Court rejects petitioners request for soft copy of KPMG report
The Supreme Court by a majority decision on Monday dismissed an application by the petitioners to be given a soft copy of the KPMG report to facilitate the perusal of the document.
The ruling by the court followed a protest raised by Mr Tony Lithur, Counsel for first respondent, that it was agreed at a meeting that all the parties would be given a hard copy of the KPMG report and a soft copy kept under lock.
The Court, however, granted the petitioners one day leave instead of the two days that they requested to study the KPNG report.
Mr Lithur argued that they are against the call by the petitioners for a soft copy of the report to facilitate the checking of the document.
Mr Philip Addison, Counsel for petitioners, said he does not understand why Counsel for the first respondent was opposed to their harmless request.
He said the petitioners need a soft copy and have asked for it but if the respondents does not need it there is no need asking for it but they cannot object to the provision.
Mr James Quarshie-Idun, Counsel for second respondent, concurred with the sentiment of Mr Lithur adding that if the petitioners want a soft copy they can as well scan the hard copy into a soft copy.
Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for third respondent, also argued that it was agreed before the process started that only hard copies would be given and it is for good reason.
He said in order not to compromise the report it was agreed soft copies would not be given.
He said for a court that saw hard copies of exhibit increased in number, it is dangerous to have soft copies.
At that juncture, Justice William Atuguba, President of the panel recalled Nii Amanor Dodoo, an official of KPMG into the dock and asked him the KPMG position on the issue.
Mr Dodoo, in answering, said ordinarily KPMG does not give soft copies to the parties they work for due to risk management issues.
He said they mentioned to the parties during the audit that they would not give soft copies out, however, if the parties do not understand any issue on how results were arrived at KPMG is ready to take the parties through the process.
Mr Addison, however, stood up and said the final report is not the property of KPMG but the state and therefore they cannot impose their procedures on the state.
He denied that there was no such agreement with the parties that final reports would not be provided in soft copies.
Mr Dodoo said the agreement was in general terms and that soft copies would not be given out whether it is a draft copy or a final copy.
Justice Atuguba also warned lawyers and media personnel to be circumspect about the things they write and say adding that they have given several warnings which has not been heeded.
He said unacceptable statements made by lawyers and the media would no longer be tolerated.
He said the court accordingly they have taken the position that any person, be it in the media or not who crosses the final touchline of proper coverage reportage, would be met with the appropriate response.
He cited a Daily Guide report which made reference to a found box of pink sheets in his custody saying that report was unacceptable.
He also made reference to the contents of the final report by KPMG which is already in the public domain when the court has not received it.
The court subsequently adjourned the case to Wednesday, June 26, 2013.
Source: GNA