Afari-Gyan Cornered; Admits Double Registration, Over Voting

Details

Parent Category: Our Country

Category: Elections & Governance

Created on Friday, 07 June 2013 00:00

Hits: 5953

Afari-Gyan Cornered; Admits Double Registration, Over Voting

Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, was yesterday put in a tight corner when he was forced to once again revise his definition for over-voting.

Dr Afari-Gyan conceded that over voting goes beyond his classical definition saying that over voting could also occur if the votes were more that the number of voter turnout in a particular polling station.

The EC boss had explained what he called ‘classical definition’ of over voting to mean that when the votes at a polling station exceeded the total number of registered voters in that particular polling station.

The petitioners’ lead counsel, Philip Addison, was able to push the veteran election administrator to admit that over-voting, which the petitioners are claiming as an irregularity, also included a situation where the number of ballots in the box were more than ballots issued to voters at a particular polling station.

Counsel: I am saying that over-vote is based on the number of ballots issued and the total votes found in the ballot box, do you agree?

Witness: Yes, ultimately…Yes.

Counsel: Thank you

The EC Chairman, before the December 2012 general elections, is on record to have defined over-voting as a situation where ballots in the box are more than ballots issued to voters at a particular polling station but during his examination-in-chief gave his so-called classical definition for over-voting.

He then quickly changed his long held definition by defining over-voting as a situation where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of registered voters and said he was relying on that one.

The contradictory definitions played out when he admitted he was confused about defining over-voting.

“I think I am not too clear in my own mind what the connotation of over-vote is,” Dr. Afari-Gyan had told the court on Tuesday to the bewilderment of the audience at the ongoing Presidential Election Petition.

Coincidentally, his ‘classic’ definition of over-voting had been given by the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) witness, Johnson Asiedu-Nketia, while the situation of over-voting occurring when the number of votes cast exceeds the number of ballots issued to voters was given by the petitioners through Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia.

Before admitting the latest definition, Dr. Afari-Gyan had tried to maintain his stance on the classical definition when Mr. Addison handed him a pink sheet from a particular station in the Upper West Region.

Counsel: Now, can you tell the court what you have in your hand?

Witness: I have… (He reads the exhibit number, polling station name and code)

Counsel: Now can you tell the court what is in A1 (column indicating the number of ballots issued to the polling station)

Witness: A1 is 100…

Counsel: And what is B1 [Number of voters eligible to vote from the polling station]

Witness: 21

Counsel: Now, can you tell the court, the total votes in the ballot box?

Witness: 67

Counsel: So you would agree that there is a clear over-vote here?

Witness: Once again, my lords, Ehrr…no. Fortunately, we have the register here and that indicate that the 21 in B (column indicating eligible voters in that polling station) is wrong.

Counsel: I’m sorry?

Witness: The 21 in B1, if the register confirms that the number of people in the polling station register is 21, and assuming that the form has been correctly executed, then 67 would be an over-vote.

Counsel: Dr. Afari-Gyan, I’m asking you questions based on the pink sheet and you are drawing deductions from it. Did you see this pink sheet before you declared the results?

Witness: No, I don’t.

Counsel: So let’s limit ourselves to what is on the face of the pink sheet… (Justice Atuguba intervenes)

Justice Atuguba: I thought you said the register showed a different number?

Witness: Yes my lord.

Justice Atuguba: What figure?

Witness: Maybe I will refer to the register and see what it says… (He quickly referred to the register allegedly used for the polling station). My lords the register…gives the number of registered voters as 71.

Counsel: Dr. Afari-Gyan, I thought we have dealt with these registers, and you have accepted that these were not the registers used at the polling stations.

Witness: But the registers used at the polling station my lords, would not be different from the registers that we have here.

Counsel: No, you cannot be sure, this is not the register, we have gone through that, so you cannot make reference to it to support your case.

Witness: My lords, I disagree that we have gone through that, in saying that the registers used at the polling stations would be the same registers as this.

Gazetted Figures

Counsel: Did you make reference to the registers used for the election before you made the declaration?

Witness: The declaration of election result… (Counsel interrupts)

Counsel: Please answer the question; did you make reference to the register before you made the declaration?

Witness: My lords, yes in the sense that the total number of persons that were entitled to vote is recorded in that declaration.

Counsel: The total number? What was the total number?

Witness: The total number was 14, 0 31,680, that was the total number on the register.

Counsel: We are talking here about a polling station and I have already shown you an analysis which shows clearly that the number of registered persons on these polling stations far exceed the number of registered persons you handed over to the New Patriotic Party.

Witness: My lord, that cannot be correct.

Counsel: Furthermore, the total number of registered voters that you gazetted for the Parliamentary election is different from the one you did for the Presidential.

Witness: That cannot be correct my lords.

Counsel: Now, the gazetted number for the Parliamentary elections was 14,031,680 and when you made the declaration for the Presidential, the figure you used was 14, 158,890, am I right?

Witness: We have already explained… (Counsel cuts in sharply)

Counsel: Did you use that figure? (Witness tries to explain, but counsel wanted a straightforward answer) Please answer the question.

Witness: Yes, but it was in error.

Counsel: It was in error?

Witness: Yes, it was in error?

Counsel: So everything was in error in this election?

Witness: (Laughs uneasily)… My lords, I don’t see how anybody can come to that conclusion.

Counsel: I see. We are on the pink sheet you are holding; I said that there is an over-vote there?

Witness: I’m saying that based on the number of people on the register, there isn’t an over-vote.

Counsel: It is based on the number of ballots issued, not on the number on the register.