It took the intervention of the presiding judge to restore order and quash the endless merry-go-round between counsel for the third respondent and the second petitioner, when a story written by myjoyonline.com popped up on day eight of Supreme Court hearing of the election petition.In the heat of voting on December 7, 2012, Myjoyonline carried a story under the headline: ‘Let people with valid IDs vote; verification or not – Prez Mahama’. In the story, President John Mahama, the first respondent in the election petition, President of the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs, Nana Sigri, and Tamale chief, Mr. Alhassan Abdulai had prevailed on the Electoral Commission to allow people to vote without biometric verification.As part of their affidavit, the petitioners – 2012 presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate Dr Mahamudu Bawumia; and chairman of the NPP, Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey - printed the story and submitted a copy to the court as an exhibit to buttress their claim of voting without verification.The story became contentious when the lead counsel for the third respondent, Tsatsu Tsikata sought to solicit responses from the second petitioner, Dr Bawumia, to discredit the latter’s claim of election irregularities.Mr Tsikata had pointed out to Dr Bawumia that the call for people to vote without verification was a genuine concern expressed by some eligible voters who feared they may be disenfranchised by the biometric machine as espoused by the people named in the story.But resolute Dr Bawumia took solace under the law and pointed out that irrespective of the fact that the calls made cut across, they were affront to the laws governing the election.“This is your exhibit from myjoyonline.com, quoting various people, Exhibit MB-B that is the reference you were making earlier to the president giving his view about biometric verification is that what you were referring to earlier? [Yes my Lords, Bawumia replied]. In that exhibit, you will notice that apart from the president, a number of other people also stated their views about biometric verification device…you will agree with me that the concern that is being expressed is the concern by people who are registered to vote [and] may be deprived of their votes. Is that their concern or is not?” Tsatsu Tsikata put it to Dr Bawumia.Dr Bawumia retorted: “The first respondent appealed to the EC to allow people who have registered to vote without going through biometric verification; basically that the law should be broken.Not satisfied by the response, Mr Tsikata remarked, “you haven’t answered my question Dr Bawumia”.Mr Tsikata therefore rephrased his question to probably get an answer that may suit his cause, but Dr Bawumia was defiant as he also rehashed the same answer in reply, stressing the “law is the law".The back and forth prompted Justice William Atuguba, presiding judge, to intervene admitting the submission by the witness that ‘the law is the law’ is in his books and therefore proceedings must continue.