|
|
Release
NPP
August 1, 2013
DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBERS
COMPROMISED ELECTIONS & RESULTS - Petitioners
The petitioners in the ongoing presidential election petition
have affirmed the critical importance of serial numbers on pink
sheets, the need for each polling station pink sheet to have a
unique serial number and why the court should uphold the
arguments of the petitioners and annul the results from all the
8,987 polling stations where the malpractice of same serial
numbers on pink sheets occurred.
In the written address of counsel for petitioners filed on
Tuesday, the petitioners elaborately laid out the reasons for
why the conduct and outcome of the December polls were
compromised by the occurrence of duplicate serial numbers.
The petitioners introduced their arguments on this malpractice
on the fact that a cardinal objective of all electoral processes
since 1992 has been how the security of election materials would
be guaranteed to avoid such issues as substitution of election
materials by unscrupulous persons determined to compromise the
electoral process by replacing authentic electoral materials
with forgeries.
The Electoral Commission, the petitioners noted, had tried to
achieve this objective by among others pre-embossing electoral
material with unique serial numbers to ensure that as much as
possible, electoral materials are unique at all polling stations
and to make it easy for forged/ foreign materials to be
detected.
The petitioners contend that this is the reason why for example,
ballot papers are pre-embossed with serial numbers and why same
is done with almost all election materials like ballot boxes,
stamps and tamper proof envelopes.
The petitioners therefore noted that “It would, accordingly, be
astonishing, if not self-defeating, where the primary record of
the election, which are the pink sheets, on which results are
declared, had no serial number as a security feature to prevent
substitution or forgeries of such critical electoral materials”.
The address of the petitioners drew the court’s attention to the
evasive answers Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan gave on the matter of
serial numbers on pink sheets and his eventual admission that
pink sheets are sensitive materials in elections and that the
serial numbers on the pink sheets are the only distinguishing
features between two unfilled pink sheets.
“This admission, it is respectfully submitted, supports the
petitioners‟ proposition that, if a person lays his hands on an
unfilled or blank pink sheet, that person can fill it out with
what purports to be results of polls in a polling station and
the fraud perpetrated by that person will go unnoticed. This is
because, as the evidence at the trial showed, the essential
distinguishing factors of a polling station, i.e. polling
station name and code, do not come pre-embossed. It means that
in order to secure the integrity of results from a polling
station or, in order to authenticate results from any polling
station, the genuineness of the paper on which the results are
recorded must be determinable through some means. This means, it
is submitted, is through the embossment of the serial numbers on
the pink sheets”, the address stated.
The petitioners indicated that the point on serial numbers on
pink sheets was not about what gave polling stations their
identity and uniqueness but that however, what is unique to each
pink sheet is its serial number.
“The point here is not that what gives a polling station its
identity and uniqueness are the serial numbers of the pink
sheets. Not at all! What gives the polling station its identity
are the polling station name and code. The point, however, is
that what is unique to each pink sheet is its serial number. For
each pink sheet has a specific serial number pre-embossed on it
from the printers. All other features on it are the same as any
other pink sheet. So once a particular pink sheet is assigned to
a particular polling station with a particular code and the
presiding officer writes, by hand, the name and code of that
polling station in the space provided on the pink sheet, the
serial number locks the polling station name and code to that
polling station for good., the address noted
For the petitioners, the serial numbers on pink sheets in this
sense constitutes security features and could be rightfully
likened to the serial numbers on a cheque book, one’s passport
or currency, all of which come with pre-embossed serial numbers.
The petitioners in their address noted how the Electoral
Commission had failed to come up with a candid response on why
it decided to print two sets of pink sheets and why even after
printing the two sets, it went ahead to use all the two sets
even though one set was more than enough for the election.
The Electoral Commission’s explanation that it printed two sets
of pink sheets because it did not know the exact number of
candidates at the time of printing according to the petitioners
is “rather disingenuous explanation, however, falls apart
completely when regard is had to the real facts and the evidence
on the face of the pink sheets”
The petitioners explained that the pink sheets could have only
been printed after the 19th of October when the Electoral
Commission held the ballot for candidates to determine the order
in which they would appear on the ballot paper at which time the
Commission knew exactly how many candidates were involved in the
election.
According to the petitioners, when account is taken of the fact
that an overwhelming majority of irregularities such as over
voting, voting without biometric verification and absence of
presiding officers signature occurred on pink sheets with
duplicate serial numbers, “the full significance of the
malpractice of deliberately deploying the same set of pink
sheets to different polling stations becomes evident.”
For the petitioners, the printing and use of pink sheets with
same serial numbers provided the opportunity for persons to fill
in polling stations names, codes and results outside the polling
stations which clearly compromises the elections.
According to the evidence, total votes affected by the use of
duplicate serial numbers are 3,508,491. If annulled 2,344,540
would have to be deducted from the votes of John Mahama and
1,097,169 from the votes of Nana Akufo-Addo. With these
annulments and deductions, John Mahama will have 43.15% of the
valid votes while Nana Akufo-Addo will have 55.45%. This means
that the category of duplicate serial numbers by itself is
enough to overturn the declared outcome of the elections.
Below is an extract from the Address of the report on
Triplicate/Quadruplicate Serial Numbers:
In his evidence-in-chief, Mr Asiedu Nketia, the representative
of 1st and 3rd respondents, sought to suggest that he is not
even very sure what petitioners claim to be serial numbers on
the pink sheets are. This feigning of ignorance of the serial
numbers on the pink sheets is belied by the fact that, both in
their Amended Answers filed on 26th February 2013 and their
joint affidavit evidence sworn to by Mr. Asiedu Nketiah on 16th
April, 2013, 1st ad 3rd respondents state categorically that
serial numbers are not unique to polling stations and constitute
no security feature. This effort by 1st and 3rd respondents to
deny the existence of serial numbers, even though evident on the
face of the pink sheets, exposes a curious anxiety to conjure
this reality out of existence.
Mr. Asiedu Nketia said that if the serial numbers were the
security feature petitioners claim they are, then the 2nd
respondent would have drawn the attention of all political
parties to that fact during the various training programmes the
2nd respondent had with their party agents, as was the case with
serial numbers on the ballot papers; and that the fact that this
did not happen shows that no significance should be paid to the
numbers. The simple answer to that is that the serial numbers
constitute an internal check and security mechanism for the 2nd
respondent itself and not so much for polling agents on polling
day. What is more, since duplicate serial numbers could be
discovered only after the fact, that is, after elections, when
all pink sheets are brought together and analysed, polling
agents at specific polling stations dealing with specific pink
sheets would be in absolutely no position to detect the use of
duplicate serial numbers, unlike the case of serial numbers of
ballot papers which polling agents could detect on election day.
On his part, Dr. Afari Gyan, the Chairman of the 2nd respondent
and the returning officer for the presidential election, who
should know better, has equally stated that it is the polling
station name and code that is unique to a particular polling
station and that once the name and code of the polling station
are written on the space provided on a particular pink sheet, it
does not matter that another pink sheet with the same serial
number is used for a different polling station with its unique
name and code. This, with respect, begs the question and
underscores the flaws in the electoral process of December 2012
and how the conduct of 2nd respondent itself afforded an
opportunity for legitimate results of voting at polling stations
to be altered and/or swapped. The point, however, is that if
only one set of pink sheets, each with a unique serial number,
had been printed, and yet at the close of polls there was
discovered pink sheets with the same serial numbers but
different results, that will clearly constitute a grave
malpractice.
Another question that begs for an answer is the rationale for
printing two sets of pink sheets. With respect, the convoluted
reasoning proffered to this question by 2nd respondent, in
paragraph 18 (a) of its 2nd Amended Answer filed on 3rd April,
2013 provides no explanation. It rather leaves many more
questions unanswered and manifestly points to the lack of a
plausible explanation. 2nd respondent avers in its Answer that
they printed the two sets of pinks sheets in anticipation of
there being more than eight (8) candidates for the presidential
election; that this could have come to pass had the nominations
of a number of potential candidates not been rejected for not
meeting the qualifying criteria. This rather disingenuous
explanation, however, falls apart completely when regard is had
to the real facts and the evidence on the face of the pink
sheets.
In the first place, both sets of the pink sheets had already
printed on them the names of the eight (8) candidates that,
indeed, qualified to contest and, in actual fact, contested the
2012 presidential election. One would have expected that, if the
rationalisation of 2nd respondent was true, it would have left
the second set of pink sheets blank for the potential
presidential candidates, as is the case with parliamentary
election pink sheets. What, however, definitively gives the lie
away is the fact that both sets of pink sheets had the names of
the eight (8) presidential candidates for the 2012 election
embossed on them in the order of their placement on the ballot
paper. This meant that the pink sheets were printed only after
the ballot among the candidates to determine their order of
placement on the ballot paper was determined on Friday, 19th
October 2012. By that date, the 2nd respondent had rejected the
applications of the potential nominees for presidential
election. There was, thus, no reason for the printing of a
second set of pink sheets. The question which rings out and
cries for a convincing answer, therefore, is: the rationale for
the 2nd Respondent‟s printing of a second set of pink sheets,
with exactly the same candidates and same serial numbers.
Furthermore, having printed this excess set, it is yet to be
convincingly explained why 2nd Respondent decide to use them and
indeed used them when there was no need to.
It becomes apparent that Dr. Afari Gyan‟s response that there
was nothing wrong with having pink sheets with the same serial
numbers being used for different polling stations, provided the
uniqueness of the two polling stations could be identified by
their different names and different codes, actually begs the
question why this should happen. When account is taken of the
fact that most of the polling stations where the constitutional
and statutory violations of over-voting, voting without
biometric registration and the absence of signatures of
presiding officers occurred, are found on these pink sheets with
duplicate serial numbers, the full significance of the
malpractice of deliberately deploying the same set of pink
sheets to different polling stations becomes evident.
Indeed, as Dr. Mahamadu Bawumia, 2nd petitioner, noted in his
testimony, the only unique feature of each and every pink sheet
which is already printed on delivery to the 2nd respondent is
its serial number. All other features are the same. The polling
station name and code and the other entries are hand written and
any one up to mischief can sit in his or her house and fill in
the duplicate pink sheets with correct polling station code and
name and sign them. This is precisely what printing only one set
of pink sheets each with a unique serial number was to prevent
and this is what printing two (2) sets of the same pink sheets
with the same serial numbers for no good reason whatsoever
provided opportunity for.
Dr. Afari Gyan had also stated in his evidence-in-chief that the
numbers on the pink sheet have no significance because unlike
the serial numbers on the ballot papers, this is not a
requirement of any statute or instrument. Admittedly, Regulation
26(2) of Public Elections Regulations 2012 (C.I. 75) provides
thus: “Every ballot paper shall: (c) have a number on it”.
However, it should be noted that there is no law or regulation
requiring that the official stamp used to stamp ballot papers at
the polling station should bear serial numbers, yet for good
reason, these stamps all bear serial numbers, as a matter of
established practice of the 2nd respondent.
More specifically, however, is that Regulation 26 (c) C. I. 75
does not say every ballot shall have a serial number on it. The
reference is to “a number”, but this is understood to mean
serial number. This is because the only purpose of numbers on
articles in such situation is to provide the articles with a
mark of identification. There would be absolutely no purpose of
having pre-embossed numbers on such an article if it were random
without any record of the random nature. Dr. Afari Gyan, in an
attempt to explain this away, said in his evidence-in-chief that
it was simply to provide a count of the number of pink sheets
printed. If that were so, the pink sheets, it is respectfully
submitted, should have been numbered from 1 to the last copy.
It is noteworthy that Dr. Afari-Gyan eventually conceded in
cross-examination by counsel for petitioners on 10th June, 2013
(at pages 68 - 69 of the record of proceedings for that day)
that if one set of pink sheets had been printed and used in the
December 2012 election, a serial number on the pink sheet would
have been unique to each polling station. The following
transpired between counsel and the witness.
Q. Now apart from this set of pink sheets, you printed another
set.
A. Well, my lords it translates to that.
Q. And the second set you printed was the same as the first set
in all material particular.
A. My lords, yes because the second set was supposed to be a
continuation of the first.
Q. So was the second set, in fact, a continuation?
A. No.
Q. Now Dr. Afari Gyan, if you had not printed this second set,
the first set distributed to all the polling stations could have
remained unique to each particular polling station?
A. My lords, yes, I would agree with you.
Again, it is for same reason that the numbers on the ballot
boxes, the tamper proof envelopes and above all the pink sheets,
the primary document on which the election results are based and
declared, are in series. Any argument, that there may be
pre-embossed numbers on any of the election articles, but they
are not serial, is not only untrue but flies in the face of good
reason and ought to be rejected as misconceived.
In the circumstance, it is respectfully submitted that the
phenomena of pinks sheets with same serial numbers being used
for different polling stations constitute a grave security
breach, which undermines the integrity of the elections where
they occurred. The results therefrom ought to be annulled,
especially in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the
duplicate serial numbers became the mechanism by which all the
other infractions, were committed in the December 2012
elections, just as where two passports with different names but
the same serial number or two cheques with the same serial
number are rejected by the relevant authorities as completely
untenable.
If there had been any doubt as to the significance of serial
numbers in securing the integrity of elections, and assisting
the detection of voting malpractices, such doubt was put to rest
on the final day of cross-examination when counsel for
petitioners confronted Dr. Afari-Gyan with triplicates and
quadruplicate serial numbers on different pink sheets. This
dramatically demonstrated the manipulation to which pink sheets
bearing the same serial numbers were put in the 2012
presidential election.
Dr. Afari-Gyan‟s evidence highlighted the significance of the
testimony of the 2nd petitioner that 88% of all the
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and
irregularities occurred on pink sheets with the same serial
numbers.
|
