Nana Ato Dadzie has suggested that the lead counsel for the petitioners Philip Addison acted meticulously in court today to trick Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the third respondent, to tender a document he claimed emanated from the camp of the petitioners. Mr Addison had refused to allow his witness to answer questions pertaining to a list bothering on the allegation of same serial numbers, arguing that the list had not been tendered in evidence by any of the parties in the election petition at the Supreme Court. After badgering here and there, Tsatsu Tsikata insisted that he would not tender the list because it doesn’t originate from his side. The court however in a split decision deferred the tendering of the list. It is a “tricky matter”, admitted Nana Ato Dadzie who is the spokesperson for the NDC legal team in an interview with GTV after the court adjourned sitting to Monday, May 21. In an earlier sitting, Mr Tsikata had asked the petitioners to find counterparts of pink sheets they claimed the serial numbers were duplicated, which he intended cross-examining a key witness in the case Dr Mahamudu Bawumia on. The list was supplied in batches and Mr Tsikata had wanted to proceed his questioning, but Philip Addison objected. This became a subject of contention but after both sides have proffered their arguments, the court adjourned ruling to the next hearing. Nana Ato Dadzie explained that Mr Tsikata refused to tender the document because some of the exhibits added to the list were not part of what they requested. “There were some references to some figures, which were not part of the original documents that they were given to revalidate. So the whole idea was to push them to push Mr Tsatsu Tsikata to tender the whole document…so why should we be the one to tender it? You can tender it if you want.” But Madam Gloria Akuffo, who speaks for the petitioners, stated that Mr Addison insisted on the document being tendered because it was not right for Mr Tsikata to question the witness on a document which is not before the court. She also maintained that the document does not belong to the petitioners either, because the list was compiled by the third respondent. She said even though the court ruled that the document could be tendered later, Mr Tsikata went ahead to extract 10 polling stations which she said he derived from the deferred document to proceed with his cross-examination, explaining why they objected to the questioning again.