Supreme court dismisses petitioners motion

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an application by the petitioners for the court to order KPMG to make a unique count of 1,545 pink sheets which were not included in the total of 8,675 sheets certified by the accounting firm.

The KPMG in their report claimed they excluded those pink sheet exhibits because the writings on them were illegible. They however added that, the court could give further directions on how to deal with those pink sheets.

Justice William Atuguba, President of the panel of Judges hearing the election petition in giving the ruling directed the petitioners to list out the 1,545 polling stations, which they claim they have been able to identify despite its illegibility, for the second respondent to respond to.

He said the referees report is auxiliary to the court, adding that, the court has a primary duty to adjudicate the case.

He said since the pink sheets on which the petitioners are depending on are the same as those they filed in court, they  have the burden to demonstrate those exhibits in their own analysis, with the aid of the referee’s report, in respect of the alleged violations.

Justice Atuguba further stated that any perceived difficulty still lingering, can be cleared by the petitioners through the cross-examination of the second respondent.

Mr Philip Addison, lead Counsel for the Petitioners in his submission stated that the application by the petitioners was brought under Order 28 of CI 47 and not CI 75.

He said the application was filed for the court to order the referee to determine the unique count and polling station of the 1,545 exhibits the referee claimed were illegible in its report.

He further stated that there should be a unique count of the 2,876 pink sheets found in the President’s set, which were not in the Registrar’s set.

Mr Addison argued that if these unique counts were done, it would be clear for all to see the number of exhibits filed by the Petitioners, which would greatly assist the court.

He said the Petitioners application has been necessitated because this matter if not addressed, leaves the KPMG report incomplete.

He maintained that the application was meant to “tie up loose ends in the report,” adding that, the KPMG’s action amounted to exclusion of evidence.

Mr Addison argued that the respondents have not complained that they cannot identify the particular pink sheets and that it was the referee who was not able to properly identify them.

He said the Respondents cannot suffer any “injury” as a result of conducting this additional audit by KPMG.

Dr. Bassit Bamba, Counsel for first Respondent had argued that the request by the petitioners was beyond the mandate of the referee.

He said the order by the court to KPMG for the count of the pink sheet exhibit was specific.

He intimated that KPMG was ordered to do a true and faithful count of pink sheets and not to establish the identity of pink sheets as the petitioners’ motion sought to do, saying that, after all, the petitioners know what they filed.

Mr James Quarshie-Idun, Counsel for the second Respondent submitted that the motion by the petitioners was going to delay the case.

He stated that it was the petitioners’ responsibility to prove their case and not to shift the burden of proof on KPMG.

Mr Tsatsu Tsikata Counsel for third Respondent catalogued the petitioners’ opposition to the count when they first applied to the court to order it.

He noted that the petitioners, who earlier opposed the KPMG’s report, are now requesting the referee to help their case.

He said what the petitioners are seeking to do would add nothing relevant in determining the outcome of this case.

Source: GNA