- Last Updated on 08 July 2013
- By thestatesmanonline.com
- Hits: 1487
The motion is simply requesting KPMG to conclude the task assigned to it by the Court, to establish a total unique count of pink sheets from the available evidence filed by the petitioners.
The grant of the request, according to the petitioners, will make the report of KPMG “more conclusive,” adding that in the interest of substantive justice and to ensure that their legitimate evidence before the Court is not suppressed, “this Court ought to exercise its discretion in favour of this application.”
According to the petitioners, the grant of his application will also facilitate a fair and speedy determination of the issues in controversy in this petition, as same would establish a comprehensive unique count of pinksheets filed.
The petitioners are specifically seeking leave of the court “to determine the polling station names and codes of the 1545 pink sheets with incomplete data and determine the unique count thereof, with the aid of the further and better particulars filed by the Petitioners; and/or the official list of 26,002 polling stations established by the 2nd Respondent for the 2012 general elections to be supplied to the Referee by the 2nd Respondent.”
They are also seeking a determination of the unique count of the 2,876 pink sheets that the KPMG’s report establishes as part of the set of the President of the panel but which are not contained in the set of the Court Registrar.
Furthermore, the petitioners are seeking leave of the court “to determine and produce the full list of the unique count of the aggregate of the 8,675 unique pink sheets, the unique pink sheets in the 1,545 pink sheets described in the report as having unclear data, and the unique pink sheets in the 2,876 pink sheets of the set of the President of the panel which are not contained in the Registrar's set.”
The affidavit supporting the motion, sworn to by Mahamudu Bawumia, the second petitioner, notes that during the subsequent cross-examination of the representative of KPMG, Nii Amanoo Dodoo, by Counsel for the petitioners, on June 26, attention was drawn to several inconclusive portions of the report.
These included the failure of the report to conduct and specify a unique count of the 1,545 pink sheets with remarks which according to the report were not clear or legible; and the failure of the report to conduct and specify a unique count of the 2,874 pink sheets that the report established were in the set of the President but not contained in the Registrar's set.
The affidavit also notes that even though the Referee stated in its report that it had been able to identify 34 out of the 1,545 pink sheets with incomplete data, it failed to include these unique counts in the 8,675 unique counts set out in the report
The Petitioners have since been able to identify the polling station names and codes of these 1,545 pink sheets and out of these pinksheets identified 1,291 unique pinksheets.
They add that in respect of the 2,876 pinksheets found in the set of the President of the panel but not in the Registrar's set, “no reason whatsoever had been given by the Referee for its failure to establish a unique count of the same, even though same can be identified by their polling station names, codes and exhibit numbers.”
The petitioners say they have identified 871 unique counts of these 2,876 pinksheets, using the information in Vol. 4 of the report.
They again say “even though the report of the Referee notes that 8,675 pinksheets of the Registrar's set are unique, the report does not provide a list of these pinksheets with their polling station names, codes and exhibit numbers, if any. This renders this aspect of the report incomplete.”