Yesterday, according to Addison esq., the petitioners had filed 11,842 pink sheets and had, therefore, clearly been vindicated by the KPMG report which indicated that 8,675 unique pink sheets had been found in the registrar’s set of pink sheets. He further stress that KPMG excluded 1,545 pink sheets which it (KPMG) claimed did not have clear polling station names, codes and/or exhibit numbers and indicated that the reasons for the rejection of those pink sheets had been set out in the KPMG’s main report. Tsikata esq., in a sharp rebuttal, explained to the court that the KPMG captured 13,926 pink sheets served on the registrar by the petitioners, saying, “Every sheet in the registrar’s set has been counted.” He further explained that the said 1,545 pink sheets were part of the 13,926 pink sheets counted by the KPMG. Tsikata esq. expressed concern over what Mr. Addison sought to do with respect to his stance on the said 1,545 pink sheets and indicated that if Mr. Addison was of the view that the petitioners had been vindicated by the KPMG report, he should proceed and address the court on it. According to Mr. Justice William Atuguba, the President of the panel, there was the need to distinguish the issues which, he said, were: (1) the actual number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners and (2) whether or not the respondents had been short-served. He also said the court was interested in finding out the exact number of polling stations and the effect on the status of the results. Mr. Justice Atuguba said he did not see Mr Addison’s problem because the exact number of pink sheets submitted to the registrar had been established. #DG
Posted on: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:55:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015