Sidelining Ayikoi Otoo suggests a rift in NPP – Agalga

Deputy Interior Minister, James Agalga, has stated that he has every cause to believe there is a rift within the New Patriotic Party (NPP) following what he described as alleged failed attempts by former Attorney General, Ayikoi Otoo, to be a part of the party’s legal team.

“Seriously speaking, I have been asking myself questions as to why somebody of Ayikoi Otoo’s caliber is not part of the NPP’s legal team…so I suspect that there is a major rift in the NPP, and that may have accounted for the exclusion of Ayikoi Otoo from their legal team,” he said.

Mr. Otoo was hailed for skillfully defending the General Secretary of the NPP, Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie, and a party activist, Hopeson Adorye, when the two were charged with criminal contempt by the Supreme Court.

Social commentators and political activists had opined that considering the gravity of the contemptuous acts of Afriyie and Adorye against the court, they could have been made to serve jail terms if not for the defense style their lawyer, Ayikoi Otoo, adopted at the Supreme Court.

Speaking on The Big Issue on Saturday, Mr. Agalga questioned why Mr. Otoo was not a member of the NPP’s legal team pursuing the election petition case at the Supreme Court.

According to him, his concern was “based on comments made by a leading member of the party, Dr. Nyaho Nyaho Tamakloe, who said that several attempts by Ayikoi Otoo to be part of the NPP’s legal team proved futile.” He further stated that he had “every reason to suspect that if Ayikoi Otoo wanted to be part of that legal team but was frustrated, there could be a major rift within the NPP” and that in his opinion, was not good for the party.

The Deputy Minister, however, urged lawyers in the country to emulate the attributes of former Attorney General, Ayikoi Otoo.

He was full of praise for the former AG. “When I heard Ayikoi Otoo make his submissions, I was really touched. Ayikoi Otoo on that occasion did extremely well. He brought a lot of experience to bare, he had a style which paid off at the end of the day.

He was able to appeal to the conscience of the Judges, get them to laugh when it was obvious that tempers were rising very high. I think that these are the attributes of a great and disguised advocate and all lawyers must emulate his example,” said the Deputy Minister.

“By-heart-talking” Tarzan is “not wiser” than NPP

A Founder-Member of the main opposition New Patriotic Party, NPP, Dr. Kwame Amoako-Tuffuor has described fellow Founder-Member Dr. Charles Wereko-Brobbey as a “loose-talking outsider” who cannot impose his personal will on the entire party.

He said the decision to challenge the 2012 presidential results in Court was a majority decision taken by the Leadership of the party and therefore fumed saying: “How dare you think you are wiser than everybody and the people who met and the leadership of the party, not to go to Court”.

“…Don’t think your only opinion that we shouldn’t go to Court should matter more than our going to Court”, Dr. Amoako-Tuffuor thundered.

Dr. Amoako-Tuffuor’s comments came on the heels of Dr. Wereko-Brobbey’s description as “illogical nonsense”, his “purported suspension” from the party following his description of the NPP’s 2012 Vice Presidential Candidate, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia as a “clueless” Witness in the ongoing election petition.

In his retort to the NPP, Dr. Wereko-Brobbey, who is also known as “Tarzan”, said his purported suspension was “unlawful” and “capricious”.

He sought to portray the party’s decision as hypocritical by quoting Matthew 7:5 of the Bible which says: “You hypocrite! First, take the log out of your own eye; then you will see clearly, so that you can remove the splinter from your brother’s eye!”

Dr. Wereko-Brobbey has come under an avalanche of criticism from his own party following his intermittent criticisms of the Party’s decision to challenge the 2012 presidential election results in Court.

Party Elder, Dr. Amoako-Tuffuor told XYZ Breakfast Show Host Moro Awudu on Monday June 3, 2013 that Dr. Wereko-Brobbey is being attacked by Leaders and groups within the Party because his manner of dealing with reservations as far as the Party is concerned, makes him appear as an “Outsider” who talks “by-heart” and prefers washing the Party’s dirty linen in public rather than resorting to internal structures to seek redress.

Dr. Amoako-Tuffuor suggested that Dr. Wereko-Brobbey could have sought audience with former President John Agyekum Kufuor over his concerns rather than write letters to the media.

“…We don’t go and start talking outside…even the British people will not allow you to talk by-heart outside”.

According to him: “…This one-man show of going public [with party matters], anybody who does that, let me assure that person [that] he’ll be attacked because he has not used the internal mechanisms…you cannot just get up and talk by-heart”, adding that: “When you do that, you are like a non-party member standing outside and blasting with propaganda against the Party”.

“We have rules and regulations for goodness sake”, Dr. Amoako-Tuffuor blurted, citing the governing NDC’s “who born dog” philosophy to buttress his point.

He advised that those fond of “shoot[ing] their mouths wherever in public, either for popularity or out of frustration”, must start using internal party structures to seek redress.

Dr. Amoako-Tuffuor also described as “disrespectful” to the Party, Dr. Wereko-Brobbey’s description of the Party’s action as “illogical nonsense”.

“Ghana lacks transparency”

A Senior Fellow at the Legon Centre for International Affairs, LECIAD, Dr. Vladimir Antwi-Danso, says lack of transparency in Ghana’s democracy is what is derailing her socio-economic development and the lives of the people.

Speaking at a roundtable discussion in Accra on Ghana’s democratization process so far, the African Charter in Democracy, Elections and Governance in Focus, Dr. Antwi-Danso said the perception that Ghana is among corrupt countries on the continent can be cleared if the governance system is characterised by transparency right from the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature up to the ordinary person.

 

Pink Sheet inflation: “Pink sheet boxes have increased to 31 from 24”

The ongoing election petition has resumed on Tuesday with some drama after counsel for the Third respondent, Tsatsu Tsikata made a submission to the Supreme Court that the boxes containing pink sheet to be audited by KPMG have ‘mysteriously’ increased to 31 from 24.

According to Mr. Tsikata, they received information from their representatives after the auditing of the pink sheet by accounting firm KPMG had started, that some additional boxes containing pink sheets had been added to the number of boxes at the Court Registry.

Mr. Tsikata said his side could not trust the auditing process if the allegedly compromised pink sheets were used by KPMG for the auditing.

Meanwhile, Lawyers for the petitioners have raised a formal objection to the interruption of the process by the Respondents.

Lead Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Philip Addison in his submissions referred to the respondents as children who have been pampered and asked the court to dismiss the application.

The exercise has been suspended following concerns by the respondents that the process has been compromised.

We are dealing with matters bordering on criminality – Tsatsu Tsikata

Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata

Counsel for the third respondent in the election petition case has described as “a criminality” the discovery of additional boxes of pink sheets during the proposed auditing instructed by the Supreme Court.

Referencing the decision by auditing firm KPMG on Monday to suspend the procedure until further instructed by the court, Mr Tsikata insisted that there had been an increase in the number of boxes presented for auditing.

According to him, an initial number of 24 boxes were presented to the auditing firm but after careful scrutiny when the auditing was to begin on Monday, the number had spiked up to 31.

In his opinion “It is a matter bothering on criminality… My lord we cannot discount criminality from the process of achieving justice.”

He noted that the participation of the council of petitioners had been sought on the matter adding that one of the counsel of the petitioners was around as the complain was lodged.

Mr Tsikata thus appealed to the judges that the control mechanism introduced needed to be taken seriously to ensure there was no compromise with data at the registry.

“The document at the registry has clearly been compromised,” he insisted.

Tsatsu Tsikata also indicated to the court that his team had learnt that referee (KPMG) went into the office to check the set of documents at the President of the panel adding that a duplication of three boxes had also been discovered.

He thus contended that “It is not possible to proceed with a count of these documents,” adding that “we do not wish for the criminality aspect to interfere with the rendering of justice.”

On his part, counsel for the petitioners Philip Addison, stated that in his opinion, several lapses had occured that need to be considered in an attempt to resolve whatever “cynical agenda” was being hatched.

He complained that the respondents had failed to disclose the total number of boxes put up for auditing and now claimed there were 24 at the registrar’s office.

“All of a sudden, they (respondents) have started cooking up stories of boxes appearing at registrar’s. As far as I am concerned, we are not aware of both parties keeping inventories… This goes on to suggest that they were perhaps meeting the referees behind our back,” he intimated.

He added “For our colleagues on the other side, they seem to have developed a habit of bringing up issues in these proceedings in court… This application raised is based on suspicion and nothing concrete.”

In his opinion, the respondents were raising the application as a move “drag the case.”

“They are just acting like kids on the football pitch that decides not to play again and then picks their ball to go home… Ask yourself, what happens if we also stop the process. We will not go anywhere with such behavior. If they do not trust the registry then it only connotes they do not trust the documents giving to the judges.”

Tsatsu Tsikata’s son M.anifest wins two awards at VGMA 2013

M.anifest

M.anifest, the son of Tsatsu Tsikata, lawyer for the ruling National Democratic Congress in the ongoing election petition hearing at the Supreme Court, on Sunday bagged two awards at the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards 2013.

M.anifest, after a spectacular performance with Hi life legend Amandezeba on the night, swept the “Best Rapper of the Year” and the “Hip-Hop Song of the Year” awards.

Junior Tsatsu Tsikata as many have decided to call him, was born Kwame Ametepee Tsikata on November 20, 1982.

He had his basic education at the University of Ghana Primary School, then moved to the Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St Paul) in 2001 to attend Macalester College where he graduated in 2005 with a BA in economics.

He is a famous Ghanaian rapper and songwriter who is eventually going up the ladder in the music industry.

He has worked with the likes of Damon Albarn, Flea, Tony Allen, Erykah Badu, and is featured on five songs on the Rocket Juice and The Moon album.

M.anifest has also worked with some great Ghanaian acts like rapper E.L, songstress Efya and Wanlov the Kubolor in some great hit songs.

In 2012, BBC’s arts program ‘The Strand’ tipped M.anifest as one of four acts to look out for.

Gbaa alert: Tsikata Goofs On Role Of Polling Agents

Legally Pathetic Tsikata Goofs On Role Of Polling Agents.
Mr. Tsikata’s response to the NPP’s petition after he was served a copy of it was that the petition was legally pathetic; it was poor in logic and poorer in arithmetic. After so many days of cross-examining Dr. Bawumia, all objective Ghanaians would agree that it is Mr. Tsikata who has shown a sense of poor logic. He has indeed confessed severally to being ‘arithmetically challenged’ and has been so legally pathetic that the Bench on more than usual occasions have had cause to caution him on his conduct and appreciation of the laws at play. After failing to turn the courthouse into an arena of insults where he would have been comfortable displaying his skills, Mr. Tsikata, in his frustration has resolved to his usual delay tactics and injudicious queries which seem to point in the direction of whether or not a polling agent by signing a pink sheet legitimizes an election no matter what went on there.

After so many days of wasting everyone’s time, Mr. Tsikata’s main point seems to be that since NPP polling agents were present in the areas where the irregularities alleged by the NPP took place then those polling agents were under some obligation to stop the said irregularities even if it was so subtle as to escape notice on the face of it. Based on that logic, Mr. Tsikata has created in his mind and the mind of his Ndc fanatics a new set of electoral laws that places polling agents even higher than presiding officers. He indeed seems confused as to the role of polling agents in an election.

What maybe Mr. Tsikata cannot get is that in Apaloo v Electoral Commission of Ghana (Supreme Court), decided on the 17th of January 2001 at pages 253-259 of the Supreme Court of Ghana Law Reports, their own Justices including Kpegah and Bamford-Addo rightly put into context the role of party polling agents in an election. In that case, the Electoral Commission per a Gazette Notice published on 27 November 2000 sought to inter alia delegate its powers of checking and verifying prospective voters to ‘all the candidate’s agents’. The plaintive, sued the EC for reliefs which included a declaration that the attempt by the EC to give the candidate’s agents a say in identifying a voter at the polling station was in breach of articles 42 and 51 of the 1992 Constitution. The Supreme Court held, unanimously granting the declaration sought for the reasons some of which I proceed to quote.

‘Per Curiam: (2) Since regulations 30 and 31 of the Public Elections Regulations, 1996 (CI 15), gave power to check and verify the identity of prospective voters to officers of the Electoral Commission, ie presiding officers or polling assistants and not to the candidate’s agents, the directives in the Gazette Notice of 27 November 2000, which had given that power to all the candidates’ agents, was ultra vires the said regulations and so null and void.

Per Bamford-Addo JSC: [W]hereas the 1992 Constitution has been designed to make the defendant completely independent in the performance of its duties and functions, the directives of the commission amounted to a delegation of its duties; it would, if permitted to be effective, be contrary to the mischief sought to be prevented by the Constitution, namely, to empower the commission to act in a non-partisan and fair manner in the discharge of its functions. The directives are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and contravene articles 42, 51, 46, 21(3) and 55(2) thereof and are therefore null and void.

Per Ampiah JSC. [W]here power is given to a person to perform a particular duty, such power shall not be delegated without due process of law. The maxim is, delegatus non potest delegare (A delegated power cannot be delegated.) The manner by which a voter may be identified and allowed to vote, is set down clearly in regulation 30 of CI 15. It is not the business of all the candidates’ agents… to “affirm that they know the person” before he or she is allowed to go through with the voting steps.

Per Atuguba JSC. The ascertainment of the identity of a prospective voter is part of the conduct of public elections and as the Constitution places that duty on the Electoral Commission, it can only do so by itself and its proper agents… To surrender the judgment of the presiding officer as to the identity of a voter to the candidate’s polling agents, is in effect, to delegate that function to those agents, contrary to articles 45(c) and 46 of the Constitution. It is clearly deducible from a simple reading of the above that Mr. Tsikata’s strange elevation of polling agents is unknown to any law and in direct contradiction to the known position of law on the same as stated by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case.’

It is basic knowledge that the conduct of Public Elections is the duty of the Electoral Commission of Ghana and its proper agents. Polling agents are not deemed as proper agents of the Electoral Commission since they do not get their appointments from the EC. Indeed, anyone with an average appreciation of electoral practices and the rules therein knows that polling agents do not conduct Elections. At the polling station, the proper agents of the Electoral Commission are the presiding officer and other persons delegated by the electoral commission. It is the presiding officer who is delegated the functions of the Electoral Commissioner. He, the presiding officer cannot surrender or also delegate his functions to party polling agents. To do so would amount to breaching the independence that the Electoral Commission is expected to have and is guaranteed under our Constitution. Polling agents therefore cannot be placed in a similar position as presiding officers. While an election can take place even if all the polling agents are absent, an election cannot proceed with the absence of a presiding officer unless another is appointed or acts as presiding officer being delegated by the EC. At the end of the day, it is the presiding officer who authenticates whatever took place at a polling station. It is he who communicates the results to the returning officer. It is the presiding officer who does the tabulation. It is the presiding officer who is paid with the taxpayers’ money. It is the presiding officer whose errors matter and not the polling agent. It is the presiding officer whose final signature matters. Mr. Tsikata’s desperate attempt therefore to morph every party agent into a presiding officer is weird and cannot be fathomed. It is rather poor logic if I may say.

Beside Mr. Tsikata,Lawyer James Quashie-Idun has also sought to create the impression that a presiding officer has no powers to annul the results of an election. That is indeed legal ingenuity at its apogee. One would have thought that the learned counsel for the EC would have left such poor thinking to the likes of Tsikata. Most certainly if the presiding officer is a proper delegate of the EC, then the presiding officer can take decisions in the name of the EC. To the extent that those decisions are not unreasonable or against his general mandate they cannot be impugned on grounds that he did not seek superior authority before taking them. The duty of a presiding officer goes beyond just ensuring that the polls were peaceful, it includes ensuring that the polls were credible. Therefore, if the Presiding Officer feels that the election was not credible in a place where he presided, and if his appointing authority is on record as giving directions on how to remedy situations like that, he can and indeed should adopt those remedies. To that extent, it is unnecessary for a presiding officer to seek for the authorization of his superiors in cancelling the results of a polling station where there was over-voting.

The truth is the Respondents; try as they may, simply cannot clothe the party polling agents with the powers they want to. I doubt if even parliament can without offending the spirit and letter of articles 45(c) and 46 of the Constitution. They cannot rationalize the palpably outrageous manner in which the results were declared and the polls were conducted by citing the fact that to err is human. They cannot rely on the deliberate and wilful disregard of the laws that regulated the conduct of the elections on grounds that some persons, who had taken no practical steps to secure their right to vote, were going to be disenfranchised. So far, their responses have been ‘legally pathetic, poor in logic and even much poorer in arithmetic’.

Feature: The respondents in the Election Petition are wasting time

It is definitely strange that the very respondents who alleged they NEVER received full compliments of pink-sheets in evidence at the Supreme Court could go halt counting on the very day KPMG started the count in the presence of their representatives!

From the various interviews that have emerged in the media, it is clear that the respondents are more interested in intensifying false and propaganda alarms than they are willing to let the truth come out of the count of the pink-sheets.

One thing that is clear is that, KPMG has already indicated in an interview in the media that they only come to do the counts in the presence of observers of the parties involved at the Supreme Court. They also made it clear that they do not keep the pink-sheets but rather the Registrar of the Supreme Court does.

The allegation of the respondents is that they took inventory of a number of pink-sheets but have now through their observers noticed that more pink-sheets were added to the figure they have. However, KPMG stated that they did not earlier count any pink-sheets in the presence of the parties.
The question to ask now is who added more pink-sheets? Knowing the current security around the pink-sheets after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the count I personally believe the respondents are crying wolf for nothing and I mean nothing!

It is clear from what the respondents are doing both inside and outside the Supreme Court that they are more interested in wasting time than they are willing to get the election petition heard expeditiously.

I don’t think if they had enough defence they will be wasting all these time whilst the validity of President John Dramani Mahama is in dispute.

Old investors are not putting more money in their investments and new investors are not willing to come and invest in Ghana knowing that Ghana has not got a firm President yet.

Ghana is currently the worst country to live in my opinion. No jobs for school leavers, farming has collapsed, small scale businesses are not growing, markets are on fires on weekly basis and people are killed in Rambo-like style in Kumasi and other places. University students are been raped and the incidence of accidents on our roads is unprecedented!
Ghanaians are unable to now take care of their children and families are breaking down because of the deep-rooted economic and social hardships in the country. We now have what I have always described as serial strikes from almost every organisation in the country.

In the face of all these unpleasant happenings, one would have thought that the last people to want to delay the election petition trials would have been President John Mahama and his NDC party. However, this fairytale of more pink-sheets being added to the pink-sheets already in the custody of the Supreme Court without disclosing the number that has been added is just laughable!

Ghanaians must watch the antics of the respondents very well. The respondents must go into the analysis of the pink-sheets and point out duplications than holding on to alleged duplications or triplications of exhibits even when the star witness of the petitioners have made it clear that all pink-sheets were used only once in the analysis.

We can’t allow the few in government to continue to let the majority outside government to suffer through deliberate schemes to thwart the speedy hearing of the election petition.

Thank God the hearing is live on TV and discerning Ghanaians can tell who has a case and who hasn’t got defence but resorting to deliberate time wasting strategies.

I conclude by reminding the respondents once again that it is in their
supreme interest to get this case off their necks irrespective of the outcome- overt and covert wasting of time will not help their case in anyway.

Bye.

Parties should have patience – KPMG

A senior partner at auditing and accounting firm, KPMG, Joe Winful has called on representatives of the various parties involved in the election petition case to exercise patience while the issues surrounding the counting of the pink sheets are resolved.

The respondents in the on-going election petition have raised concerns about two additional boxes which were allegedly sneaked into the venue of where the counting of the pink sheets was taking place.

The claims forced a suspension of the auditing of the pink sheets brought in as evidence by the three petitioners on Monday.

In an interview on Eyewitness News on Monday, Mr. Winful advised that “they’ve got to have patience until our engagement partner meets with the parties and then they will sought out whatever issue that is of contention and then after that we carry on with the assignment.”

He also indicated that his outfit will go back to their offices and wait for the outcome of the meeting before they resume the auditing of the evidence.

According to him, their appointment by the Supreme Court “is like referees; you know referees do not get involved in the game, we don’t play part of the game; we referee so that is exactly the role we are supposed to play and that is what we are doing.”

The panel of Judges hearing the election petition ordered auditing and accounting firm, KPMG to audit the pink sheets brought in by the petitioners.

This follows a complaint by the lawyers for the third respondent that they received less than the 11,842 pink sheet exhibits, the petitioner’s claim they had submitted and prayed the court to order an a re-count of the pink sheets; a request the Supreme Court consequently granted.

Persistent Addison over ruled again

The Supreme Court has overruled an objection relating to exhibit NDC 32 raised last Thursday by counsel for petitioners. But the matter did not rest – Addison recycled his objection and Atuguba did same.

It related to a legal battle centered on the tendering of exhibit NDC 32 which dealt with same serial number and its counterpart duplicate list.

Lawyer Addison and Tsikata engaged each other along with Justice Atuguba in a cross-fire over objections to the use of the document for cross-examination.

But this morning Justice Atuguba overruled the objection.

“The list of 32 sought to be tendered is based on questions and answers emanating from the exhibits to which it relates. That is a process fully gone through if the evidence relating to it is already on record the list thereto which is merely an index to the pink sheets covered by it is merely facilitatory for tracking the evidence already so covered. The objection to its tender is therefore overruled”, the ruling read.

Tsatsu Tsikata then proceeded to give the list back to the star witness Dr. Bawumia, for his cross-examination and asked him to “confirm duplications that are on the list”.

But Addison was up again with another objection. “My lord the question is based on a list that is not before the court”, he said.

He went further. This list is based on what Dr. Bawumia prepared. It was not entirely the same. He said “If you take NDC 33 and compare it to this list, the information here is not on NDC 33”. He should tender it first, Addison intoned.

“We are not allowing those questions to be answered because the primary source is not before the court”, he asserted.

Tsatsu said expedition was of necessity to the court. Asked what list he had in his possession, Tsikata said it was different from the one presented by Bawumia.

“It is different”, he nonetheless confirmed. His list was “not really’ the information Dr. Bawumia provided but it had the “relevant parts” of his list and “additional information” he was seeking to ask questions on.

“We are tendering what is relevant”, he said. The objection is the same, he said.

A judge gently advised Addison not to revisit the matter. “If for now he wants to use the list you have prepared to help expedite matters” there was “nothing wrong with that”, the judge said.

Addison then concluded that if it was the wish of the court for Tsikata to go ahead to ask questions of the witness on a document that is not before the court, similar courtesies should be extended to the petitioners if the time comes.

Atuguba finally ruled against his objection to set the matter to rest.