It was a legal tug-of-war between Tsikata, counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC),Justice Atuguba and counsel for the petitioners Philip Addison. It resulted in a fatigue-induced adjournment of proceedings by Justice Atuguba. It was a drama of technicalities potent in draining energy and sharp attention. It began after Tsikata successfully fought off calls by judges of the Supreme Court to tender in evidence exhibit NDC 32. But Addison had other plans: Tsstsu cannot continue, he said. A Background The legal battle centered around exhibit NDC 32 which dealt with same serial number and its counterpart duplicate list. Days ago, Tsikata, counsel for NDC brought 150 questions about pink sheet exhibits with duplicate serial numbers which were tendered conditionally. The condition was that Dr. Bawumia was to locate the counterpart duplicate list of these same-serial number category. A category, Bawumia contends is an irregularity. After a couple of days exhausted by the petitioners to meticulously locate these answers, counsel for petitioners supplied it to Tsikata. It was a major condition for the conclusion of his cross-examination. But the court today can only have it through tendering. Who is to tender it became the subject of controversy. Tsikata refused to tender the document on behalf of the respondents because it was not his document. And he would not do it on behalf of the petitioners. He said it was strange for petitioners to tender in evidence while he did his cross-examination. He would not tender in his exhibit to the court, neither would he tender it for the petitioners nor would he allow the petitioners to tender it during his cross-examination. “My Lords am not familiar with the situation in which during cross-examination we can have counsel for the petitioners tendering exhibits”, he said. He added “with respect, I must be clear, I do not intend to tender their document for cross-examination, it’s not part of my case”. Bemused, Justice Atuguba said he did not see anything wrong in tendering the document in evidence if it would “facilitate cross-examination”. “Its puzzling”, Atuguba revealed. The presiding judge said “if it’s [document] not in evidence we can’t follow”. Another judge said although both counsel had the document, the judges did not. “It will be useful to have those list tendered”, he said. Finally, Justice Atuguba had to defer to the "polling stations" -the panel- to make a decision on it. The court was split by a 4-4 decision. Four wanted Tsikata to tender, the other four did not– a situation which compelled Atuguba to defer the tendering of the document. His decision was based on Section 69a of the Evidence Act. “The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to— (a) make the interrogation and presentation as rapid, as distinct, and as readily understandable as may be”. A satisfied Tsikata then proceeded to cross-examine the witness. But the “peace” was short-lived. Addison would not have it. He rose in objection. If the document has not been tendered, there was no way Tsikata should be allowed to use it in cross-examination. “Without it [being tendered] this document is meaningless”, he declared. He said the document sought to be used now by Tsikata relate to information that is not before the court. He argued the answers to exhibit NDC 32 has not been tendered although it was available. This was the reason for the gap. This court will not be able to follow the source and the answers because the primary source from which these questions are coming from is not before the court, he intoned. Tsatsu is bewildered. He said he could not see a legal basis on which this list is being objected to. He said the primary evidence which came from the petitioners was already there in court. All they have done in the exhibit was to isolate the counterparts in terms of pink sheets and indicate what has been confirmed already by the witness as duplication. He said it would be appropriate in going ahead with the directive and ruling the court had given. A puzzled panel presided over by a tired Justice Atuguba said ‘am bound to” adjourn proceedings. “we are tired”, he confessed.