Confused Counsels for the Respondents seek to ....

....Win the Case on Technicalities

In the face of overwhelming credible hardcopies evidence, backed by softcopy, there is practically no chance, or just a pinhole of chance to winning the ongoing Election 2012 case pending in the Supreme Court on technicalities as is the resolute determination by the counsels for the respondents.

My consultations with people that matter most; those that have in-depth experience and are authority on cases won on employment of legal technicalities, reveal that the respondents have not any chance at all resorting to technicalities to winning this Election 2012 case. As long as the petitioners have put in the public domain (on the internet - electronic media) the entire list of the controversially contested polling stations within days of starting the hearing of the substantive case, the respondents cannot fault them on either there being a shortfall in, or bloating of, pink sheets.

The respondents called for the auditing of the pink sheets to prove a point that the copies delivered to them was far less than the 11,842+ as claimed by the petitioners. Hardly had their request been agreed upon and KPMG nominated by the Court to do the counting when the counsels for the respondents started crying foul. They first had Johnson Asiedu Nketiah arrange to detail security personnel of their (respondents) choice to man the strong room holding the pink sheets within the Supreme Court block. This was objected to and how ridiculous their motive was.

They then rushed out raising an alarm that they had sighted about seven strange boxes in the room and that the petitioners (Nana Akufo Addo and Co) had secretly spirited them in to make up for the alleged shortfall. They claim not to trust the Court registrar anymore and believe he is working in the interest of the NPP.

There is a rumour doing rounds that the audit of the pink sheets has brought the number up to 13,900+, more than 2,000 over the intial claim of 11, 842. They are now querying how possible and that the petitioners will have to answer for it as there is a crime in committal.

The counsels for the respondents are not interested in challenging the real issues of over-voting, unsigned pink sheets, non compliance with biometric verification by voters, same serial numbers of pink sheets for different polling stations with varied results etc. These irregularities constituting statutory violations are the serious breaches that have to be addressed by the respondents. They are those that will be factored in by the Court when determining their verdict.

The respondents by their actions that can be used for circumstantial evidence are already blameable for any difference in the audited pink sheets. This is how the brainy lawyers I associate with say. Unless the judges are not conversant with the application and interpretation of relevant laws, the respondents are a suspect in any foul play that goes on about the pink sheets.

The softcopy and the list of the affected polling stations as published on the internet (modernghana) where I have obtained my copy must be referred to.

What would one expect if we have people like one Abraham Amaliba defending the respondents? One wonders if the NDC lawyers are intelligent at all, excuse my French. I listened to him today, Sunday 26 May 2013 being interviewed by Rabbi of London WBLS online radio (FM96.5). He was asked if he agrees with Johnson Asiedu Nketiah's (Witness-in-chief for the 1st & 3rd respondents) definition or understanding of over-voting. I was really ashamed to listen to Amaliba make a fool of himself, tried as Rabbi did to let him see reason. He agreed 100% with Asiedu Nketiah. No wonder we have the counsels for the respondents out there only to cause confusion without necessarily being knowledgeable in vital aspects of law.

Asiedu Nketiah says over-vote could only be established when the votes cast (ballot papers in the ballot box) exceed the number of registered voters as contained in the voter register for that particular polling station. Until then, no over-voting has occurred at that particular polling station even if the number of ballot papers in the ballot box exceeds the actual number of votes cast provided they do not exceed the number of registered voters. This view is as nonsensical as anyone ascribing to it is intellectually deficient. How can a lawyer go by this definition? Does he not know the whole world is listening to him when that radio station is not operating on open frequency where it could be limited to a certain radius of distance but online goes the whole world?

If he knew but intentionally chose to be supportive of Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, then he has by his act of deceit proved himself far useless intellectually professionally than Asiedu Nketiah, the less educated of the two.

Let Lawyer Abraham Amaliba and the entire NDC faithful note that over-vote occurs at any particular polling station when the ballot papers in the ballot box (both rejected and valid ballot papers) exceed votes cast. Presuming we have 200 registered voters on the voter register for a particular polling station but only 150 of the voters presented at the polling station to vote on the election day. Let us still presume among the 150 ballot papers issued to the 150 voters, each voter using one ballot paper, we end up finding 170 ballot papers in the ballot box when the votes are due for counting.

This is a clear instance of over-vote even though the 170 papers found in the ballot box do not equal to, but less than the 200 as on the voter register as it is the warped understanding of Lawyer Amaliba and many an NDC faithful. Why is it that only 150 voters turned up as ticked off the register and went through biometric verification but we ended up having 170 ballot papers in the ballot box, an excess of 20 ballot papers? Who placed them in the box, a question to answer?

To Lawyer Amaliba and Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, how do you explain the voter turnout in election in percentage terms? How do you again explain the final declaration of results based on voter turnout? Is it an obligation that all those with their names on a voter register turn up to vote on Election Day?

Presuming ten million (10,000,000) people registered to vote but on the Election Day six million (6,000,000) turned up to cast their vote. What percentage is that? It's 60% right? If say Mr. "X" had four million (4,000,000) of the voter turnout votes in the final count, do you express his percentage (%) share over the 10,000,000 or over the 6,000,000 to determine he has obtained at least 50% + 1 vote to be declared the winner? Let Amaliba and his likeminded low-thinking Johnson Asiedu Nketiah answer me. I shall come back to explain my motive behind the analysis just started. In the meantime, see it as a puzzle to be solved by the persons therein mentioned.

They should not by their weak appreciation of issues allow some of our contemporaries to take all Ghanaians for fools. They can choose to remain fools but they should not seek to make all Ghanaians look like them - fools.

The respondents had better be serious as they can never win the case on their cooked technicalities but on facts and evidential documents. The petitioners will surely emerge VICTORIOUS as ordained and revealed by GOD to his prophets including one ordinary man called Kofi Basoah.

Rockson Adofo