18/04/2013
A Must read:
Extracts from Felix Ofosu Kwakye's Wall:
Following Mahamadu Bawumia’s evidence-in-chief given before the Supreme Court today, the following speaking points will suffice;
1.Dr Bawumia’s so called evidence is remarkably different from the initial allegations made by the NPP in the immediate aftermath of the declaration of the election results. Strangely enough Dr Bawumia made no mention of the claim by the NPP that;
• The results being transmitted to the EC strong room from various constituencies were intercepted by STL an Israeli company and changed to favour President Mahama.
• That results declared by the EC for some constituencies were different from what had actually been declared at the constituency level. Such constituencies as Ledzokuku, Oforikrom, Akropong, and Ketu South etc. were cited by the NPP.
• That the results declared in words at certain polling stations were different from those written in figures and this was skewed in favour of President Mahama. The absence of these allegations from Dr Bawumia’s evidence in chief is a clear indication that he and other petitioners from the NPP lack credibility, which undermines the new claims they are making.
2.Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison at one point described Dr Bawumia as inexperienced. This description was apt and trenchant as it encapsulated his performance in court. For someone billed as the ‘star witness’ for the NPP, Dr Bawumia displayed scanty knowledge of our electoral laws and processes leading him to commit huge blunders in his evidence in chief. Two examples will suffice;
• Dr Bawumia did not appear to know what constitutes over-voting. He claimed that over-voting occurred in the 2012 elections because in some polling stations, the number of ballot papers found in the ballot box at the end of voting exceeded the number of ballot papers issued to voters at the polling station. Had Bawumia acquainted himself with the electoral processes over the years he would have known that over-voting occurs when the number of ballot papers in the ballot box at the end of voting exceeds the number of registered voters in the polling station. When this happens the results in that particular polling station are annulled and the election in that particular polling station rerun if it would have an impact on the overall outcome of the elections. What Bawumia calls over-voting in his evidence in chief is actually ballot box stuffing, which occurs when ballot papers not issued to voters at the polling station find their way into the ballot box. It is however impossible for foreign ballot papers to find their way into the ballot box and be counted because of how our electoral system works unless there is intimidation at the polling station or ballot box snatching. Each ballot paper issued to a voter at the polling station is stamped and bears a serial number, which falls within a range of serial numbers issued to that specific polling station. After voting and before counting, each ballot paper is checked for the stamp and serial number in order to make sure is was issued at that polling station. Any ballot paper, which does not fall within the serial number range or doesn’t bear the stamp of the EC is treated as foreign material and not counted. Therefore at all times, the number of ballot papers in the ballot box counted at the polling station will be equal to the number of ballot papers issued to voters at the polling station. Ballot box stuffing however did not occur in this election hence Bawumia’s claims are absolutely false.
• The second major blunder committed by Dr Bawumia was his claim that form 1 C mentioned on the pink sheet was the same as the voter ID card. This assertion is astonishing to say the least. Form 1 C was the name given to another form which the Electoral Commission had intended to use as an alternative way of verification in view of the likelihood that the electronic verification machine could potentially fail to capture the fingerprints of some people especially the aged. The idea was however shelved after it was decided by all parties that all voters should go through biometric verification. The pink sheets with a column for entries of number of voters verified by form 1 C were however printed before the final decision on biometric verification was made and incorporated in CI75.The EC then instructed all presiding officers to ignore that particular column on the pink sheet as entries could only be based on the filling of form 1 C. This decision was made at IPAC with the full participation and knowledge of the NPP. It is therefore inexplicable that Dr Bawumia would not know the difference between a voter ID card and the abortive form 1 C. Also conclusive evidence of verification can be found in the electronic verification machines and not on the pink sheets as claimed by Dr Bawumia. Such a blunder could have been avoided had more experienced members of the NPP like Dan Botwe, Kwabena Agyepong and Peter Mac Manu who have been involved in elections over the years been made to give the evidence in chief for the petitioners.
3.Dr Bawumia also claimed in his submission that NPP polling agents were only observers and therefore their signing of the pink sheets at the polling station was only an attestation of what transpired at the polling station and not an affirmation of the credibility and transparency of the elections. This claim is bewildering and constitutes a scathing attack on the intelligence, integrity, loyalty, aptitude and commitment of these long suffering polling agents. His statements are a clear disincentive to volunteerism and commitment, which are key ingredients in political party mobilisation. Polling agents are an integral part of the electoral system and are there to protect the interest of the various parties contesting an election. They are empowered to raise objections to malpractices, breaches of electoral laws and other forms of wrongdoing at the polling station during elections. They indeed are allowed to refuse to sign results sheets and state the reason if they are dissatisfied with the conduct of the elections. It may interest Dr Bawumia to note that the part of the pink sheet where agents are required to sign comes with the following declaration; “we the undersigned do hereby declare that the results shown above are a true and accurate account of the ballots in this polling station”. Therefore after NPP polling agents have on their own volition and without duress declared that the results in a polling station are an accurate and true account of the ballots in their respective polling stations, it lies ill in the mouth of Dr Bawumia to dismiss the function of polling agents by suggesting that their presence and participation in the electoral process is ineffectual. It remains to be seen how after such a blistering attack on NPP polling agents some of who have been with the party longer than Dr Bawumia, anybody will be willing to serve in the same capacity for the NPP in future elections. His watchman analogy that was rejected by the Supreme Court was at best pedestrian as there is a world of difference between the work of a watchman and a polling agent. In any event it is unlikely that all watchmen would at the same time fail to detect the theft of their employer’s property.
4.Finally, Dr Bawumia and the other petitioners’ demand that over 4.6 million valid votes cast in the 2012 elections should be annulled on account of alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of electoral officials is in stark contrast with the position taken by Nana Akufo Addo on 28th December,2012 when addressing a press conference at Alisa Hotel in Accra to announce their filling of the court case that;
“In emphasizing the importance of elections, it must be pointed out that the sanctity of the ballot is and must be supreme. In an election, we cast votes, then the votes are counted, the count is collated, the results are announced and formal declarations of results are made. In the entire process, we must never forget that it is the casting of the ballot that is sacred, the rest of the activities are at best, administrative duties. The count, the collation, the declaration of results cannot and should not be more important than the sacred, God-given right of a citizen casting his or her ballot. There is only one principle. Elections are about those who cast the vote, not those who count, not those who supervise, not those who transmit and not those who declare. The heart of the democratic process is about those who cast the vote.”
It is obvious through the foregoing that the NPP are a bundle of contradictions. In one breath they ask for votes to be annulled because electoral officials allegedly failed to follow rules and in another breath insist that it is votes and not the conduct of electoral officials that matters. Such inconsistency is only indicative of bad faith, which would eventually prove to be the undoing of the NPP in this case. In the mean time though President Mahama remains focussed on delivering on the overwhelming mandate given him by Ghanaians and would not be distracted by the shenanigans of the NPP.
