Election 2020 Petition Hearing: Day 9 - on Joy News (3-2-21)

[Music] well hello and welcome to our live broadcast of the 2020 election petition here in i am mama yosabu it's day four of the trial today there is strong disagreement over plans by lawyers for the petitioner to inspect original copies of pink sheets in possession of the electoral commission mr mohammed's team is urging the supreme court to compel the electoral commission to allow them inspect the election results summary and collision sheets used in declaring the polls malayas of the second respondent president obama intensely opposed we wait to see how that pans out in court this morning the court is set to sit at 9 30. we take you now live to the supreme court for the procedures [Music] yes if it pleases your lordships i go to empire for the second respondent my lords with me are my learned colleagues frank davis quick with rafi and yao oppon we have before you a motion on notice for an order for production for inspection of documents in respect of which a request for inspection was served on the first respondent um my loads we have this morning been served with affidavits in opposition filed this morning by both respondents and i tell you that your lordships are granting them leave to file it out of time i i would have no objection to them asking for leave to find it out of time just for the record it appeared when we were here yesterday yes they claimed that they were saved just yesterday i remember and even we some of us had your copy of the motion i don't have yeah i'm aware all i'm saying is i will not object i just wanted for the record for it to be clear that because your lordships have in the past indicated that if we do anything that's contrary to your order we need to that but but let we can proceed if your lordships are satisfied let us proceed my laws i move in terms of the motion paper and the supporting affidavit i lost we filed the request on the 19th of january and my lords this is a situation in which by virtue of rule 5 of ci 16 we believe that this court essentially adopts ci47 and therefore in respect of ci 47 it is order 21 rule 9. as we indicate in our exhibit inspection 2 we file a search which indicates that there has been no response whatsoever to the request that we made to the first respondent now my lords there is no question that the first respondent is the person with lawful custody of the documents which we seek to inspect and it is also quite clear that these documents are public records in the custody of the first respondent your lordships will note that each of the categories of documents that we referred to in paragraphs one to five of the requests are originals of constituency presidential election results in accordance with the various forms that are required to be exhibited so what we're asking for are originals of these documents and in paragraph six what we are asking for also has to do with the records of the alleged update to the purported declaration that alleged update is exhibit b attached to the witness statement of petitioners witness one your lordships we'll see that the figures in respect of that alleged update including the figures of total valid votes cost are different from the declaration that was made on the 9th of december and which we have provided evidence of as an attachment to the witness statement of pw1 marked exhibit a that is a video recording that your lordships that the court saw and there is again no dispute that for instance the figure of total valid votes cost in exhibit b is 13 one one nine four six zero whereas what the petitioner stated i'm sorry what the first respondent stated which is attached to the petitioner the petitioners witness number ones witness statement on exhibit a what she stated was the figure 13 four three four five seven four thirteen four three four five seven four so there is a conflict between those two figures to start with but that matter is compounded by the fact that in exhibit b a figure is mentioned as what the chairperson of the first respondent inadvertently used which is again different from what the figure that she actually used the figure that is now contained in this reported correction is thirteen four three three five seven three so we have thirteen four three four five seven four on the ninth in a declaration as total valid votes cast then we have a purported correction thirteen one one nine four six zero which purports to correct a figure in the declaration and uses yet another figure three 13433 five seven three now my lords the point about all these matters is that these figures are supposed to relate to document that back the figures they are supposed to relate to documents in the possession of the first respondent that can justify these numbers these figures are not supposed to be just plucked out of thin air they're supposed to be figures based on the backing documents and your lordships will have noted that in our petition in our petition we indicated that if you actually sum up if you do the arithmetic in respect of the column where votes are attached to individual candidates if you do that the figure that you come to is again a different figure that is thirteen one two one one one one thank you if you sum up in which document in our amended petition in paragraph 12 our amended petition you said if you sum up um if you sum up from which uh table that is from what was read what was written in the video yes what was read from the video exhibit a bit eight that's right if you so we basically listen took down the numbers and even though this thirteen one two one one one one did not appear anywhere actually i guess thank you and we state that in paragraph 12 of the amended petition so that is a fourth figure now your law chips your lordships will note that in the answer and the answer of the first respondent that was filed on the 9th of january in that answer the first respondent now actually adopts the figure that we had calculated and for the first time for the first time the first respondent also states thirteen thousand one two one one one one for the total valid votes cast so the figure that we have calculated becomes now the basis of the answer the the stone which the builders rejected has become the capstone of the answer of the first respondent [Music] my lords these are the plain circumstances which necessitate a reference back to original documents which are in the custody of the first respondent so that there be a proper validation of what the correct number is my laws we simply cannot have a situation in which as described by the petitioners witness number one we still as are today cannot tell what the correct figures on the basis of which a declaration has been made publicly we cannot tell what those correct figures are we simply cannot tell and my lords the only way in which ultimately this court is going to have to satisfy itself in our respectful submission is by ascertaining from the first respondent what exactly its chairperson who is a constitutionally mandated person is it is using for her declaration and your lawships also have before you a witness statement of the first respondent which is sworn to by the chairperson mrs gina duque mensa and that is filed on the 22nd of january and there again my lords there is no reference made on oak well i'm sorry it's not yet or not it's not yet or not i i i i'm crossing a bridge that i have not got to but the witness statement which is already before your chips how's this number 13121 111 and that witness statement provides no explanation of how in exhibit b a different number to be corrected is given from the number that we all heard in the declaration yes is that not in paragraph 11 11 of the first respondents witness statements is explanation not there the mothers it is not because my lord's in as i indicated in the exhibit b to the witness statement the number that was given as being corrected is thirteen four three three something something it is not thirteen four three four five seven four in the correction that was purported to be made which i referred your lordships to and i may go back to it again with your permission that is the attachment to johnson aside ketia's statement and that is exhibit b your lawsuits will see that it says the chairperson of the electoral commission inadvertently used 13 4 3 3 5 7 3 that is different from the figure that i alluded to and that is different from what she's referring to in the paragraph that your lordship has referred me to so my lord the reality of changing numbers is inescapable in this election petition so these numbers are all related to either the total votes or the total valid votes that is correct and ci 127 tells us how those numbers are supposed to be arrived at ci127 regulation 4410 requires an assembling and collation of results from the regions provided by the various regional coalition offices as set out in form 12. so in the midst of the ever-changing figures it is our respectful submission that there is a need not only to refer to the originals of what she herself purported to use so that they can be compared to whatever documentation is available to us from the ground my lords there has also been in this case there has also been extensive cross-examination in respect of exhibit c which was struck out but there was extensive cross-examination in respect of that exhibit and therefore my lords i wish to make reference which is the issue to that because the cross-examination performed to show the cross-examination of counsel for the first respondent purported to show that the two different documents for the eastern region i lost respect i never cross-examined on exhibit c they exhibit my learned friend might be talking about this sbt the one that is attached to their letter by those i i do take that correction it's it's it's exhibit d attached to the lesson exhibit d there was cross-examination by council for the second respondent on exhibit c which i i will come to later no i i i i i was starting with exhibit d and and i should not have said exhibit c now my laws with exhibit d council cross-examine the witness extensively to show or to explain why one document which has a kind of a stamp a blue stamp why that document is different from the other document and that's where he referred to ayan swan and all that now my lord without going into all the details of the figures i mean it's it's clear that it was acknowledged that there were differences between those two so what we are saying respectfully is that in order even to be clear on what was actually used by the first respondent in reaching the numbers that were ultimately totaled in order to be clear about that we would request to inspect the original document that she had it is no response to say that we have both simply because we have both documents both what was originally signed even by our agent and then another document that was not signed by our in agent of the regional summary for eastern region so it's it's no it's no response to say that we have both because that's precisely the reason why we need to know which one is the authentic one and the only way to know the authentic one is if we are allowed to inspect if we are allowed to inspect the originals that are so presumably counsel for the first respondent who put to the witness certain figures from a certain constituency and all that has had access to those originals because otherwise he wouldn't put it to the witness and council is only allowed to put to the witness what he has been instructed by his client so without question council has information which we are not in possession of simply by virtue of having these two contradictory documents which are exhibit d which are attached to exhibit d i'm sorry which are attached to exhibit d and my lord it was explicit in the testimony that was provided by the second petitioner's witness that the agents of the candidate the petitioner had issues with some of these correlation sheets and began to air them in the discussions to the relevant officials of the ec and we're awaiting appropriate responses as i've said exhibit c was also cross-examined upon extensively and a lot of arithmetic calculations were made in respect of exhibit c with different permutations of numbers and we are saying respectfully that what all that proves is that without knowing the authentic original documents on the basis of which the chairperson of the first respondent undertook her solemn constitutional responsibility we are all in the dark is that my lords we are conscious of the fact that in the election petition in 2012 2013 an application was made in a similar manner for documents to be produced for inspection and the ruling of the court which is found in 2013 supreme court of ghana law reports at page the special edition at page 61 onwards the ruling of the court states clearly why the lordships on that occasion did not grant the application and i would respectfully refer to a passage at page 71 of the judgment of the ruling read by her leadership sufferer adenira and she says as follows in the circumstances we hold that the petitioners are sufficiently and well informed about the election results which had enabled them to mount this petition on grounds of malpractices and 4709 polling station based on the contents of these duplicate documents in their possession in that case the petitioners mounted the petition on the grounds of 24 categories as they put it of malpractice in initially 4709 polling stations it became 11 000 by virtue of subsequent amendments 11 000 and more and so what the court was they're saying is that the petitioners themselves have already put forward in support of their case documents that they had confidence in they had put them forward and therefore to ask to inspect documents when you yourself have said we are putting these forward and this is the basis of our case that is contradictory in this uplink in this petition my lords we have not put forward we have not put forward results or more practices in 4709 polling stations in this petition we have put forward the words of the declaration of the chairperson the returning officer the only constitutionally mandated body or person i should say not even body the only constitutionally mandated person to exercise that responsibility and so clearly the rationale the ratio that then die of that case cannot relate to what we are dealing with in this petition and her ladyship goes on to say that the affidavit in support of the application does not disclose any need for the inspection and making photocopies of the originals of the documents my lords nobody can say that in this case we are not disclosing any need for the inspection in a situation where we have changing numbers and in a situation where to this day [Music] we are in no place to state a definitive number in those circumstances in our respectful submission it is actually even in the interest of the first respondent in terms of transparency in terms of fairness it is it is it is actually in the interest to make available that is why frankly we did not expect that we would have to make this application before that request is granted we we honestly thought that this was something that would be resolved and we would go and have the opportunity to inspect there are clear provisions in in the rules of court within a reasonable time and within reasonable circumstances and we cannot obviously flout those circumstances so this is something that could have been resolved you know very in a very straightforward manner by enabling that inspection to take place without having recourse to others of the court but we have not had even the courtesy of an acknowledgement of our request and therefore we are obliged to seek the orders of the court in order that we can achieve what will enable us to have a fair hearing of the petition that we brought to this court now a lot if there's nothing to hide in terms of transparency around these originals it's difficult to appreciate why an inspection could not have been granted in the course of the last 14 days or so since we we filed 19 19 12 days to the end of january so about 15 days if there is nothing to hide i mean if if if the interest of the first respondent is transparency as has been indicated then why would it be so difficult why would it be so difficult to allow access to the originals we haven't come relying on our duplicates saying that they are the basis of our case we come relying on her own declaration her own declaration speaks for itself so my dogs in this situation we require access to the originals which we can then compare with what we have and try to get to the bottom of these ever-changing numbers now my last the reference that i made to a fair hearing my lord is also anchored because we are saying effectively we are saying effectively that this access to these documents is required for a fair hearing in this case because it is not within the province of the respondent just to pick and choose numbers from different sheets in the way they sought to do in in cross-examining on exhibit d it's not within their problem just to pick and choose and so this document which you have it didn't include ayan suanu there's nothing on the face of the document which says there are not there nothing and this one which you also have which is supposedly about the same regional results regional coalition that document has different numbers and we we just have to take it from them that is 140 000 is what has led to the difference well that is totally unacceptable with the greatest respect and article 19. 13 of the constitution [Music] makes it clear that this code is required to give a fair hearing within a reasonable time may i just with your permission read that article and adjudicating authority for the determination of the existence or extent of a civil right or obligation shall subject to the provisions of this constitution be established by law and shall be independent and impartial and where proceedings for determination are instituted by a person before such an adjudicating authority the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time now my lord as i indicated we are asking for a fair hearing of the petition that we have brought and for that fair hearing we are submitting that the matters that we have the the documents that we have sought access to are necessary documents in order to understand the case that is being put against us with all its changes and permutations and so it's our respectful submission and my laws i may just make a comment finally on six the request in six that is not dealing with originals that is dealing with records of the alleged update to the purpose of declaration now my laws will observe that that updates exhibit b to pw1s witness statement that update is not signed by anybody is a press release and we do know that update is not signed by the chairperson it is not signed by anybody and we do know my lords that the constitutional role that is assigned to the chairperson both under the constitution and under ci127 that role cannot be delegated either to a media relations officer or to a deputy or any other person it cannot simply be delegated and therefore how the records relating to that alleged update are things that need to be inspected particularly when we have pointed out your lordships that in that update itself certain figures are put there which are different from what we all heard in the declaration so some records are required and no doubts there will there must be some basis internally for the alleged update and that's the essence of what is in paragraph six as distinct from paragraphs one two five it's our respectful submission therefore that in the interests of justice this application be granted and i would also just conclude with what is provided in order one rule two of ci-47 that these rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to achieve speeding and effective justice avoid delays and unnecessary expense and ensure that as far as possible all matters and disputes all matters and dispute between the parties may be completely effectively and finally determined and multiplicity of proceedings concerning any matters avoided indeed this proceeding in our view is really quite unnecessary because it could have been dealt with expeditiously my laws there is i i omitted one point in their response that i just want to comment on in one sentence both responses begin to raise issues about burden of proof in the case and so on in our respectful submission issues of burden of proof are irrelevant to the inspection of documents the burden of proof in this matter is something on which no doubt will have occasion to address on different aspects whether the burden of proof is on us to do this or that those are muslims that at the appropriate time will deal with but in their affidavits essentially they are laying claim to some view of burden of proof which is legally very suspect but on that basis they are saying that this application should not be granted and we feel there is absolutely no basis for that you refer us to other nine one can we take a look at uh and if you may address us on it since i believe the primary objective of this application is to determine the total value vote cost that's the prime objective your application yes is to determine the total valid votes no i'm sorry yeah my this application is not just the determination of the total valid votes cast because the total valid votes cost goes back to whatever was happening at the regional coalition that is a form 12 that is referred to and about which there has been evidence that there was some dispute about that so it is not just the terms of it's also to do with the location of the votes your logic will see that in in the exhibit the attachment that we have there are differences in the locations of the votes cast so it cannot just be in respect of total valid postcards it cannot just be production to be ordered only if necessary yes my lord an order for the production of any document for inspection or to the court shall not be made under any of these rules unless the court is of opinion that the order is necessary either to dispose fairly of the cause of matter or to save costs and then two wear on an application under this order for production of a document for inspection or to the court privilege from the production is claimed objection is made to the production on any other ground the court may inspect the document to decide whether the claim or objection is justified i don't believe that privilege is an issue here referring to one yes and one we have addressed you on the necessity and we have addressed you by referring even simply to the attachment to exhibit d which has been the basis of a lot of cross-examination here and the basis of a lot of explanation from council but that exhibit d itself in our respectful submission shows the necessity for knowing what is the original document on the basis of which we must choose one or the other what is the original document that is that is my submission i have a question when you go to inspect them what will you be doing well we'll be comparing them with documents that we have which we regard as authentic to see whether indeed they are the same that's what will be but you don't see the need to tell us what you have as your valuables no we do not have the need because we are not the returning officer with the greatest respect we are not the returning officer and my lord with the greatest respect this is quite an important point because his lordship justice are paul did ask certain questions in relation to feet of d1 and in our respectful submission those questions are completely irrelevant to the issues that have to be dealt with because the question whether he has documents or not if i may be ahead on this my lords i think council should argue their application before the question had nothing to do with what uh justice apple said let me answer myself no no no mr tikata please that is your opinion so keep it to yourself the questions were irrelevant or not that is your opinion yeah but my lord i need to explain why i'm saying they're irrelevant so that i can fully answer the question because the question relates to the same position that your lordship took the question relates to that so i need to be heard on why i say that they're irrelevant because i do not say that lightly i do not say that lightly i do not say that lightly the questions are irrelevant because we have brought a petition here on the grounds of a declaration that was made purportedly about elections held on the 7th of december the declaration stated a figure we all had it thousand three hundred and four hundred and and all that we all heard it that declaration to this day is the only declaration that has been made john cena is not the returning officer of the election of 7 december that is all [Music] hello we are opposed to this application and my lords we rely [Music] on all the depositions in the affidavit in opposition a lot under article 64 1 of the 1992 constitution the petitioner has had 21 days from the date of the declaration to file this petition because we have not been told in this court that between the time of the declaration to the time the petition was filed any such request has been made hello secondly the question is asked why is this application been made on the 34th day after the petition has been found and hearing is well underway now if you peruse exhibit one the document file reports to give the first respondent three days from the date of service to comply lords with the greatest respect there is no such rule of this court and i read this application was made or even under the high court rules [Music] yes but my loss even so they talked about 14 days mutual discovery talks about fourteen days models last i said this because under rules rule 5 of your rules oh sorry my laws of the supreme court rules of the supreme court rules with your time permission if i may read where provision is not expressly made by these rules regarding the practice and procedure which are applied to a course of matter before the court the court shall prescribe the practice and procedure that in the opinion of the court the justice of the cause of matter requires and laws there have been several authorities on this point that it is the court that you make an application to for guidance in this matter plus with respect if i may refer you to the case of topless ghana limited number two versus atie number two 2003 2004 supreme court of ghana law report at page 75 lord with respect agree jse speaking for the court said this and with your time permission if i may quote it i hold a view that the application before us cannot be entertained under 5. in my opinion where a party has difficulty or is in doubt at what steps to take where there are no express practice of procedure provided the party must apply to the court for directions rather than and this is my emphasis rather than arrogate to himself the powers given to the court and the rule 5. you see he came under mutual discovery that is order 21-1 yeah then when you look at the proceedings we've gone beyond that because there was no response from you and when the you you do not i mean uh allow inspection or whatever of documents then you can resort to an application under 21 9. yes and this is the application you are determining yeah so look at the cordless case again whether you can look at five of the ci systems and apply it to the circumstances so so my my lord i referred to the cogles case in order to make the point of the timing of this application yes my laws the timing of this application [Music] after the failure of mutual discovery my laws when you are proceeding no no no i respond to the question what i'm saying beyond mutual discovery do you have any time frame set down under order 21. no my laws you have to apply to the court and this is the application you are determining yes also the point is that the with the greater truth the point is that where ci 99 under which the presidential election petition is found talks about timelessness then when you make an application at a particular point in time in responding to the application with the greatest respect to the court we are entitled to make the point as to the timeline nature or otherwise of the application now the second point i wish to make is that the petitioner has failed to prove that the production for inspection by the first respondent is necessary in these circumstances now this is because the witnesses themselves who came to testify on behalf of the petitioner themselves admit that they have the documents i'm not the way this process is that once the document is filled out all the agents are given the carbonized copies and we did ask them both of them that do you have the documents they said under oath that we do have the documents so therefore if you do have the documents on what basis is this application being made now furthermore it's a submission that the situation is that the petitioner has failed to provide any evidence in support of his petition and that is why at the end of the course examination of the petitioners witnesses this application will be brought in in order to give them the opportunity to lead further evidence i do not believe that it has been the practice of our courts that evidence is led impeachment every day cannot be led a piecemeal before the high court how much more the supreme court so my lords it is our submission that for these grounds and of course they bear the burden of proof to provide evidence sufficiently for the burden to shift they have it and having failed to do that they cannot at this late uh-huh come and make this application for documents which the witnesses themselves admit in their possession that is our submission my laws my lord we believe that at the heart of this application is the question of which party bears the burden of persuasion and the burden of producing evidence now my lord i say so because the petitioner by the admission of his own witnesses and by law has photocopies of all carbon sorry carbonized copies of all the processes from the polling station right up to the the original level and then even to the national coalition center they have copies of all the documents to carbonize the copies therefore when the petitioner raises a question about the authenticity of any document he must first produce that he has and show that what he has is different from what the other party has if secondly if it is in respect of the declaration the petitioner has all the documents that will enable him to sum up the results the national results of all the candidates he has he has the carbonized copies of relevant documents that will enable him sum up the total number of valid votes he got the total number of valid votes the second respondent got and the total number of valid votes that other candidates had my lord the practitioner for reasons best known to himself has refused to present this before the court when he bears the burden of proof he has refused to take any steps to meet that burden he has refused to produce any documents to meet with building or producing documents then he turns around and under these guise of applications to produce evidence they say that produce a document he's trying to garner the evidence that he used to prosecute his case not this with all this respect is is a totally misconceived procedure let me say again that it is not as if the practitioner is saying that from the documents i have the documents that the ec is producing is not the right document and therefore we want to see the original because we have the exact carbonized copy of what the ec has and what is producing is different from what we have it's not saying that rather the application confuses authentication authenticity because you are questioning the photocopy as not the original the cognoscoping is not the original and where the document is authentic but you are taking issue with the content it has it's a different matter if the document is authentic and you are taking issue that the contents you have a problem with it it's a different matter from saying that it is not authentic you can only raise the question of authenticity if you have some other document which is showing that this cannot be the authentic document and say that nobody can call with the petitioner where he says that i have problems with the content of the document if you have problems with the content of the document produce the carbonized copies which will show that the contents of the document are wrong and that is why my lord at the heart of this application is an attempt to shift the burden of proof and the burden of producing evidence onto the respondents and that is never possible in any court of law now again we wish to make it very clear that it is not the number of times that council refers to transparency that would would make this case that things are not transparent he needs to provide the evidence of lack of transparency and not just the verbal statement about transparency and repeating it over and over again then again my lords the petitioner makes a very curious statement about fair hearing my understanding of his submission is that he's using fair hearing to conjure away the burden of proof control away is using the right to affair hearing to call [Music] my lords with all due respect to your lordship with all due respect to your lordship i think what i'm saying is appropriate given the context i'm saying my lords with all due respect that the applications seek to use the right to fair hearing to conjure away the burden of proof and the burden of precision this is these are very fundamental issues in a trial process he cannot shift the building of proof when he has not led any evidence which compels us to lead evidence in response he has not abused any evidence much more met the burden of proof specialist that is all the time on him so my lord if this is the reason for his application my lord it is a misconceived application my lord what makes it worse i lost is that he has not met the basic conditions set out in order 21 rule 11 1 21 11 1. level 1 of ci 47 which reads with your permission as follows an order for the production of any document for inspection or to the court shall not be made under any of these rules unless the court is of the opinion that the order is necessary either to dispose fairly of the cause of matter or to safe course my lord's such ambition that the council has not shown in any way whatsoever the necessity of of this application furthermore he has not demonstrated how this will create the fair disposal of the application or save costs it will not help save costs because indeed if the application is granted it will add rather increase increase the cost of litigation it will not promote a fair disposal of this application or this petition because the application is misconceived being is conceived it cannot promote the fair disposal of the course of matter we believe that council was right when he referred to the decision in the supreme court of ghana for special edition 2013 where at page 17 thereof you're caught speaking through so far during jrc made up following points and i quote the guiding principle was right in the quotation but it was completely wrong in the gloss and interpretation he sought to put on on on on the text i read the text quote the guiding principle in the instant application which is an application for production of documents or inspection is whether the other is necessary either to dispose fairly of the cause or matter or to save course now now the court observes the result correlation forms and the declaration forms are public records in the official custody of second responding electoral commission the petitioners as well are the first and third responses like all other political parties and independent candidates that contested the december 2012 presidential elections were given duplicate copies of the same documents through their representatives at the polling and correlation centers and so-called strong room of the electoral commission in accordance with the provisions of public election regulations it is a thinking that where a party is already in possession of a copy of a document mentioned in another party's reading it is unnecessary to apply or for the court to make an order for the inspection and making copies of the document in question when the court makes a very important point by virtue of the evidence act 1975 nrcd 323 section 166 the duplicate copies of these documents are admissible to the same extent as the originals in the custody of the second respondent that is the electoral commission now record continues practitioners have not raised any concerns about the duplicate copies giving them other correlation centers although they can't make raise those concerns because they have not introduced those documents before their lawships so they cannot raise concerns so that is why this application is thoroughly and meritorious and should be dismissed as such still okay my last meal just with your leave i just wanted to indicate in respect of the point may i may i would you believe yes my lord has been suggested that we must first produce what we have before we ask for something there's nothing in order 21 that that's not what i said they should not misinterpret [Music] as far as the carbonized copies being available are concerned that's exactly the problem we've indicated with examples that we are confronted with the situation which needs to be clarified not my laws he can only respond on legal issues he's introducing facts please sit down all right [Music] [Music] [Music] so a request to inspect documents is what the judges have gone on research to determine this is our 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 co-op make sure the immune booster for your general well-being conjunct is here with me we'll take you through the first part of this procedure today uh so essentially there was a request from mr mohamed's lawyers for the court to allow them inspect some documents in the custody of the electoral commission and chikata has been making uh argument in favor of that what is also interesting is that in the last election petition kojo he was on the other side opposed to a similar request but we've seen in his argument uh how he's tried to distinguish between that's request then and the request on the table now and he he he took his time to explain uh the fact that in this case uh that the petitioner is seeking well to make a certain point that well the the first respondent's own declarations are what have created this situation and he links that to their their request for these documents indicating that this is the reason why it would be it would impinge upon the first respondent to provide the documentation with which you know this this case is to be made um and he also goes the extra mile to reiterate the point that for anyone to request their figures is beside the point uh he continues to repeat what marietta uh has said to the the the public that um it's not about their figures their figures should not be relevant to the case that they are seeking to make um there were responses from justin aminu and um at a point there was an objection raised by um then he also made his responses both of them arguing against the release of these documents absolutely um now it was interesting that i noted um that has spent some time talking about what happened yesterday raising some or expressing some views about um the interventions that the judges made from the bench yesterday the questions they asked uh he talked about how he considered them irrelevant and it is worth noting that none of the judges responded uh you know to that tried to uh you know to make some interventions so we had justice he says he can talk for himself indeed he can and he didn't talk about himself uh fascinating morning although i must say for for those who are not following this for a living uh or you know not following it with a legal interest they might have found this morning a bit yawn inducing but this is all part of the rich uh process of law uh where even for the slightest thing as much justification as possible must be provided in order for the court to consider it a relevant course of action absolutely so let me try and um you know if you like go through the point that chachachikata was making with the figures so first of all he says that there was a different figure used during the 9th december declaration from the videos that were the videos played the declaration the 9th december declaration was played in court so he made reference to the the fact that the total valid vote cast given then was different there was a different figure used in a statement seeking to correct the ninth december figure however in that statement he also alleges that there was yet another figure used so three different figures according to him and then a fourth figure appears according to mr chikata when you add up the figures used during the declaration are you confused no okay i i i think it's quite clear talks about three separate figures being declared by the ec chair and then he says there is a fourth figure if you add up the original figures in the official declaration the only declaration that his side the petitioner considers to be relevant uh when you add up those numbers it gives you a figure different from the one that was actually declared absolutely yes and he also makes the points that the release because the returning officer in this case one returning officer who happens to be the electoral commission chairperson is only passing mandated to do the declaration so you cannot purport to use a statement which according to him is unsigned uh you can't use a statement to replace that duty which cannot be delegated according to him or a pr person or department cannot uh you know say that they're they're doing that duty so would see uh what the court will arrive at are these essentially are these convincing has he convinced the court and now because as you heard also in the those rules that the lawyers refer to is the court's decision they must find it necessary to grant that request so that's where we are today uh with this petition let me acknowledge uh uh supporters petrosaur dbs roofing co-op mixture and to also encourage you to get on social media we appreciate all those following us on facebook on twitter just use the hashtag election petition so due to hard times we'll become value hunters but are we hunting for value the right way remember your engine is more valuable than just cheap fuel be smart handful holistic value holistic value is when you have quality fuel at the right quantity and at a fair price at petrosol we save clean fuel in full quantity at a fair price and that is holistic value so come to us petrosaur clean full in full quantity the next time you stop by petrosso uh station you might just spot koji ansing but let's talk about dvs color link plus roofing sheets after several years of intensive research dbs industries limited brings you roofing sheets to help complete your dream house in style you can just go to their offices they've got one on the spintex road it's in the dbs building is near papaya restaurants they're also giving you some 20 years warranty which you won't find anywhere else so make sure dbs is your first stop and your only stop really give them a call zero two four zero eight four four four four four or zero five four three two eight six six three seven they've got factories in kumasi tamale and takra the dbs industry is limited we truly are your roof experts because after this decision uh we expect that this resource will be quite short it will determine whether or not we will have jin mensah in the witness box i guess that's what everybody's looking forward to absolutely um now these documents uh once they are provided obviously we're not expecting them to be examined and then um uh well well we expect them to be examined whether they'll be examined today and applied to today's cross-examination that'll be interesting uh i suspect they will if it's all a matter of numbers if it's a matter of just clarifying numbers then we certainly will hear of these documents these numbers when jin mensah is uh cross-examined by chachuchi qatar it is the main event uh no doubt we're able to get around to it today it will be fascinating uh to see how that unfolds uh madame gene meza has been in court every day uh she's been observing from uh from from the from her seat and it's very difficult to tell how people are reacting to what's going on when it's only their eyes you can see above their face masks but no doubt she has had quite a she has had quite a lot to observe and and remark on and we will be interesting to see how she approaches uh the cross-examination exercise if indeed we are able to get around to it today let's get back to the court jose vaca blazer caught correspondence he sat through the hearings this morning joseph jones says joseph tell us who is in courts that's the part that we missed apart from those that we could identify on television once again he's been represented once again by john cena in catia i also supported professor nana gino pokharjuman who is uh the ndc's vice presidential candidate for the 2020 uh presidential elections i also saw mr sami jim fee uh who is the communications officer together with uh peterborough and the deputy general secretary of the ndc by way of uh president akufado's side peter mcmahon represented him once again and there are other party officials including national chairman of the mpp uh freddie blay as well as could upon chroma white's minister information designate as well as the minister designate for attorney general and ministry of justice uh guardiola is also presenting code for the electoral commission side electoral commission chairperson is in court flanked by her two deputies joseph you may have to either reposition yourself there's some bricks uh that we're experiencing but just have a blazer called correspondent it's just been telling us who is in court who is representing which side in court apart from the lawyers that we've seen uh arguing out their case on this application uh but joseph there's precedence to what just at this precedent to what we're witnessing um i i don't know how much of the 2012 2013 decision in this same application that's been argued out uh that you know you can take us through so that application was made in that particular case by another one kaku for those lawyers at that time you recall he was the petitioner together with her james sutanka obita belante and dr mahmoud balbia and that particular decision of the court was read by justice sophia daniera and you heard mr chikata try to distinguish that particular decision in terms of its circumstance from this particular one so at that time the argument that the court made in terms of its decision was to the effect that the petitioner has attached a document that you have talked about why don't you want to express the right and so anyways his argument is that we have come to court based on the declaration that was done on this day december 9 in the course of our witness being cross-examined it has been established that in some instances for some regions like the eastern region there are two sheets for that particular region one has a different italian the other house has a different italian so our argument is that allow us to inspect the original in order to enable us come to the conclusion as to whether or not which of the two documents you used to carry out your declaration by the lawyers on the other side they said we and they make the point that if indeed the petitioner wants to make a case for relevance he should first have come with his copies and done the tabulations to show that our own tabulations you didn't use the copies of the documents that you gave us and so we want to see the original and that is what in their view will meet the requirements of necessities but mr chicago's lawyers uh disagree and so uh once again we see another situation where the court is being called upon to take a look at his 2012 and 2013 decision and it's it's worth stating that in a previous instance when the court was referred to history and stuff in 2013 decision the court arrived at a different conclusion that was had to do with the interrogatories uh seven of those interrogatories but clearly these are two different applications that caught us the arguments on both issues and in this particular instance taking counter arguments as well so uh it remains to be seen which side the court will land but you heard a member of the panel ask whether that summation has been done by the outside and you heard mr chikata respond by saying that uh this the petitioner is not the returning officer for the election then he takes on a member of the panel of justice yeah those questions were not relevant and you had justice after make the point that he should keep his opinions to himself but mr carter insisted nonetheless that's those questions yeah and on that joseph uh did justice a paul say anything from where us you know observing from here we didn't hear him say anything maybe there was some gestures or something that you picked up in courts he actually spoke the point he made was that i mean mr chikata can keep his opinions himself that was the point that he made and that he disagrees with him and that's all that he said and mr katan now came in to say that uh look i disagree with you as far as i'm concerned those questions that you asked were not relevant justice apple didn't say anything uh in addition to what he had already said after mr chicat responded and insisted that he disagrees with the justice of the supreme court in stating that as far as he's concerned the questions that the justice asked to mistake him they're in cross-examination we're not relevant yeah so did he make did he make any follow-up comments following the intervention that akutan powell sought to give and caught where you know he was asked to essentially sit in fact it was uh during mr kotompal's attempt if i'm to put it away to respond to uh the points that uh mr chikata had made about the relevance of those questions because aku tampao was pointing out to their courts that what is being argued is the request to inspect the documents and it has nothing to do with questions that mr carter's witness were asked earlier then at that point justice apple came in and said that uh let me answer the question myself let me respond to it myself and then he said that council keep your opinions to yourself and i have asked my questions keep your opinions to yourself and so was that when i'm stuck then reported again that those questions were not relevant okay joseph let's get something clear apart from the arguments that we've seen the electoral commission's lawyer making court today they actually also put in some document responding to why they are not in favor of allowing mr john mohammed's legal team to inspect those documents so this is a written form of a response beyond what we've heard in court today that is so and you realize that the start of proceedings uh that receive the field comments from the uns was sitting the court had indicated that the respondents found their responses to this particular request by close of the yesterday but mr carter was making a point that when he came into courtroom they've been saved with a response and so he was drawing the court attention as to whether or not they will request i.e the respondents will request of their court to have leave to have the servant done because they're caught at earlier safe notice that it if it gives timelines and those timelines are not respected it reserves the right to impose sanctions which includes striking out process and even dismissing the petition itself and so the such cat at the start of the proceedings pointed out to the courts that look your order was not complied with in that it was filed this morning and we've been saved this morning not yesterday as you are directed but the court i did say that you should proceed and move the application in terms of contents it's the summary of it is what was put across it's not any defense of as in what is on the piece of the paper it's just the main bullet points that the lawyers run us through and so it's not any different from the royal argument and that they made joseph let's appreciate the arguments made by the electoral commission opposing this application why the court should not grant those requests so the first point that the electoral commission's lawyer makes is about the timing of the application and he makes reference to ci 99 and the court has already pronounced on ci 99 making uh the point that it is bound to hear the petition expeditiously now his argument is that they had 21 days to file the petition post they're filing the petition they didn't raise any issues and today is the 34th day and he says it's at this stage that they are requesting for documents which his beliefs should have actually been the basis upon which they had filed a petition in the first place and so that is the first point he raises about time you know the timing of the application he then makes the point also about the fact that under cross examination the witness has already confirmed that these are documents in their custody already and so he doesn't see why the request should be granted in this particular instance and so that was the argument that the electoral commission's lawyer uh justin amanova put across to the court urging the court to dismiss this particular request and let's finish off with the akutampa was quite brief but he was also opposed yes and he spent a bit of time on that 2012 uh 2013 petition to demonstrate that the the racial decent decedent diet or the reasoning of the court in that particular instance had to do with issues relating to necessity and whether or not their circumstances permits their courts to allow for that necessity to be triggered in a manner that allows for that to be produced he also talked about the burden of proof in saying that this is a petitioner who is alleged and no one got 150 percent of the votes casting so that burden of proof is on him to induce evidence in that effect and so if he has failed to address those evidence he cannot simply now come and say that by virtue of a discovery during cross examination that there are differences in some of the sheets from the same areas and so someone should bring evidence to enable him rely upon so as far as he's concerned that burden has one not been discharged in order to merit it's been shifted from the petitioner to the respondents for the respondent to carry out that task of producing those documents for it to be inspected great joseph how long does this break we are unable to tell and as we've seen in times past they've been instances where the court has taken up to 30 minutes to return with its decision uh but we are hoping that it shouldn't take too long because the processes are before the court and this is a matter that the court has ruled on differently constituted i.e the 2012 2013 decision as well and so it is our hope and expectation that the justices of the supreme court return shortly to render their ruling jose cable we will leave it here and catch up with you a bit later joseph is our correspondent uh following the case through in courts kojang singh is here with me mama viewers and this election updates is proudly supported by dbs roofing petrosaur and koa mixture uh so we're we're hoping that a decision will come quickly for you and then we can get on to the other businesses yeah the documents are very specific six of them i believe yes uh i i suspect that they will take them one by one and decide which ones are should relevantly be provided and which ones shouldn't or if none of them should and they will they will return their their decision on that one we can't wait uh certainly but one one of the things that i've been thinking about as as this whole thing has unfolded is the learning value for the nation there's a second time that um uh democracy has taken us down this path um and each time the supreme court has really become the defining uh authority on how things should be done in the future and that is the part of this that i i'm really looking forward to so on the face of it the electoral commission put out a declaration and then corrected it i i see nothing in our laws that speaks against that but this petition that has been brought will result in definitive uh let's call it procedure you know for the future because errors are possible as we've now seen so if an error is made what is the correct way of uh setting it right i cannot wait for that particular outcome regardless of who wins or you know uh who who doesn't win in this petition i cannot wait for that clarity to come from the supreme court okay so as we do often we want to remind you of the issues on the table for determination because you might be hearing some of these legal issues in terms of the application that has put forward but when all is said you know when all the arguments have been made when this issue for instance is determined when all the cross-examinations uh have been done what will the courts be seeking to resolve there are five issues that they put on the table real quick i'll take you through the first one is whether or not the petition discloses any cause of action is there any legal grounds for the petition we know that there are some objections that were raised but the courts would deliver its decision they say we will find it in the final judgment when this case is done the second one is whether or not mr kuffard obtained more than 50 percent of the valid vote costs as required by the constitution for a person to be declared as president-elect of the country uh whether or not mr kufard obtained more than 50 percent of the total valuable cash by the exclusion or inclusion of the tachiman south constituency presidential election results is the third issue the fourth one is whether or not the declaration by the electoral commission on the 9th of december of the presidential election was in violation of the constitution and the fifth one is whether or not the alleged vote padding and other errors complained by mr muhammad affected the outcome of the presidential election results of 2020. so when you're listening to the other issues bear in mind what they're trying to answer they're trying to find answers to these issues that have been raised uh the panel of course the chief justice sinini abua is sharing the panel he sat on the 2012 election petition hearing there's justices and get rid you and kojo is uh difficult often to figure out and i should have asked joseph maybe when we have time we'll probably ask um who is which of the two female exactly speaking yeah yeah it's hard there is a familiar voice there's one that speaks often but yesterday we had another female voice there are two uh females on this panel yeah yeah all right uh this is our election petition update we'll take a breather stay with us you're listening on radio and joy 99.7 fm and of course here on your news thank you for following us on social media on facebook on twitter and on myjawline.com remember the hashtag is election petition

Channel: JoyNews

Views: 23,940

Rating: 4.2520328 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, Election2020PetitionHearing

Id: vgktJIU7XJ8

Length: 110min 20sec (6620 seconds)

Published: Wed Feb 03 2021