notwithstanding all these statements that your party yourself and the petitioner had made that the petitioner had won the election when you eventually filed your petition there was nothing in the petition about the petition having won the elections my lord i have indicated earlier now please answer my question please i'm about to answer the question unless you are not ready to listen to the answer i've asked you that before you filed the petition yes there was nothing in it to the fact that the petitioner had won the elections yes now again you claim in one of your statements that elections were won in the polling stations all over the country so i'm putting it to you that when you make the statement that the prisoner had won the election it presupposed that you had the the those the playstation pin sheets my lord i indicated that i never if i never said that the petitioner had won relations now when the petitioner was telling the whole nation that the ndc had won both the parliamentary and presidential elections on what basis was he making that statement you can address on it yes you can address on it now now i believe that as you had admitted during course examination on friday that you had trained agents at all the various polling stations and constituency correlation stations and the regional centers is that right that's correct my lord now they are all entitled to carbon copies of all the different official election documents of the results yes my lord they are entitled to and i presume that in some cases they were denied you know that you have not stated this important factor in your witness statement you know that as a fact and what i'm answering to you a question that has been asked yes i'm saying that in our following up that you know that this important allegation you have not mentioned it in your witness statement yes i have not mentioned it in mind and the petitioner also has not mentioned it in this petition my lord we indicated that that is what ought to be but as to whether what ought to be was what happened was another matter i indicated it clearly i'm saying no you are answering a different question i'm saying that if you look into the petition or you look at the petition no where does the petitioner say what you are allergic yes but i said it in response to an answer that's friday now i'm putting it to you that the only evidence of election results that you you you you have attached is your exhibit b exhibit a is that declaration as it would be the press release exhibit c the 11 constituency sum ratios expd the summary sheet of eastern region exhibit e the 275 consensus summary sheets which you describe as a spreadsheet of the constituency summary sheets released by first respondent on this website yes my lord i indicated that we choose to rely on electoral defense respondents own figures never judging them by their own bible so it means that you accept the information on those documents of the first respondent the information suggests no no i've asked you a simple question you are saying that you have set the information in those documents as the documents of the election as per electoral if you can er the same question that's what but you accept the information in the documents that you have attached my lot i've been advised by my lawyers that that is the information however it is you're not talking about what don't look there please we are not talking we are not talking about what your lawyers advise you on we are talking about you yes so what do you have to say man not because we disagree with the data that's why we are here but you are using the same data to in support of your thing why not the data must be internally consistent say that the declaration must be seen to be the product of aggregation of medita and we are entitled as a participating party to look at the data available to us from which the first respondent drew her conclusion and we are saying that black data they have submitted does not support the conclusions that have been drawn and that is why we are here now you see you have not please look at me please so that you don't ask me i should repeat the question again look at me now you have not provided any document of your own showing that neither party won the elections my lord please it's the documents we are working with the information we are working with is the result that has been declared by the [Music] that is okay i'm saying as a matter of fact that you the general secretary who was directing and coordinating the presidential elections you have not produced a single piece of independent evidence supporting your claim that neither party won the elections simple question my lord i need to understand what independent means so that i can proceed to to answer the question independent by way of ndc's own collated figures or what type of individual you see as you know all the documents that the ec was using to magically collect the results from the polling station right up to the original uh center you had carbon copies of them don't you yes we do and i'm saying that you have not put together your carbon copies to show that indeed nobody won the elections yes my lord because that is not the purpose of our of our situation so you say what is not the purpose i'm saying that we did not come to court to come and take over the work of electoral commission but we are entitled if we see the results are flawed they are not born out of the data we're entitled to challenge and to insist that we must have a credible resource that and a declaration that is based on the votes that were passed at the polling stations that's okay i'm saying that you have not provided any basis of your own for your call for a run-off but no my lord we haven't brought that data here we didn't consider it necessary to work is to bring any such detail you see do you know why you haven't brought any sad document it is because all the documents you have all the authentic documents on the election that you have show that the second respondent had won the election so you can't bring it out that is not so my lord because we produce documents that will support the case we bring to this court and if the case we are brought to this code it's not about coming to retabulate figures the way mpp chose to do in 2013 and we do not need to bring those figures here we are judging the first respondent by her own bible so the figures that she claimed were the figures that were generated and the conclusions that were drawn we are saying that the conclusions are not born out of the figure she herself has been so mr said i'm saying that indeed your claim for a re-run between the second respondent and the petitioner is based on the [Music] verbal slip made by the chairperson of the first respondent in mentioning the total votes cost rather than the total valid votes class as the basis of determining the percentages my lord do you understand the question please ask if you think i don't understand it can you repeat it yes i'm saying that your claim for the re-run is based from is based on the simple slip verbal slip that the chairperson of the first respondent date when he was announcing declaring the results in using the total vote cost rather than the total valid put to determine the percentages they're not correct my lord we disagree that it's a very good sleep no because ever sleep in and and reading out figures would have meant that you read one figure instead of the other but the the from subsequent corrections that the first responders sought to bring up the figure she mentioned and decoration that was made was not related to the figures of the day at all because it will have maybe total good stuff in one column and then total valid votes in another column it is possible that you read total valid votes for twitter votes pass but there will be the same thing so when you come back to allege that it was a verbal slave we expect that the correction that you made will relate to the figure which you thought you should you were reading but the corrections that they claimed were were made did not relate the corrected figures did not relate to any figure that was on the face of the declaration in the first place so it was a new figure also introduced so it can it couldn't have been any verbal you see mr you know as an experienced player in elections in the fourth republic that you determine who wins the presidential elections based on the total number of valid votes you know that yes i do and you know also that it is completely impermissible for anyone to use the total number of vote costs as a basis of determining the percentages you also know that yes i do now you also know that if you look at if you listen to the the your exhibit that is at the the press conference declaring who won the elections if you tabulate the total of all [Music] the votes obtained by the 12 candidates you will get 13 million one that finger was nowhere in any declaration no no no listen to the questions i say if you tabulate the results obtained by each of the 12 candidates and sum them up you get a total of 30 million one hundred and twenty one thousand one one one that's not correct my lord asked pay is that not correct as per the figures released by the electoral commission that is correct okay now you see therefore that being the case you are not permitted to use any other number to calculate the percentages uh questions with with the lawyer who is questioning you he prefers that i remember when he was coming to this he said you are a veteran in in elections and you admitted this who in ghana doesn't know the role you have played yes yes that was why he is trying to cross you don't try to i mean go away what as if you are engaging him yes my lord we are we are learning so joy my friend met me in parliament to be a different story so mr sanchez you admit that it is completely wrong for anybody to use the total votes cost as a basis for determining the percentages of the votes obtained by the different candidate years yes and anybody who does that his position is cannot be accepted anywhere in ghana yes my lord you see but that is precisely what the petitioner does in paragraph 16 of his petition you can check it and read it out to the court and then [Music] [Music] read it out consequently if all boots touching myself constituency were added to the petitioner's case were added to the petitioner's votes second respondent's votes will remain the same at six million seven hundred and thirty thousand four hundred and thirty nine yielding 49.625 percent while the votes of petitioner would increase to six million three hundred and forty two thousand nine oh seven now yielding forty six point seven six eight percent and you at that in paragraph 15 in vargas 15. [Music] i read paragraph 15. yes the attachments have constituency has a twitter registered voter population of a hundred and twenty eight thousand and eighteen and if added to the total valid votes announced by research general equipment as cast i take 10 million four hundred and thirty four thousand five hundred seventy four the resultant figure will now be thirty million five hundred and sixty two thousand five hundred ninety two you see i'm putting it to you that the figure 13 million 434 574 does not represent the total valid votes obtained by the 12th candidate if you do the addition from the announcement the declaration in your in your exhibit a it doesn't can you come again please i'm saying i want to hear the question i'm saying that if you do your addition of the votes obtained by each of the candidates as declared by the chairperson of the first respondent but the sum you get is not 13 million 434 574. it is not yes if you like we'll give you a calculator i'm saying that it is not the total valid votes my lord yes it's not the total valid vote but we are not claiming that that was a total valid vote this is a response to the statement made by the first respondent herself as the basis for the declaration of the of the results before taking into account that minds are full so we are again judging her by her own bible i don't have a problem with that but therefore you cannot use what you know is factually incorrect and not permitted by the rules governing our election as the valid total values you can't use that even if the ec made that mistake you can use that as a basis for your claim my lord as i sit here i don't know the total valid votes really cast all the figures are coming from the first respondent and that first responder keep changing those figures my question is please answer my question your answer being the case that the 30 million three four four three four five seven four is not the total valid force that you've admitted that you can't i'm putting it through that you can't use that as a basis as a denominator for determining the percentages yes answer my question come again my lord i'm saying that you have admitted that the 13 4 3 four thirty million four hundred and thirty four thousand five hundred and seventy four that the chairperson of the ec announced is in fact not the total valid force first and that if you do the tabulation of the actual numbers votes obtained by each candidate as declared on 9th december you find out that it is 30 million 121 111. yes i'm just trying to help you understand okay and therefore and therefore it is impermissible for you to use this 30 million three four three four three five seven four even if it was used by the ac chair to determine the percentages my lord both figures are coming from the same source i didn't have to resolve i'm saying it is impermissible for you to use it as the total valid broadcast if the first respondent declares it so it might be so so you see then if the first respondent declares that the second responder is the winner it also must be so no my lord because that is why we are here my lord if the first respondent declared that these are the figures we are entitled to rely on those figures and when we find out that the figures are internally inconsistent we challenge her conclusions and then we come to a forum like this you see and otherwise i have been a banker when i check is written please please please and there are problems with the check please not one signatory can cancel you bring it back to the where the check was written and all the signatories will please counsel and make the corrections we have stated that [Music] now you see i'm putting it to you that you use this iranian figure as a basis for calling for your rerun that's what i'm putting to you i'm saying that you use the uranus figure of 30 million four three four seven five four five seven four as the basis for calling for a rerun that's what you use fortnite was used by the economy that's what you use yes now so can you answer yeah come again no you said what was your answer what those questions are so i'm saying that you cannot use the manifestly erroneous figure or wrong figure of 13 million [Music] thousand 434 hundred and seventy four as the total valid votes cost to determine the percentages of all the twelve candidates any particular the second respondent and the petitioner as obvious that we cannot use and irene rose figure i want to get the question well before i can give you an answer this is the third time i'm asking you yes let's do you cannot use that wrong figure as the total valid votes pass as a basis for your claim that there should be a re-run between the second respondent and the practitioner i know that is not the only basis for them no no no please answer my question are they asking what other basis will go step by step yes my lord now now you admit that in paragraph 2 of your no no sorry you admit that the practitioner has been a member of the ndc since its formation in 1992 [Music] since this formation the end this formation in 1992 we are referring one or two are referring to the petitioner you don't know when i want to with the permission of my lord refer to the paragraph we are quoting no no quoting i'm asking you a general question yeah he's been but if you if you think you need to a refresher yeah he's been a member and naturally he was the ndc's presidential candidate yes my lawyers now indeed in your paragraph two of your witness statement can you read yes your paragraph 2 yes to the whole world i'm the general secretary of the national democratic congress the political party on whose ticket petitioner contested as candidate for the office of president in the presidential elections held on 7th december 2020 i testify in support of the petitioner's case as contained in this petition here one as journalist paragraph two i've finished reading paragraph now i'm putting it to you that as general secretary of the ngc you are the coordinator of the general elections particularly the presidential elections for the ndc i'm the coordinator of campaigns for the party generally and as coordinator you coordinate the work of your agents the agents of the presidential candidates throughout the country and they report to you in that capacity yes my lord so it is correct to say that you had full information on what was going on all over the country during the 2020 presidential elections my lord if i may find out which information we are relating to i say inform relevant information as to how the election was run yes by and large i have information and i i believe that on that basis you provided petitioners with all relevant information on developments you consider significant particularly the presidential results yes as you receive them then also yes my lord so i believe the personnel has trust in you and that together with a strategic role you play in coordinating the activities of agents of the petitioner during the elections he selected you to give evidence in support of his case yes my lord now you remember that when the president of the republic in july 2018 appointed the current chairperson our first respondent your reaction as general secretary to the appointment was that you were shocked and disappointed because second respondent was a known pro mpp person a first respondent was a known pro and npp person the first respondent is the second child sorry the chairperson or the first responder it's a new mpp person and an anti-ndc person that was your reaction yes my lord those who are my worst indeed point the first when the first respondent announced that they were going to compile a new voters register your party the petitioner and you in particular you strongly registered same and legend among other grants that first respondent and the president were colluding to compile a new register to read the elections that's what you said yes my lord and we are grounds to say so and indeed the ndc of which you are general secretary going to cut to stop the compilation of the new voters register yes my lord and even when the plan for registration was unveiled you denigrated it stating that it was calculated to favor the second respondent yes my lord and even subsequently vindicated that position you see i put it to you that you and your party including the petitioner viewed the chairperson of the respondents with john dee's eyes and had a predetermined position on her alleged lack of neutrality my lord revealed her accurately and saw the reflection of hair in our eyes and that was the basis on which we made those statements you see so it is based on this unfounded prejudice that you have against the first chairman or the first responder that you are doing everything to discredit the elections my lord i have not said anywhere that the prejudices are unfounded i'm saying that they were founded on solid facts now you see i want you to look exhibit four attached to the first respondent's witness statement yes i said respectfully i think we're back to the same problem is it going to be put as an unidentified document or what because now i'm suggesting to you for purposes of identification for the timing that this is the official form 13 b that is the declaration of presidential election results national summer have you seen it look at the first respondent's witness statement and look for exhibit visit although respectfully it is for the council to put to him whatever document he wants to put to him it's not for him to look for a document i mean what is this for example first respondents with nest statement is not in evidence it's not in evidence yet my lord my first time of seeing this document that's where i it was filed very well whenever even uh i never said it anywhere yes i have never signed it the agents at the strong room don't have their signatures here and the announcement the declaration that was made on the knife did not relate to any of the figures that i'm seeing here welcome come to that we relax so you look at the percentage the total number of valid rules obtained by the second respondent what is it on this click on this document on these documents i can see 13 million 121 104. you see you've also made an error i said the total valid votes obtained by second respondent oh okay you see you have made a mistake yes everybody is capable of making mistakes but there are there are established ways of correcting every mistake in every situation in life please go on now read to the court the total number of votes obtained by the second respondent the witness can be made to be reading numbers from a document that is not in evidence a lot my purpose yes so very well so you will see that each of the [Music] votes attributed to each of the 12 candidates on this document is exactly what the chairperson of the first respondent declared on 9th december that's the significance it's the same [Music] document but that's the problem you see you you you you have to be patient very well both of you can speak at the same time i'm well advised [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] so i'm saying that in your witness statement you have attached a video clip of the declaration by the chairperson of the first respondent yes do you want it to be played so that you can refresh your memory yes my lord very well i mean the the videotape is attached to our evidence yes our at the appropriate time it can melody can be played but lord we need to we need to understand what is the purpose because we we cannot just go on in this manner when a document that we have tended in evidence they are going to determine when it is going to be played is that is that the procedure no no because you see there is a problem with this witness treatment which has been introduced yes you see what you normally do as you've done in this case is for you to exchange their prospective estimates at least they they have a fair knowledge of the exhibits which you intend to tender equally so they also have a fair knowledge of the exhibits which you may tender so that is why probably you attach it not to take them by surprise yes and they they would want the court to have a sorry the witness who had it and next to the witness treatment to identify it and i the issue is that council for the second respondent is showing the witness another document their document and he's saying that some information on this documentary showing him is the same as the information that you have exhibited yes but my lord respectfully that document he has said he's saying for he saw for the first time yes but you can still ask him why is that why is material from that document being used as if it is in evidence it is not in evidence he just wants to show you your own necessity and if i remember correctly he wants to show you yes he himself he himself has tended that that exhibit and so i mean if he's going to be asked the question about it the question can proceed but he's saying that he wants that exhibit to be played at a certain time because he said he he doesn't remember no he did not say that he said he was looking for the document that's what he said okay he didn't say it was not okay so so let him find it and then we proceed very soon my lord i think that it is preposterous for council to say that evidence that he has tended i cannot ask the witness to look at that evidence and ask him questions welcome to that we are resolving this matter november this objection has no basis [Music] my submission and he's saying that they have not played it yet so we cannot when they finish their evidence in chief we're not zippers very well [Music] hey [Music] [Music] thank you do you have your witness statement yeah is he not attached to your witness statement yes [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] you're listening to our coverage of the 2020 election petition thank you for joining us we've been watching for those of you watching and of course those listening on radio and join 99.7 fm uh lead lawyer for the second respondent akutan powell continuing his cross-examination of the petitioner's first witness johnson escadon ketia what is happening now is a document that they want uh mrs hayden katya to cross-check and then of course he'll be asked questions based on that they've been going back and forth with that for quite a bit now jackson is here following the processes as well i believe they are now airing a video as part of the cross-examination this is a video of the ec chair let's see if we can cross over and capture what we said 574 representing 79 of the total registered voters commit me to present the results in the order of appearance on the 2020 presidential [Music] 730 413 books being 21.595 of the total bandwidth of the national democratic congress obtained 6 214 889 votes being 47.36 of the total money would cost christian corners obtained 105 565 [Music] [Applause] obtained of [Music] [Applause] obtained 10 887 being 7.00 being 7.05 of the national democratic party obtained 6 612 books being 0.05 roots ladies and gentlemen 18. has not been completed it is important to note however that the difference between the total number of votes between the first and second candidates is 515 524 books as a result [Music] it will not change the outcome of the election hence our declaration [Music] indeed on that ladies and gentlemen it is so so mr you can see that the figures that each of the 12 candidates obtained as unknowns are declared by the chairperson of the first respondent in her press conference of 9th december are exactly the same as the figures on exhibit four although that i repeat my objections i give it four is not in evidence we cannot be making reference to surgical content it is not coming from the weakness in the weakness box no exhibit four is not explicitly witnessed before is not coming oh okay i see you're not in evidence and we cannot have its content just being smuggled in when it is not in evidence no no no i i see your point i i thought it was the exhibit which i thought he identified it earlier but he said he was seeing it for the first time when it was put in the in the in the in the answer of the respondent he said so he didn't identify it whatever then lay the proper foundation um in any event i'm putting it to you that the figures obtained by each of the 12 candidates in what is attracting first respondents um statements why don't you limit yourself to what the witness has tended and which has been shown to us all right so look at that okay i'm putting it to do that if you do the maths which you do so of the valid votes cast or obtained by each of the 12 candidates you'll get a total of 13 million 121 111 yeah 730 413 as a percentage of officers 30 million 121 111. give him a calculator he said [Music] yes what is the votes the total valid votes obtained by the second respondent namely six million seven hundred and thirty thousand four hundred and thirteen as a percentage of the total valid votes in the whole election which is million 121 111 number is still being taken from a document that is not in evidence that is still what he's doing and it's not like this is exactly that's what the chairperson announced what the chairperson is something we had [Music] up what you stated and what she stated was that the total number of valid businesses fourteen four three four that's what you stated we all headed for [Music] we can listen again and take down all the numbers that she actually pronounced and make sure that we cannot use a document that is that number is coming from all witness statement our witness statement indicates our witness statement is actually that is right and that's why i'm saying that if he's answering in terms of what we have put in our witness statement of course that's correct but he keeps going back to his exhibit and that's no i don't want i'm not i'm saying that in our own petition we have given this figure and indeed that is a matter that will become very clear in time but in our own petition we actually had this figure so that was what the witness was referring to that's where the witness was referring to and that he can be cross-examined in relation to uh it's just that we are not talking about an exhibit something that is not in evidence with all due respect i'm hearing some very strange submissions this morning no this my lord if i may be heard for practitioner is suggesting is he suggesting that we can only question the witness on things that are in the witness statement of the petition is that the suggestion we're saying that yes that's what i'm using attached to your witness statement as exhibit a the total number of valid votes passed in favor of the second respondent is six million seven hundred thirty thousand four hundred and thirty yeah i would like to take the question again yeah i'm saying that from the declaration in the video clip that we just saw it really is the base of all your case and you should know that what is in it the total number of valid votes that second respondent obtained is six million seven hundred and thirty thousand four hundred and thirteen is that correct that's correct my lord now the total number of valid rules that the petitioner obtained from the declaration announcing where is the a is 6 million 204 889. that is so unlocked and it goes on to the very end in the announcement i'm also putting it to you i'm also putting it to you that if you do a sum of all these valid votes so can you tell the court that is six million seven hundred and thirty thousand four hundred and thirteen as a percentage of thirty million one hundred and twenty one one hundred and eleven my lord is 51.29453 add infinitum so it can be rounded up to 51.295 very very good so 51.295 not so yeah that now now what about the petitioner it's total valid votes 6 million 300 314 214 889 6 million 200 and 14 889 what is this sum as a percentage of 30 million 121 111 lord it's 4 47 point 3 6 five five six nine add infinitum so it can be rounded up to forty seven point three six six so you admit that from the first you admit that from the chairperson of first responders declaration on 9th december second respondent crossed the more than 50 threshold from the declaration as announced from the figures that we just calculated let's figure which will announce if you do them as a percentage of them actual valid total valid votes these are the percentages you get for first for the petitioner and second respondent that's what i'm splitting to you but we've fought so i'm saying that from the calculation of the percentages of first petitioner and second respondent second respondent clearly crossed the 50 more than 50 percent threshold well if the figures are correct yes now again you see that when you calculated the percentage for the second respondent you came to a figure of 51 [Music] you see that when you calculated the percentage for the second respondent you came to a figure of 5151.295 not so yes i'm just emphasizing it for for my next question now yes my lord you you notice that when the chair of the ec was orally proclaiming this she said 51.592 not so five nine two please that's what she said that's what she said also i can't remember what this is what she actually said i think said five to nine i don't know what that she said can we can we play that comment later looking back okay but you you use that argument to arrive at the more than 100 percentage so you know it is [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] hmm [Music] indeed [Music] mr john dramatic came with the liberal party of god 7 690 the total number this is four thousand honey conducted in please 622 polling stations across the country and in 275 constituencies i'll now turn my attention to the reason why we are here at the end of a transparent fair orderly and timely and peaceful presidential election the total number of valuables passed 434 574 representing 79 of the total registered voters i commit me to present the results in the order of appearance on the 2020 presidential ballot at the end of the polls [Music] so you can see from the announcement of the percentage that an obvious error was made by the chairperson of the first respondent zano2 lord your question was for me to admit that the first respondent announced 51 percent 251.2 uh nine five nine two yes instead of two nine five but it's fine that is wrong i right actually mentioned uh 51.595 it's not two nine five percent so i'm saying that from the actual calculation and the percentage which you just did before this court that was an error [Music] yes the percentage announced was an error but the true the correct percentage shows that the second respondent had crossed the 50 class threshold well if all the figures are to be believed yes okay so now let's look at the press release of 10 december which you have attached to your witness statement as that's your exhibit b now i'm putting it to you that if you add all the valid votes obtained by the 12 presidential candidates will get a total figure of 30 million 119 460. but that excludes the human self of course [Music] and i want to read with to do that [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] uh 119 460. so again for our 20 minutes and come back all right [Music] yes [Music] so uh in this election petition 2020 we've seen lead lawyer for the second respondent akutan pow continuing his cross-examination the court is on recess for about 20 minutes as announced by chairman of the panel uh so we've seen john cena and ketia continue uh we're answering questions from akutoampal but before the cross-examination started let's take you back a bit uh to the cautioning of one of the lawyers but before that i want to say that the election petition update is brought to you in association with petrosaur clean fuel in full quantity is always a delightful experience dbs roofing we truly are your roof experts and koa make sure the immune booster for your general well-being we'll be taking you through what you may have missed this of course has joined uses our coverage of the 2020 election petition

Channel: JoyNews

Views: 10,977

Rating: 4.6190476 out of 5

Keywords: Ghana Political Issues, Ghana Politics, Matters Arising in Ghana, NPP, CPP, PPP, NDC, National Budget, Chieftaincy, Ghanaian lawyers, Economy, Constitution, Election, campaign, YouTube, joy News, Latest News, headlines, News in Ghana, News desk

Id: bOdn5hs095c

Length: 146min 24sec (8784 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 01 2021