‘Some Pink Sheets Not Counted’

• 
• 

Details

Parent Category: Justice & Security

Category: Law Reports

Created on Friday, 28 June 2013 00:00

Hits: 6741

‘Some Pink Sheets Not Counted’

22 July 2013

KPMG, the accounting firm chosen by all the parties to count the number of pink sheets used as exhibits in the Presidential Election Petition hearing, yesterday told the Supreme Court that the firm did not count all the exhibits.

Nii Amanor Dodoo, head of Audit Practice and a senior partner of the accounting firm, in testifying yesterday on the report submitted, told the court that there was an unspecified number of pink sheets in the custody of both the registry and the president of the nine-member panel that were not counted and, therefore, were not part of the final report.

Philip Addison (Petitioners’ Lead Counsel): Did you count all the pink sheets in the Registrar’s custody.

Dodoo: No…but let me clarify this….The exhibits were filed in a number of lots and we counted only one lot.

Addison: I suggest to you that the count involved more than one set of pink sheets….Could you explain the process that informed your decision to leave out some of the pink sheets in the count?

Dodoo: We matched the information by the labels as presented by the Registrar and so the pink sheets that were counted were deemed to be extra copies.

Addison: Can you tell the identity of the pink sheets that were not counted in the Registrar’s office?

Dodoo: They were meant to be extra copies. No, I can’t.

Addison: Don’t you think if you had examined those pink sheets you would have found some of the pink sheets you claimed were not located in the President’s set of pink sheets?

Mr Dodoo then explained that they did not count those pink sheets because they were deemed to be extra copies.

He told a packed court under cross-examination that 2,876 exhibits were found in Justice William Atuguba’s set which were not found in the Registrar’s set and said that a further 6,629 exhibits were also found in the Registrar’s set which were not in the presiding judge’s set.

Registry Pink Sheets

Addison: Now, from our calculations based on your report, we say that the unique count for the Registrar’s set is 9,974.

Dodoo: …but when you say unique numbers, with regard to exhibit numbers or with regard to polling station codes?

Addison: In regards to everything in your report that can identify polling stations.

Dodoo: It cannot be with regard to everything because we need to look at these things and relate them to specific descriptions; I mean we need to describe them appropriately, because there were instances where exhibit numbers did not tie into polling station code numbers and vice versa….

Addison: Mr Amanor Dodoo, did you by any chance have a full list of the 26,002 polling station names and codes, was that supplied to you?

Dodoo: No my lords, that was not supplied.

Atuguba’s Pink Sheets

Addison: What is the total number of pink sheets counted from the set of the president of the panel?

Dodoo: We would have two numbers for that, but I will explain that: In terms of count by sheet, what we got was 9,856 but there were four instances where the exhibit numbers were on the other side of the pink sheet, so when you take that into consideration, what you get is 9,860. So I will say 9,860 would be the number that we need to work with if you are looking at exhibit numbers.

Addison: Now, this number 9, 860 does not include pink sheets labelled as MBP 3,836 to 4,796, am I right?

Dodoo: That is so

Counsel: So that, the figure given us here as 9,860 is an incomplete figure.

Dodoo: That is so, and it is also stated in the report…we did not have a number for that missing lot but we stated that those were not made available. There were some explanation that was given for that.

Addison: Can you tell the court the total unique pink sheets from the president’s set?

Dodoo: I don’t recall; from the president’s set, what we were asked to do was to crosscheck, so what we did was to limit that to checking copies in the president’s set to copies in the registrar’s set.

Addison: You did not check the unique pink sheets with regard to the president’s set, is that what you are saying?

Dodoo: I would have to check on that but I don’t recall that.

Justice Dotse: In the report which I state as volume 1 page 12 (he reads the relevant paragraphs that points to the comparison of the presiding judge’s copies and the registrar’s copies in relation to what the petitioners claimed they filed) can you take us through those findings or fact?

Dodoo: to carry out a test of that nature, you needed to link the exhibit number and the polling station numbers as one item, and then compare that to the same criteria in the president’s set…. So anything that fell outside that would now be deemed to be different from both sets of records.

Justice Dotse: If I understand you, if say this particular exhibit is in the registrar’s set but is not in the presiding judge’s set, it will be in a different category. You will not add it to any of the two sets?

Dodoo: No, it would be itemised separately…

Addison: Mr Amanor Dodoo, I believe there were 2,876 pink sheets that were in the president’s set that were not in the registrar’s set?

Dodoo: Yes, that is so, that is actually set out in page 438 under appendix C3.20

Addison: Did you also identify any pink sheets in the registrar’s set that were not part of the president’s set?

Dodoo: Yes we did

Addison: Can you tell us how many?

Dodoo: They came up to 6,629….

Pink Sheet Tussle

Addison: Now, Mr. Amanor-Dodoo, are you aware that pink sheets were also served on all the respondents in this case?

Dodoo: I would expect so my lords, in fact we were informed that others were served with pink sheets.

Addison: In our comment, we provided a list of 4,089 pink sheets used by counsel for first and third respondents in cross-examining second petitioner, you received that?

Dodoo: Yes, they were set out in your comment.

Addison: We actually gave you the list of the 4,089 pink sheets that were used in cross-examination.

Dodoo: I am not disputing that, but again, as I said, that fell outside the scope of our work.

Addison: I’m just asking you if you received this document.

Dodoo: Ok, yes we did receive them, sorry my lords.

Addison: Now, I’m suggesting to you that 1,097 pink sheets out of the 4,089 that were used by counsel for first and third respondents were not part of the registrar’s set.

Dodoo: We wouldn’t have had any basis of confirming that because we did not carry out any checks to confirm that.

Inventory

Mr Dodoo told the court that, KPMG, as a referee did not take any inventory of the pink sheets in the custody of the Registry before commencing its work.

Addison: Did you take inventory of all the pink sheets in the custody of the Registry prior to the counting.

Dodoo: No we did not.

This is contrary to claims by counsel for President Mahama and the NDC in open court that KPMG before the start of the count took an inventory of the boxes and that the boxes in the custody of the registry had without explanation increased from the number on the inventory of KPMG to a new figure.

Addison: Were you informed as to who filed the pink sheets.

Dodoo: Yes we were told the Petitioners filed.

Addison: Did it come to your attention that the Respondents had filed any pink sheet?

Dodoo: Not that I recall.

Addison: You were asked to do a faithful count of the pinks right.

Dodoo: Yes

Addison: How many were the pink sheets in the custody of the Registry.

Dodoo: 13,926

Addison: There were a number of pink sheets with respect to the Registry there were remarks you made. What were those remarks.

Mr Dodoo explained that information on those pink sheets was not legible.

Addison: Are you aware that a polling station can be uniquely identified by a polling station code.

Dodoo: I guess so. It was not the mandate of the KPMG to identify the polling station by its code.

Addison: The total number of pink sheets with these remarks were 1045 is that right?

Dodoo: Yes, that is right.

The Remarks

Mr Dodoo explained to the court that the reason why KPMG did not incorporate the remarks made by the petitioners in the final report was because they did not have the order given by the court.

Mr Addison then said the petitioners were not impressed with the explanation and said if KPMG knew they did not need the comments from the parties they ought not to have asked for them in the first place.

Addison: Mr Amanor –Dodoo did you receive the petitioners’ comment on your draft report?

Dodoo: Yes we did.

Addison: I believe it came to you in the form of a letter and annexes?

Dodoo: That’s the case, my lords.

Addison: Did you do anything with these comments?

Dodoo: My lords, to the extent that they were pertinent to the task we were requested to carry out.

Addison: In the petitioners’ comment, your attention was drawn to 171 errors that were inadvertently made by you in your report.

Dodoo: Yes, that is what your comment that you issued indicated.

Addison: Did you verify the accuracy of that statement?

Dodoo: Yes we did my lords.

Addison: And what were the results?

Dodoo: The results were that the information that we had captured reflected what was extracted from the pink sheets that we examined.

Addison: Those were entry errors; 171 were entry errors by your staff in entering the polling station codes and so it was for you to verify, did you verify?

Dodoo: I just said that we did check to the details that were extracted and we did indeed confirm that what has been extracted was a true reflection of data that had been captured…

The Confusion

Justice Sule Gbadegbe interrupted apparently because the explanation was not exactly clear).

Justice Gbadegbe…Even me, I cannot understand what you actually wanted to say. Did your verification, according to your question, confirm their query or it went otherwise?

Dodoo: My lords, we went through a process, what that process entails is that extracts that were made at the end of each day were confirmed to be a true and accurate reflection of the details that reflected each of the pink sheets, now, copies of those things were actually circulated to them to each of the parties and neither at any point did any of them come back with any corrections that needed to be made. The 171 items that he mentioned here; in cross-checking, 34 of those items were found indeed to be errors on their part….so for the reason the 34 could not even have been said to be error. Now, the rest, what was done was to confirm that to be data that was extracted which had been confirmed and there was no error that were highlighted.

Addison: Mr Dodoo, I must confess; I don’t understand your answer. Were you able to cross-check against the pink sheets which you have wrongly entered their polling station codes, were you able to do this?

Dodoo: If the extract from the pink sheet that was made was correct on the document which we checked to, then the end result will be that what we crosschecked against would be the correct number.

Addison: My question is that you have given a draft report, we have pointed out certain errors, where do you crosscheck these errors from; the same draft report? (Justice Dotse interrupts)

Justice Dotse: Mr. Amanor-Dodoo, do I understand you to say that 34 out of the 171 were found out by you to be errors on the part of the petitioners?

Dodoo: That is so, my lord.

Justice Dotse: Then the rest were confirmed to be correct according to your report?

Referee: That is so my lord….

Addison: The Petitioners gave a list of 850 pink sheets from the 1045 pink sheets on which those remarks were made and explained that those pink sheets could be identified by the polling station code is that right.

Dodoo: Yes but our mandate was not to identify those pink sheets by the code. We were asked to make a faithful count. We could not have done anything other than that. Another court order can be given and those concerns could be addressed.

Addison suggested to Mr Dodoo that out of the 1045 remarked by KPMG, the petitioners found 1,086 with unique polling stations but Mr Dodoo said he had no answer to that question before the court intervened to ask Mr Addison to restrict his questions to the level of knowledge of the witness on the matter.

Addison: How many unique pink sheets were counted in the Registrar’s set?

Mr Dodoo said a straight answer could not be given because the count was based on three issues; exhibit numbers, polling station codes and polling station names.

He said each situation generated different numbers because some of the exhibit numbers were repeated.

Addison: Were you given the list of the 26,000 polling stations in your counting.

Dodoo: No

Addison: What is the total number of pink sheets counted from the President’s set?

Dodoo: 9,856, but four instances where the exhibit numbers were on another sheet so the total was 9860.

Addison: The 9,860 does not include a set of series which was not counted.

Dodoo: Yes

Addison: So the figure given is an incomplete figure.

Dodoo: That is so and we have stated it in the report.

Addison: Can you tell the court the total unique pink sheets from the President’s custody.

Dodoo: We were limited to checking the President’s set in comparison to that of the Registrar’s. So I cannot tell the total unique pink sheets.

Addison: There were 2,876 pink sheets in the President’s set but not in the Registrar’s set is that correct?

Dodoo: Yes that is correct.

Addison: Did you identify any pink sheet in the Registrar’s set that were not part of the President’s set?

Dodoo: Yes, and the number is 6,629.

Addison: Are you aware that pink sheets were also served on all the respondents.

Dodoo: I presume so.

Soft Copy Reloaded

After the tendering of the comments had been dismissed, Mr Addison turned his attention to the soft copy issue by finding out from the witness if he recalled telling the court that the KPMG as a risk management policy did not give out soft copies to their clients.

Mr Dodoo said they did not “ordinarily” give out the soft copies and when Mr Addison probed further to find out under what circumstance were soft copies given out the KPMG representative read the company’s manual to explain his point.

Mr Addison, however, suggested to the witness that KPMG had no such policy with regard to the clients and that there were KPMG copies on the internet and said what the witness read was in respect of third parties.

Justice Atuguba came in to find out the relevance of the question and said the issue about soft copy was raised and ruled upon.

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie also intervened and said the request for the soft copy was to facilitate the perusal of the report but that was over. Mr Addison, however, told the court that they went through great pains in arriving at their conclusions.

Another judge intervened. He said he understood the petitioners’ request for soft copy was to facilitate their perusal of the final report of the KPMG but even without the soft copy they have done a good work in perusing the report and have come out with valid comments. He wondered why the petitioners would now go back to the issue of soft copies.

On Tuesday July 2, 2013, when the court resumes sitting, counsel for the respondents are expected also to cross-examine the PKGM representative.

Mr Lithur was due to start yesterday but had to cut everything short due to time constraints.

By William Yaw Owusu & Raphael Ofori-Adeniran Source: Daily Guide/Ghana

---

Name

Email

Subject

Website

 

 

Comment  1000 Characters left

  I agree to the terms and conditions

Antispam protection Case sensitive

 

 Send Reset