The Supreme Court has turned down a motion filed by the Petitioners requesting the court to direct the Electoral Commission (EC) to produce collation forms for 13 constituencies. Counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison said on 13th June 2013, Afari Gyan, witness for the E.C said during cross-examination that he could produce presidential collation results in respect of the 13 named constituencies. But a letter written to request for these sheets from the E.C was turned down, he said. This has necessitated the motion in court to compel the E.C to produce the said documents. He argued that C.I 75, regulation 43sub-sections 5, 6 and 7 empowers the high court to order the E.C to produce documents deemed necessary to a party in the hearing of the Election Petition. He said an application for the collation sheets was made earlier on in court but was shot down by the court as pre-mature. He said the Petitioners lacked some 2,000 pink sheets to substantiate their case of massive irregularities. The Respondents have also accused the petitioners of bad faith, he mentioned, adding, if this request if accepted will go to disprove this allegation, Addison said. He rejected claims by the Respondents that the motion “is belated, not necessary, oppressive and abusive of the court process”. He argued this application would not “pose any hardship on second respondent” but rather help provide “substantial justice” for the petitioners. It cannot be oppressive because in relation to C.I 75, the E.C is bound to keep election results for a year and not to destroy them. He also disputed claims by counsel for President Mahama and E.C that their motion will open the flood gates for other requests to be made by the Petitioners. He said each application is to be determined based on its merit. Quarshie-Idun counsel for E.C said the petitioners have all along relied on pink sheets to make their case but were now changing this position to rely on collation sheet results. This amounts to a fishing expedition, he said. He said the petitioners already have what they were seeking for. It is on the pink sheets, he said, adding what the petitioners are looking for is a “mere recapitulation of figures” announced at the polling station. He referred to the Guide to Electoral Officers manual which requires electoral officers to fill the collation sheet with results of all polling stations as recorded on the pink sheet. The agents are given a signed copy of the pink sheet. “They have them”, he said. In his closing remarks, Quarshie-Idun said the collation sheet would have been necessary if the petitioners had alleged discrepancies in votes collated at the polling station and votes declared by the Electoral Commission. The request was therefore not part of the petitioner’s case, he said. Lithur described the motion as “pair trawling”. He said the petitioners are literally asking the E.C to give evidence to them in order to make a case against the EC. “Why are you in court if you don’t have any case in the first place”, he quizzed. Tsikata, counsel for the NDC closed the Respondents argument by saying the application was “incompetent”. The application was relying on C.I 75 which said a High Court trying an offence on matters relating to the hearing an election petition can cause the E.C to provide a party with documents deemed necessary to the defense of their case. This is not a high court, he said. The court recessed to consider the motion and returned to refuse the request.