Election Petition: Addison withdraws ‘Ledzokuku vote padding’ question

Lead counsel for the petitioners challenging the declared results in the 2012 presidential election, Mr Philip Addison on Tuesday withdrew his question of vote padding of collated results the petitioners allege was perpetrated in the Ledzokuku Constituency in the Greater Accra Region to favour President John Dramani Mahama.

Addison’s withdrawal of the question which elicited protestations from the respondents'counsel, came after the court had in a majority 7:2 decision overruled an objection to the question by respondents’ counsel who had strenuously sought to get it disallowed.

The respondents’ counsel had on Monday objected to the question being put to Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission on the grounds that it had not been pleaded to by the petitioners because they had told the court that they were no longer pursuing that leg of their claims.

That abandonment, according to the lawyers, was during the cross-examination of Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, second petitioner and star witness for the petitioners by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata and that allowing it would prejudice their case. His views were supported by Mr. James Quashie-Idun and Dr. Abdul Basit Aziz Bamba, counsel for the Electoral Commission and President John Mahama respectively.

Mr Philip Addison had on Monday confronted Dr. Afari-Gyan with the claim that in the 2012 presidential election results, the President had polled 53,710 votes but was given 67,710 by the EC.

On the other hand, he said the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, (first petitioner) polled 40,662 votes but was given 30,605 votes by the EC.

Those discrepancies, according to counsel, resulted in President Mahama gaining 14,000 additional votes, while Nana Akufo-Addo lost 10,057 votes.

However the disagreements over the admissibility of the question on the alleged vote padding in favour of President Mahama led to it being stood down to enable the court to go through its records.

When the court resumed its hearing Tuesday, the two sides again engaged in a banter on whether the question had been pleaded to or not, with the respondents again raising their objection. The court then overruled the objection and asked Philip Addison to proceed.

He however told the court he was withdrawing the question, saying his attention had been drawn to the fact that those figures he used were wrong, leading a member of the bench to question why he had not informed the court all the morning.

Addison explained that he had not had the opportunity because of the objection raised by the respondents.

His withdrawal did not sit well with the respondent’s lawyers, who insisted they wanted to be heard.

Justice William Atuguba, presiding, however counselled that there was no need to respond, explaining that while the court holds rules of natural justice to be fundamental, “sometimes they can be abused or overstretched.”

“I thought that the basis of his concession came from your end, that those figures were not correct. And he checked and has conceded so if he agrees… with your objection… what was the need to hear you on the matter you proposed and he accepted? Unless I’m not following the matter well.”

Story by Isaac Yeboah/Graphic.com.gh
Ghana