Election Petition: Bawumia, Tsatsu in hot exchanges.S

(from left) Tsatsu Tsikata, Mahamadu Bawumia
Yesterday’s proceedings at the ongoing presidential election petition at the Supreme Court were characterised by flared tempers, with the judges being stretched to their limit.
While counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, seemed to have succeeded in putting his client’s case across by refusing directives from the bench in his attempt to have his way, counsel for the petitioners, Mr Phillip Addison, had to complain to the bench for allowing the NDC lawyer to have a leeway.
In the end, the President of the court, Mr Justice William Atuguba, did not take kindly to the trend of affairs and sounded a caution that what the court was doing was within its authority and would continue to  do that and asked Mr Addison, who was on his feet, to resume his seat.
Mr Tsikata,  on  the   other  hand, on  several  occasions refused to be dictated to by the court and succeeded in having his way when he had been told that he could not ask certain questions because they were either repetitions or reserved for addresses.
The day’s proceedings began when the court sustained an objection raised the previous day by Mr Addison that Mr Tsikata could not impugn bad faith to Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, the star witnesss for the petitioners.
According to the court, the imputation had previously been covered by prior grounds raised during the proceedings, for which reason Mr Tsikata would not be allowed to traverse those areas.
Mr Tsikata then brought out a letter signed by Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the National Chairman of the NPP, drawing the attention of the Electoral Commission (EC) to alleged malpractices during the December 2012 elections and asked the witness to read certain paragraphs, which witness did.
However, when responding to a suggestion that statements contained in the letter were false, Dr Bawumia, who seemed to have veered into another area, was brought on track by Justice Atuguba, who said it was only the first part of the response which constituted an answer, while the rest was “gratuitous excursion”.
Mr Tsikata asked some questions relating to the letter, but when he proceeded with a question that the petitioners had not pleaded in their petition, Justice Atuguba and Ms Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo stepped in to say that since the pleadings were clear, he should proceed.
“We have come this way before. He (referring to witness) denies this. You cannot ask questions which are argumentative,” Ms Justice Akoto-Bamfo told counsel.
But Mr Tsikata persisted.
When Mr Tsikata told the witness that before that letter was written the NPP had asked its supporters to wear white and go to church on the basis of a victory it claimed to have had, Dr Bawumia said he was not sure about that.
 Mr Addison objected a follow-up question that the petitioners made a public declaration that they had won the elections on the grounds that the question was irrelevant.
To the objection, Justice Atuguba asked counsel to reconsider his view about irrelevance, saying that questions about declarations and so on were relevant.
The controversy had hardly died down when Mr Tsikata asked the witness whether he was aware that the General Secretary of the NPP had widely made a statement to the effect that the party had won the elections.
Dr Bawumia responded that, indeed, many party officials had made certain statements, but he was unaware of that made by the NPP General Secretary.
It was at that stage that Mr Justice Atuguba told the witness to bring his mind into the courtroom.
 “You see, you are a doctor; you are very intelligent, so help us. This case, let me tell you, people are approaching from two fronts; the political front and the issues here. We are dealing with only the issues here, so bring your mind to the courtroom," he told the witness.
Mr Addison, who was not happy, interjected that it seemed the court had had problems with every answer that the witness provided, adding that it was becoming difficult for the witness to answer those questions, especially when he was not a lawyer but a layman.
The issue relating to the pink sheets from the Juaso Court Hall polling station was once again brought up by Mr Tsikata, who pointed out to the witness that there were three separate pink sheets from the same polling station which had been signed by two different polling agents.
 Justice Atuguba intervened by saying he initially thought counsel was coming out with something new, but Mr Tsikata went ahead to ask the witness that there was no basis for their allegation regarding those pinks sheets.
At a point, Ms Justice Sophia Adinyira bluntly told Mr Tsikata that the bench did not understand his questions.
When Mr Tsikata left that terrain and went into an area involving one Freda Prempeh, Ms Justice Rose Owusu intervened and said the question related to the subject matter of Mr Tsikata’s application to the court seeking to cross-examine some witnesses of the petitioners, which comes up today.
According to Mr Tsikata, there were statements in those affidavits on which he wanted to cross-examine witness and did not understand why he should not be allowed to, since those affidavits had been attached to be part of the petitioners’ case.
Justice Atuguba gave counsel the green light to ask the questions, so that the court could determine their propriety.
Mr Tsikata also wanted to tender a letter written and attached to the affidavit of Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, the General Secretary of the NDC, but his attempt was objected to by Mr Addison.
When Tsikata was advised from the bench, he insisted to have the letter tendered and prayed the court to rule on the matter.
The objection was sustained.
When Mr Addison told the court that Dr Bawumia would want to refresh his memory in respect of a list of pink sheets given to him by Mr Tsikata, the bench asked that that difficulty must come from the witness box and after that counsel could intervene.
Justice Atuguba told Mr Tsikata that questions relating to claims or allegations of the petitioners were reserved for the court, resulting in about seven of those questions being overruled by the court.
Following that, Justice Atuguba reiterated the earlier caution that the matter was being watched from two directions and so the evidence had to be unfolded.
The President of the court then told Mr Tsikata that he had rather entered the address stage and more so he had confronted the witness with those issues before.
Mr Tsikata then asked about two questions and hinted before the lunch break that he was about ending his cross-examination, subject to some materials that were to be made available by the petitioners’ lawyers.
Hearing continues today.