Tony Lithur, lead counsel for the first respondent-President John Mahama- in the election petition case has accused chief witness for the petitioners challenging the credibility of the 2012 general elections of deliberately producing duplicate copies of pink sheets to deceive the court. According to him, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia deliberately repeated polling stations to shore up figures to back his claims and the claim by the two other petitioners that the second respondent, which is the Electoral Commissioner erred in declaring John Mahama winner of the 2012 polls. In a cross-examination that lasted well over four hours, Lithur produced copies of pink sheets presented by the petitioners which he said had different exhibit numbers but from the same polling stations. Lithur repetitively and laboriously named 38 of the various polling stations named by the petitioners and which had the deficit of double exhibit numbers and pointed out to the witness and to the court what he claims were a deliberate scheme of duplication. One of the judges drew the attention of the counsel that he had exceeded his "statute of limitation" and should begin to round up on his long crusade of double exhibit numbers for the same polling stations. After submitting seven more of those pink sheets with the same deficits, Lithur pointed out “I suggest to you that you deliberately duplicated these pink sheets to deceive the courts.” The witness in chief of the petitioners, however retorted “I suggest to you that I did not deceive the court,” an answer which drew a loud laughter from the spectators who had earlier been warned by one of the judge to be civil or will be thrown out. Dr Bawumia confirmed that even though the exhibit numbers were different for the same polling station as pointed out by the counsel for the first respondent, figures for each polling station were only entered once in his analysis. He said the different exhibit numbers came about as a result of manual recording and electronic recording. According to him, when compiling figures of irregularities of 11,138 polling stations they realized it was laborious doing it manually and with the limited time they had to submit their affidavits, they had to then adopt an electronic system of recording and that generated the different numbers for the same polling stations. He was emphatic however that the figures for each polling station were only entered once in the analyses and not twice or thrice as the counsel is suggesting.