Ask Nana Akua Tweneboah-Koduah
Mr Philip Addison, the lead counsel of the NPP in the on-going Supreme Court challenge of the 2012 Presidential Election is noted for one thing, springing up to raise objections. He famously springs up like a panther to raise objections anytime he finds Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, the evidence in chief, on the ropes and gasping for breath to answer questions.
Mr Addison, seems not to know much about what Dr Bawumia, the “pink sheet professor” did in his analysis, therefore, he has sought multiple times to prevent Dr Bawumia from answering so many questions that bores on his analysis by raising objections.
Lawyer Addison who has become prominent for raising only objections, sought to prevent Dr Bawumia from answering questions on a letter written by Jake Obetsebi Lamptey, one of the petitioners in the court case. Jake wrote the letter to the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, in his capacity as Chairman of the NPP on Sunday December 9, 2012.
The letter was a follow-up to a meeting the NPP had with the EC on Sunday December 9. At that meeting, the NPP raised a couple of issues concerning the elections, but interestingly none of the issues raised centred on same serial number irregularity. In the follow-up letter to the EC the issue on serial number irregularity was also missing. That was why Mr Tsikata introduced the letter in order to question Dr Bawumia on same serial number irregularity.
I must however stress that the letter which was written by the NPP sought to prevent or delay the EC from declaring the results on December 9. The letter which was full of wild allegations of electoral malpractices without any proof or evidence sought to blame President Mahama for urging that people should be made to exercise their votes at where biometric machines had broken down.
But one thing that Ghanaians also need to know is that whilst the NPP sent the letter to the EC to delay the announcement of the presidential results they railroaded the EC by securing an injunction from a judge on that Sunday to prevent the EC from announcing the results.
Therefore, if the EC had agreed and delayed announcing the results on Sunday December 9, 2012, the NPP would have placed an injunction on the announcement of the presidential results the very next day. Even when the EC went ahead and announced the results on Sunday December 9, 2012, the NPP still served the EC a copy of the injunction on Monday December 10, 2012.
But when Mr Tsatsu Tsikata wanted to cross-examine Dr Bawumia on that said letter, Mr Addison’s blood shot up. He did not want any issues on that letter raised because he may have suspected that Mr Tsikata will expose the NPP by also touching on the injunction that they sought to blindside the EC with.
Mr Addison, was therefore on his feet several times raising objections. He even sought the court’s permission and quoted from the Evidence Act saying Dr Bawumia cannot be forced to answer questions because the letter was not in evidence. Mr Addison further stated that Dr Bawumia was not the author of the letter addressed to the EC. Addison was eventually overruled by the justices.
But interestingly, in paragraph one of the NPP’s affidavit, it is stated that Dr Bawumia has the authority to speak for Nana Akufo-Addo and Jake Obetsebi Lamptey in respect of matters within his personal knowledge and information.
So why Mr Addison would be on his feet to prevent Dr Bawumia from answering questions from a letter which he may have been privy to? The reason is simple. The NPP has been shifting the political musical chairs so many times. They keep changing their reasons of going to court just like the German weather.
Those following the case will not miss hearing from Dr Bawumia saying on countless of occasions that the initial allegation has been re-classified any time a hole is punched in a pink sheet under review. That is the reason why a frustrated Mr Tsikata drew the attention of the court that the petitioners keep switching from one irregularity to another which is making the defence of the case very difficult.
It should therefore, not surprise anyone that the NPP attempted to run away from their own letter, because they have been exposed multiple of times about the poor job that they did in the gathering of evidence. Perhaps the NPP thought that the NDC will be so overwhelmed by the quantum of the so-called evidence they will splash on them that they will not take the pains to eye-ball all the pink sheets. That is why they keep shifting their allegations to hide their shame and poor work done.