The cross examination of the witness by Counsel for the third respondent Tsatsu Tsikata goes into its third day. Ex-parte motion has been filed by Mr. Amekudzi “a friend of the court”. It is to draw the attention of the Supreme Court to some laws in 1992 Constitution that are being violated. He tries to read the preamble of the 1992 constitution in support of his motion. This is a busy court, Justice Atuguba tells Mr. Amekudzi and warns him not to give speeches. Justice Atuguba asks if he signed an affidavit in support of his ex-parte motion as an established mode of trial. He says he did not. Lawyer Addison, counsel for petitioners says the application has not been properly laid. He says there is no fact to support it and that it is “partisan” and should be rejected. Lawyer Lithur, counsel for first Respondent says he supports counsel for petitioners for the “first time”. Counsel for second respondent, Quarshie Idun calls it “a rare occasion” to support lawyer Addison along with lawyer Lithur. Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for third respondent asks that it “be dismissed”. Mr. Amekudzi says elections are not “fought on pink sheets” and that it is a mistake. He challenges the other lawyers for proceeding the hearing on a mistake and wonders what right they have to call his application an error. Panel of Judges rule that the application is dismissed. He ask that the Court now "proceed in peace". 1005 Tsatsu proceeds with his cross-examination. He asks Bawumia if he knows Sammy Awuku. Bawumia admits knowing him as a member of the communications of the NPP. Tsikata asks if witness heard Sammy Awuku calling on supporters of the NPP to besiege the the offices of the STL to cause commotion. Bawumia denies knowledge of that call by Sammy Awuku. Tsikata goes further by asking if Bawumia is aware that ex-president Obasanjo was present at the STL office in the heat of the 2012 elections and denied the allegations made by the NPP that officials of STL were changing figures of the election results and transferring it to the second respondent. Bawumia denies knowledge of that as well. Presiding Judge Atuguba cautions Tsikata from proceeding on an issue which the petitioners have withdrawn for lack of evidence. NB On Wednesday Bawumia told the court that they have withdrawn the allegations relating to the STL matter because they could not find the appropriate evidence to show how that incident at the STL office directly affected the results of the elections and because they did not want to waste the time of the court they had to withdraw that allegation. However Tsikata, upon the caution by the Presiding Judge, pleaded that the STL matter is linked to the cross examination and must therefore be allowed to proceed. He proceeds. He then presents an affidavits filed on 21 January, 2013 which was deposed by the first petitioner and asks witness to read portions of the affidavits which is in opposition to the presentation of the further and better particulars. Bawumia reads the portion which made the allegations on the STL matter and how one of the polling stations results had been tampered with. Tsikata then suggests to witness that the STL allegations were withdrawn because they were palpably false. Bawumia says they were withdrawn because they did not have enough evidence to back their case. Tsikata asks the same question in another way but Bawumia maintains that the allegations were withdrawn because of lack of evidence. Philip Addison springs to his feet accusing the counsel on the other side of repeating of repeating the same questions which have already been answered. Tsikata proceeds by tendering in additional duplicated pink sheet exhibits. This particular exhibit it is featured thrice. Tsikata suggests that the intention of the petitioners is to mislead the court. Bawumia says it is only an act of mislabeling but not to mislead. He says the pink sheet results on the three pink sheet were only entered once in the analysis. He admits it was a mistake of mislabeling. Tsikata insists the duplication is an attempt to shore up the numbers and to mislead the court. Bawumia retorts saying Tsikata will be misleading himself with that line of arguement. Perjury and threats Tsikata reminds witness that he has sworn an oath on the Holy Quran to tell the truth at all times. He says the witness may be defiling the holy Book if he should lie and says he stands liable to the crime of perjury if he is found to be lying to the court. Philip Addison raises an objection and accuses Tsikata of threatening his witness. Presiding Judge says the objection could have come in another form and in a subtle way over rules the objection by the Petitioner's counsel. He however tells Tsikata to proceed cautiously else the court will intervene. Tsikata presents another set of pink sheet exhibits which were tendered three times- two with the same exhibit number, the third with a different exhibit number. He asks witness to confirm if polling agents of the petitioners were present and signed these pink sheets. He also asks witness to confirm whether there was any for of protest raised by the polling agents. Bawumia says there ought not to be official protest raised by the polling agents before petitioners can proceed to court. He confirms however that the polling agents signed the pink sheets but did not raise any protest on the face of the pink sheet. Tsikata presents another set of pink sheet exhibits which have been duplicated and asks witness to confirm if they were signed by the NPP polling agent and there was no indication of protest. Bawumia confirms the polling agents signed the document and adds that an agent signing the document does not make the illegality that happened at the polling station station legal. Presiding Judge Atuguba warns witness to leave out the issue of legality. He says matters of the law can only be dealt with by the panel. Declaration of results Tsikata asks witness if was aware of results being declared at various polling stations on the eve of the December 7, 2012. Bawumia affirms and adds that the NPP was clearly in the lead when the results started trickling in on the eve of December 7 but something happened on December 8. He wears a curious smile. Tsatsu looks on also with a smile. Tsikata proceeds by presenting another set of pink sheet exhibits whose exhibit numbers have been duplicated. He asks witness to read out the results on the pink sheet and to confirm if the numbers have been duplicated and whether the polling agents signed. Bawumia reads and says the exhibit numbers have been duplicated, it was signed by the petitioners polling agents but the figures on the pink sheet were entered once in the analysis. Tsikata asks witness if he is familiar with how the pink sheet is filled and who does that filling. Bawumia says he is aware that it is the polling agent who fills the pink sheet. Tsikata then gives another set of pink sheet exhibits to the witness to peruse. He says the exhibit numbers have been repeated three times, two of which were generated manually and the third exhibit number generated electronically. He asks witness to confirm if the agents of the petitioners signed. Bawumia confirms the manual generation of the exhibit numbers were fraught with errors that is why they had to do the electronic generation of exhibit numbers. He adds however that the figures were entered once. Tsikata probes further by asking if the witness can confirm that the signatures on the pink sheets were authentic signatures of their polling agents. Bawumia says they have cause to suspect some of the signatures on the pink sheets but their attention is not so much on whether the pink sheets were signed by their polling agent but rather the irregularities on the face of the pink sheets. Tsikata brings out another set of pink sheet exhibits whose exhibit numbers were electronically generated but the numbers have been repeated three times. Tsikata curiously asks witness how come the exhibit numbers on these pink sheets have been repeated three times even though they were all electronically generated. Bawumia concedes that the exhibit numbers, though electronically generated have been repeated. He adds however that they were entered once in the analysis. Tsikata proceeds with another set of pink sheet exhibits which are handed over to the witness for his perusal. Tsikata asks witness to confirm if there are three pink sheets of the same polling station and whether or not the polling agents of the petitioners signed them. Bawumia confirms that the pinks sheets were repeated three times but with same exhibit numbers, signed by their polling agents but entered once in the analysis. Tsatsu Tsikata asks witness if he noticed these mis-labelings for the first time. Bawumia says he was aware of the mislabeling when they were putting together the case and that is why they shifted to electronic labeling which also appears to have suffered some labeling deficits. He assures the court however that the figures on those pink sheets were entered once in the analysis. He adds however that he was not aware that these duplicated and triplicated pink sheets were added to the list of exhibits which were tendered in evidence. He said his attention was drawn to it by counsel for the first respondent, Tony Lithur. Quadruple Pink Sheet exhibits Tsikata presents a new list of pink sheet exhibits which have been quadrupled. He asks witness if the polling agents signed the copies of the pink sheets. Bawumia confirms that these pink sheet exhibits have been quadrupled but adds that they were entered only once in the analysis. Reason for duplicating, triplicating, quadruplicating of pink sheet exhibits Tsikata finds out from the witness the reason for duplicating, triplicating quadruplicating the pink sheets. Bawumia attributes the duplications to photocopying of the pink sheets but maintains they were only used once. He posits vehemently "You don’t win the case by the quantity of your papers but the quality of your analysis." Tsikata asks how come the photocopies were also stamped by the commissioner of oath. Bawumia says the photocopy versions may have been stamped in error but Tsikata promises to expose the witness and make a case that these duplications were done to deceive the court. Tsikata proceeds by presenting another set of pink sheet exhibits and asks witness to confirm if the petitioners' polling agents signed the pink sheets and did not raise any protest. Bawumia confirms. Tsikata asks witness to take a look at a pink sheet exhibit of an Anglican Polling station station. He says on the first exhibit the exhibit number is clear but not on the second. Bawumia agrees. Tsikata says it is yet another example of duplication. He presents another list of pink sheet exhibit to the witness to peruse. None of the counsel raise objections but Presiding Judge Atuguba says its time for lunch break. Court goes into recess 1335: Court returns from recess Tsikata asks witness to look at the exhibits he tendered shortly before recess and confirm the repetition of the exhibit and that polling agents of the petitioners signed without raising any objection. Bawumia confirms there is a repetition of the exhibit and that his polling agents signed but raised no objection. Tsikata presents another set of exhibits which is passed around the tables for the counsel and then to the witness to peruse. Tsikata then asks witness to confirm if there are repetitions and that the polling agents signed the pink sheet to certify the results. Bawumia says the pink sheets have been repeated and that the sheets were signed by the NPP agents to confirm the irregularity on the face of the pink sheet. Tsikata suggests to witness that the polling agents signed to affirm the accuracy of the results in the polling agents but Bawumia disagrees, saying the signature was only to affirm whatever happened at the polling station including irregularity. Tsikata asks witness to read regulation 36 (2) of CI75. Bawumia reads and which Myjoyonline.com paraphrases as: the presiding officer, the candidate of the representatives or their agents shall sign and state the total number of votes cast for each candidate. Bawumia after reading says the regulation he has just read, supports the statement he has been making that the polling agents only sign to confirm whatever happens at the polling station and not to authenticate and certify the results. Presiding Judge Atuguba cautions the counsel not to be asking the witness questions of law. He says those issues shall be clearly dealt with by the judges and not Bawumia. Tsikata says he only raised that issue because of the obvious familiarity of the witness on the issues to do with CI75. He goes ahead to present to the court a list of 70 pink sheet exhibits on which he will cross examine the witness. He asks if witness can confirm that the pink sheets have been duplicated. Bawumia confirms. Tsikata again asks Bawumia to read the results on one of the pink sheets. Bawumia obliges. Tsikata asks if witness has taken notice of the fact that in all the exhibits tendered and which are before the witness, it the first Respondent who won in all the polling stations. Bawumia admits the figures showed that the first Respondent won in the polling stations but he quickly adds that the irregularities perpetrated in these polling stations inured to the benefit of the first Respondent. Tsikata presents another set of pink sheet exhibits which has been duplicated. Bawumia confirms the duplication but says it was only used once in the analysis. 1511 Objection Counsel for the Petitioners, Philip Addison raises an objection as to how the counsel for the third Respondent is executing his cross-examination. He says Tsikata cannot continue to adopt the piecemeal approach. He pleads the court to direct the counsel to provide the list of duplicate or triplicate pink sheets even if there are thousands of them so the court can deal with once and for all. He says the counsel cannot continue to be asking the same questions over and over again. But Tsatsu Tsikata says if there is a delay, it is entirely the creation of the Petitioners. He argues it is entirely unusual to have duplications and triplication of the exhibits. He says the Respondents were entitled to have a clear set of pink sheet exhibits from the Petitioners and once they did not have that they cannot be blamed for delay if they try to sort out these duplications. He says they will show that these duplications were only to shore up the numbers and to deceive the court. Judge Atuguba agrees in part with Tsatsu Tsikata but advices him to expedite action on the list of duplicates. Tsikata continues with his duplicate cross-examination. He presents another list of pink sheet exhibits to be perused by the witness as well as by the lawyers of the various parties. Philip Addison raises an objection to the tendering of some of the exhibits in the list. Tsikata agrees with Addison and therefore decides to remove those pink sheets from the list. Addison then remarks that even with these limited pink sheets the counsel on the other side is struggling with them. Tsikata retorts saying he struggles to deal with things that are messy and blames the Petitioners for the mess. 1600: Adjournment Presiding Judge Atuguba alerts counsel for the third respondent that the curtain on today's proceedings will be drawn very soon. He further directs counsel on all sides to sit early on the next adjourned date which is Monday to sort out the duplicates, triplicates and quadruplicates before hearing starts at 930 GMT. He believes the new arrangement will expedite hearing. 1605: Case stands adjourned.