A memo written by a former boss of the Electoral Commission to all its regional directors in the aftermath of the December 7 elections, and when it had become clear that the petitioners would challenge the results of the declaration by the EC, explains the rationale for which Kwadwo Afari- Gyan tendered in 17 ‘fake’ pink sheets at the end of the “battle of evidence.” Mr Safo Kantanka, who retired from the EC earlier this year, in a memo dated July 9, 2013 directed all regional directors to ensure that all pink sheets as well as Constituency Collation and declaration forms in the custody of district electoral officers be kept secured and intact. He further requested the Regional Directors to ensure that District Electoral Officers remained on standby to produce any of the documents (mentioned above) on demand by the Commission. Here comes the controversial bit. Paragraph 2 of Safo Kantanka’s memo states emphatically that “Regional Directors are further directed to make sure Declaration Results Sheets tally with the number of polling stations in their respective regions.” This directive given to the regional directors was to ensure the pink sheets in the custody of the EC tallied, first and foremost with the pink sheets of the petitioners as well as tallied with the number of pink sheets used for the declaration of the 2012 election results by Dr Afari-Gyan. It is recalled that in an attempt to prove that there were no triplications and quadruplications in the printing of pink sheets, Dr Afari-Gyan inadvertently submitted pink sheets which did not conform to the pink sheets of the petitioners. The memo, at the time it became the attention of public discourse, raised some eyebrows, with some people suggesting that it was an attempt by the EC to fidget with figures to support their evidence in court but, the author of the said memo, Mr Sarfo Kantanka, who confirmed signing it, said “it was done with no sinister motive”. He reportedly told The New Crusading GUIDE in a telephone interview: “that action was as a result of the court action by the petitioners and we did not want a situation whereby a District or Regional Director will tell us that the Results Sheets of a Polling Centre was short by a certain number. In fact, we wanted them to be fully prepared”. This determination by the EC to be “fully prepared” resulted in Dr Afari- Gyan being fully exposed in court on Tuesday, July 16, as having brought ‘forged’ pink sheets to court. An example of this can be found in exhibit number MB-P-3258, with the polling station name Methodist Church Zenu B, with polling station code C140904B and serial number 0025194. However, the EC’s copy revealed a pink sheet with the name “Methodist Church Zenu B” with a different serial number 0025196. When Dr Afari-Gyan was probed further into whether the contents on both pink sheets were the same, it was revealed that the information on the two pink sheets were different. When asked to tell the court what was contained in ‘B1’ on the petitioners’ pinksheets, Dr Afari-Gyan said zero. However, on the EC’s copy of pink sheets ‘B1’ was quoted as 789. This was not the only discrepancy on the pink sheet. The information on the EC’s pink sheets had been boldened which should have necessarily reflected on the pink sheets of the petitioners, but this was not the case. Below is the transcript of the cross- examination of Dr Afari-Gyan which appears to prove the claim of forgery of pink sheets. Counsel: Could you call us polling station name, code and exhibit number? Witness: The exhibit number is MBH79, the polling station name is Katamanso Presbyterian Primary A on the exhibit and the serial number is 0025200. On Exhibit EC11D (1), the polling station is Presbyterian Primary School Katamanso, the code is C140601A and it is the same as on the exhibit and the serial number is 0025199. Counsel: I am suggesting to you that the official polling station name is Katamanso Presby Primary A and has the polling station code C140601A. Witness: Yes. Counsel: And it is in exhibit of MBH79. Witness: Yes. Counsel: Can we go onto the next one? Witness: The exhibit number is MBJ000097. The polling station name is Assembly of God Church, AtaaSackey B and the code is C141401B, the serial number is C0025200. On Exhibit EC11D (2) the polling station is AtaaSackey B, the code is C141401B and the serial number is 0024702. Counsel: We have a situation where there is the same polling station name, code but different serial numbers. Witness: There are other differences too. Justice Rose Owusu: Dr Afari-Gyan, answer the question before you point out the differences. Witness: Counsel, please repeat the question. Counsel: We have a situation where there is the same polling station name, code but different serial numbers. Witness: Yes. Counsel: And you are saying that there are other differences…please tell the court what they are. Witness: In the case of the MBJ000097, the entire column C is not filled at all and in the EC11D (2) there are figures filled in column C. Counsel: From D1 to D4 in the petitioners’ pink sheet it has a dash throughout but the EC’s pink sheet is blank. Witness: I disagree. The D has four dashes in here, then the last two columns have 16 and 16 and it is the same on the other. Counsel: Dr.Afari-Gyan, I’m saying that from D1 to D4 there are dash… dash…dash whereas on the EC’s it is simply blank. Witness: Yes, it is simply blank. Counsel: Now, the EC’s pink sheet surprisingly is in pink with alterations in blue ink. Witness: Yea, I see some alterations in blue ink. Counsel: But the writing generally is in pink which shouldn’t be the case. Witness: The rest of the writing is in pink…that is correct. Counsel: Which should not be the case. Witness: I am not going to… Counsel: I’m sorry? Counsel cuts in Witness: Do I expect everything in red? Counsel: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you? Witness: I said I would expect everything to be in red. Counsel: You expect everything to be in what? Witness: Red. Counsel: I thought that the original is written in blue ink. Witness: You are saying part of it is written in red and another part in blue ink and I’m saying once part of it is written in red, I would expect all of it to be in red. Counsel: But for the EC’s copy which is the original, all should be in blue ink. Witness: You are right. The original must be in blue ink. Counsel: Sorry? Witness: The original must be in blue ink, you are right. Counsel: Thank you…Now let’s go to the differences. If you look at the results for the UFP and PNC, we have the zero in figures and zero in words in the petitioners’ pink sheets but it is blank in the EC’s. Witness: Yes, it is blank in both words and column in the EC’s but it is zero in the votes obtained column and z-e-r-o written in words on the petitioners’ pink sheet. Counsel: And the same for the results for the independent candidate…there is zero in figure and zero in words but on the EC’s copy it’s blank. Witness: Yes. Counsel: Also, when you come to total valid votes, there is 675 and also in words for the petitioners but it is totally blank for the EC. Witness: Total valid votes is blank, yes. Counsel: Again when you come to the total votes in ballot box, there is 691 in figures for the petitioners but it is totally blank for the EC. Witness: Yes, you are correct. Counsel: For the petitioners, the name of the presiding officer is A-w-u-z-u Mark Christian and there is no signature, no date, no time but the EC has A-m-u-z-u Mark C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-a-n, with a signature and date but no time. Witness: Let me tell you what I see. The petitioners, you have, Amuzu Mark Christian and date 7/12/2012. For the EC, you have, Amuzu Mar Christian and a signature but no date. Counsel: Dr.Afari-Gyan, the Christain, is it spelt the same? The EC has C-h-r- i-s-t-i-a-a-n. Witness: Christiaan is spelt on the EC form as C-h-r-is-t-i-a-a-n and on the other one as C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n. Counsel: The Presiding Officer’s name on the petitioners’ is not A-m-u-z-u, it is A-w-u-z-u. Witness: Awuzu in the case of the petitioners and Amuzu in the EC’s. I am used to reading Amuzu that’s why I mispronounced it. Counsel: When you come to the polling agents, there are five names on the petitioners’ pink sheet with no signature but on the EC’s there are six names with five signatures. Witness: That is correct. Counsel: I am suggesting to you that the pink sheets are not the same. Witness: Ostensibly in respect of same polling stations but they together are different. My Lords, the polling station name is the same or abbreviated in one case and in the other, the polling station code is different, the serial numbers are different and there are differences in the execution on the pink sheets. Counsel: I’m suggesting to you that the official polling station and code is the one given by the petitioners which is the Assembly of God Church, AtaaSackey B with polling station code C141401B. Witness: Yes, but it can be abbreviated.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:17:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015