KPMG Exposed

Details

Category: Elections & Governance

Created on Thursday, 18 July 2013 00:00

Hits: 3556

KPMG Exposed

{sidebar id=11 align=right}Aside the ongoing Presidential Election Petition being an unprecedented and landmark case in the annals of our country’s democratic history it is obvious that this case, by the time a verdict is received, would have redefined the way we do our politics and conduct our elections. Not only would this case redefine our politics but it obvious that this case has already redefined and exposed various institutions which hitherto were held in some high repute.

One of such institutions which have obviously been exposed badly is the Ghana branch of International Auditing and Accounting Firm, KPMG.

To sink KPMG finally was the decision of the Supreme Court on Monday ignoring both the firm’s final report on the count of pink sheets filed by the petitioners and the firm’s representative, Nii Amanor Dodoo's surprising insistence that the court should rely on only 8,675 pink sheets as those filed by the petitioners and agreeing with the petitioners that they had enough to prove that much more that 11,000 unique pink sheets was filed. But we will return to the math later.

KPMG the highly reputed market leader in accounting and auditing, at least until their disappointing show at the Supreme Cour,t was introduced into the business of determining who really won the December Presidential Elections when after several complaints from the respondents on the number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners. The court agreed and ordered that it was necessary to do a count of the pink sheets filed by the petitioners to settle the matter and stop the little issue of pink sheet mislabeling etc. from bugging and unnecessarily delaying the case.

This decision on hindsight seems to be the biggest blessing for the petitioners in the case so far.

When the court finally agreed to take this much needed step, KPMG was settled upon by consensus of the parties (apparently after first being mentioned by Lawyers for the NDC) as the best suited to undertake the task in this historic case and the belief immediately was that the firm had much more competence and professionalism to faithfully report to the court its findings on the pink sheets. KPMG’s name immediately had become engraved in Ghanaian judicial and election history.

It however didn’t take more than 24 hours after KPMG began its work for worrying signals to emerge.

Just a day after the count began, lawyers of the respondents filed into court angrily demanding various directives from the court including a stop of the process as according to them some unseen hands had been able to compromise the exhibits in the custody of the Supreme Court despite 24 hour round the clock maximum protection of the premises by National Security, Police and possibly footsoldiers of the ruling party as well as 24 hour round the clock CCTV surveillance of the Supreme Court strong room where the exhibits were kept.

In their presentations the lawyers of John Mahama and the NDC, Tony Lithur and Tsatsu Tsikata probably forgetful, dropped hints of secret meetings and collaborative undertakings they had had with KPMG and certain secret details passed to them by KPMG.

Both of these lawyers mentioned a certain secret meeting they had had with representatives of the supposed to be professional firm a day before their showing in court while Tsatsu Tsikata specifically dropped hints about a count of the boxes in the custody of the President of the Panel, Justice William Atuguba undertaking by KPMG which the respectable Judge was not even aware of and indicating that KPMG would in a matter of hours inform the Judge of the findings of that secret box count.

The red signs immediately appeared all over the count of KPMG and specifically the firm’s whole professionalism and integrity. Could a firm that had thrown all principles of professionalism too early in the day be still trusted to deliver an honest account of their findings, was the question which now had to be answered.

But KPMG obviously showed that they were in no eagerness to correct the early misconceptions their secret dealings with the respondents had thrown up.

Though KPMG was primarily tasked to inform the court on how many unique pink sheets the petitioners had filed, KPMG completed its work without doing this, very strangely. KPMG did not even add the unique set of pink sheets found in the President’s set which were not in the registrar’s set, to indicate at least the unique count in the set of the president of the panel and the registrar.

Further, they set aside a whole 1,545 pink sheets with various ridiculous remarks and sought to have them set aside by the court. More bizarre is the fact that 850 of these pink sheets clearly had polling station codes which are the primary identifiers of a polling station. Others were set aside because they had no ballot accounting information, something which is totally not the fault of the petitioners who filed the sheets and interestingly part of the petitioners’ case as showing the sort of irregularities which characterized the last election.

When KPMG submitted its draft report, the petitioners meticulously analyzed the report and noted all the essential matters KPMG had missed. According to the representative of the KPMG while being cross examined, the petitioners even went all the way into providing annexures of the lists of unique pink sheets they had found in the president’s set which were not in the registrar’s set, the number of pink sheets they had identified in the 1,545 list KPMG claimed were unclear and the unique pink sheets in them among others.

KPMG upon seeing the meticulous work done by the petitioners immediately decided it was not in ‘their’ interest to attach the comments of the petitioners into their final report and discarded the report totally even though they had initially agreed with all the parties that their comments would be factored into the final report.

In court and while being cross examined by the counsel for the petitioners, the representative of KPMG, Nii Amanor Dodoo was clearly exposed as being dishonest or at least not knowing what he and the firm were about. He flip flapped on several issues and ended confusing the whole nation on the work KPMG had done.

When the respondents took the mantle of cross examination however, Mr. Amanor Dodoo who looked very comfortable then surprisingly insisted on more than a dozen times that the court should only deal with 8,675 pink sheets they claimed were unique in the registrar’s set. This number excluded the unique pink sheets in the president of the panel’s set which were not in the registrar’s set and the unique pink sheets which could be easily identified in the 1,545 they had set aside which had all been listed in their own report.

At this time, no one needed a soothsayer to know that KPMG was very actively collaborating to get the petitioners numbers slashed.

However, much has been said in the court since then. The court since then has ruled that the KPMG report is auxiliary which has clearly devalued the significance of the work undertaken by KPMG and most importantly, the court ruled on Monday that they would factor all the pink sheets in the set of the president of the panel but not in the registrar’s set, the unique pink sheets in the list of 1,545 KPMG said were unclear as well as the pink sheets used by the respondents which were not in either the set of the registrar or the president of the panel.

Now the math. KPMG claimed there were 8,675 unique pink sheets in the set of the registrar. This now has to be added to the 833 pink sheets found in the president of the panel but not in the registrar’s set and the uniquely identified 1,234 in the list of 1545 KPMG claimed were blank and the 648 pink sheets used by the respondents in their cross examination of 2ndPetitioner not in either the set of the registrar or the president of the panel, bringing the number clearly to over 11,000.

The petitioners insist they submitted 11,842 pink sheets to the court though they are now relying on only 11,138 of those to make their case and from the available evidence of clear mix ups in the service arising from the work of the registry, it is clear that if indeed the Court had time and undertook a count of all the exhibits in the custody of more judges or if even the respondents had earlier been mandated to list the exhibits they received, the petitioners’ 11,842 pink sheets filed would clearly have been established.

From: Mensah, Kwasi Osei

No comments

Busia Wasn’t Visionary; Had No Agenda For Ghana - Sekou

Details

Category: Politics

Created on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 00:00

Hits: 3065

Busia Wasn’t Visionary; Had No Agenda For Ghana - Sekou

{sidebar id=10 align=right}Dr. Sekou Nkrumah, last son of Ghana’s first president, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, has told XYZ News that his father’s achievements are incomparable to none other.

As far as he is concerned, anybody who opposed his father’s ideas and policies as far as the fight for Ghana’s independence and development of the nascent republic were concerned in the 50s and 60s, cannot be described as a “visionary” person with any “agenda for Ghana”.

The UP tradition and its exponents such as late Prime Minister Prof. Kofi Abrefa Busia and his contemporaries including J.B. Danquah, William Akufo- Addo, Obetsebi-Lamptey and a raft of others have always been accused by Nkrumah's Convention People's Party and other parties with leftist ideologies, of sabotaging Dr. Nkrumah's fight for Ghana's independence and subsequently, his leadership as prime minister and later, president.

Dr. Sekou Nkrumah's comments follow assertions by the 2012 presidential candidate of the main opposition New Patriotic Party, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo that Ghana’s late Prime Minister of the second Republic, Prof. K. A. Busia, had a better alternative vision for Ghana.

The former Attorney General and Minister of Justice told an audience at a memorial lecture to mark Prof. Busia’s centenary anniversary in Accra that, the late prime minister and his ally, J. B Danquah had the moral courage, despite being tagged as “agents of imperialism and stooges of neo-colonialism,” to trumpet ideas of “free governments, representative governments, multiparty democracy, the rule of law [and] principles of democratic accountability” which, in his view, would have provided a “better context for the development of our nation”.

According to him, Busia’s ideas “ran counter to the prevailing orthodoxies” of his time, his critics rained “a great deal of invectives and abuse” on the UP tradition as “neo-colonialists” and puppets of Western “imperialism”.

However, Dr. Sekou Nkrumah says his father’s vision went far beyond the borders of Ghana and even the African Continent.

“…Everything was going for him as against people like Prof. Busia who stood against Nkrumah’s ideas,” he bewailed.

Dr. Nkrumah noted that there were very doubtful decisions made by Busia including his tacit support for apartheid in South Africa, as well as the expulsion of non-Ghanaians from Ghana, which Dr. Sekou Nkrumah said he found to be “unacceptable”.

Source: Radioxyzonline.com

No comments

The battle of evidence is over – Atuguba declares

Details

Category: Elections & Governance

Created on Thursday, 18 July 2013 00:00

Hits: 2992

The battle of evidence is over – Atuguba declares

Justice William Atuguba, President of the panel hearing the election petition Wednesday paraphrased Dr Kwame Nkrumah's famous statement “at long last the battle is ended" to signal the end of the long-drawn Supreme Court hearing.

The statement was after counsel for the parties signaled to the court that they were done with their arguments. Justice Atuguba then said, "At long last the battle of evidence has ended," to a rapturous applause.

Justice Atuguba also told Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC) that telling people to go to court as he does is not that simple, which got the court room bursting into laughter.

His declaration summed up the hearing of day 46 in the election petition filed by three Petitioners, Nana Akuffo Addo, the Presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party(NPP), his running mate, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and Jake Obetsibi Lamptey, NPP chairman.

The three petitioners are praying the Supreme Court to overturn the results declared by Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), making President John Mahama of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) the winner of the 2012 elections. The Election Petition hearing began on 16th April 2013.

Mr Philip Addison, lead Counsel for the petitioners also concluded his cross examination of Dr Afari Gyan, witness of the EC to end the presentation of evidence by the petitioners.

Mr Addison indicated yesterday that he was done with his cross-examination but Mr James Quarshie-Idun, Counsel for the EC brought in fresh pink sheets during his re-examination of the witness.

Mr Addison then insisted that the petitioners need to cross-examine Dr. Afari Gyan on those new pink sheets.

Mr Addison, in cross examining the witness on the fresh pink sheets, pointed out the polling stations with triplicate and quadruplicates serial numbers.

Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for the NDC also sought a leave from the court to do three minutes of re-examination of the witness.

Mr Tsikata then asked the witness if a particular polling had been divided into two (A and B) by the EC, which the witness confirmed.

Justice Atuguba however said the question by Mr Tsikata has been settled by the EC already.

Mr Tsikata however maintained that, that particular polling station has been disputed by the petitioners.

Justice Atuguba intervenes again saying the dispute is not important and that the respondent can raise issues in their addresses to the courts.

Mr Tony Lithur, Counsel for President John Mahama said he would not re-examine the witness.

GNA

No comments

Afari Gyan Hot...As Addison Discredits Him On Special Voting Claims

Details

Category: Elections & Governance

Created on Monday, 15 July 2013 00:00

Hits: 3309

Afari Gyan Hot...As Addison Discredits Him On Special Voting Claims

{sidebar id=10 align=right}Lead Counsel for the petitioners in the ongoing Presidential Election petition on Monday confronted and in the process suggested that Dr. Afari Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission had not been truthful to the court on claims he made on Thursday that the occurrence of duplicate polling station codes was because some of the polling stations were used for special voting.

It would be recalled that last Thursday Counsel Philip Addison produced a list of polling station pink sheets which showed that the same polling station codes had been used for different polling station results.

In cross examining Dr. Afari Gyan on them, the Electoral Commission boss informed the court, on almost every single pair, that it was because one of the pair of pink sheets was a record of the results for the special voting as the polling stations had also been used for special voting though he could not point out to the court which specific pink sheets were those for special voting.

Though Counsel Philip Addison suggested that the explanation provided by Dr. Afari Gyan could not stand as some of the polling stations had different names and that special voting did not require the use of pink sheets, Dr. Afari Gyan stood his grounds that the phenomenon of duplicate polling station codes occurred as a result of special voting.

On continuation of his cross examination of the Chairman of the Electoral Commission on Monday however, Philip Addison referred Dr. Afari Gyan to the list of the duplicate polling station codes and the answers Dr. Afari Gyan had given last Thursday.

Counsel Addison sought to know if Dr. Afari Gyan had crosschecked the information he had given the court on Thursday and if he could now specify which particular polling stations were those used for special voting. Dr. Afari Gyan indicated that he hadn’t checked but agreed that certainly special voting did occur in the polling stations listed.

At this juncture, Counsel Philip Addison informed the witness that the petitioners had done their checks and began going through the list and confronting Dr. Afari Gyan on the claims he had made to the court.

Counsel Addison informed Dr. Afari Gyan that the polling stations indicated on numbers 5 and 6 of the list, D/A Primary Atintan and D/A Primary School with the same polling station code – B153103 were in remote villages in the Assin North and that no special voting occurred in any of the two polling stations. He further indicated that the special voting in the Assin North constituency was held at the Methodist Primary School Assin Bereku.

Dr. Afari Gyan, however, could not stand by his position and noted that the information provided by Counsel Addison could be the case but that he had not said that all the polling stations had been used for special voting.

Below is a transcript of the questions and answers of Counsel Addison and Dr. Afari Gyan last Thursday (11th July) and that of Monday (15th July)

Last Thursday Questions and Answers

Mr Addison: Let’s go on to the next one, number 5 and 6.

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords. Number 5, the polling station code is B153103, the polling station name is D/A Primary Atintan and the exhibit number is MBV 11. Number 6 the polling station code is the same and the polling station name is D\A Primary School Ghana Camp and the exhibit number is MBV 10.

Mr Addison: Now these two have the same polling station code. Is it the same polling station?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Once again it’s the same situation one for special voting and the other for the main voting.

Mr Addison: Are the polling station names the same?

Dr Afari-Gyan: No.

Mr Addison: So we are looking at two different polling stations having the same polling station code.

Dr Afari-Gyan: My Lords. We are looking at a situation where in the same area, the same polling station code was used for the early voting (special voting) and normal voting took place on the election day.

Monday Questions and Answers on the same Pink Sheets

Addison:– Now, if you look on the list number 5 and 6 are D/A Primary Atintan and D/A Primary School Ghana Camp.

Afari Gyan: – yeah, 5 and 6

Addison: – Now these two polling stations are in villages in the Assin North constituency. Am I right?

Afari Gyan: – my lords I didn’t get the question

Addison: – the question is that these polling stations, 5 and 6 are in polling stations in the Assin North constituency

Afari Gyan: – well I can tell immediately that they are in one region but cannot tell you exactly where they are located in that region

Addison: – furthermore they are in villages which do not even have police stations

Afari Gyan:- my lords I wouldn’t know that

Addison: - I am suggesting to you that special voting in this constituency took place at Methodist Primary, Assin Breku

Afari Gyan: – my lords I have not said that all the polling stations on this list were used for special voting

Addison: – well that is why we are going through. Now what is your answer to that, I am suggesting to you that the special voting for this particular constituency took place at the Methodist Primary Assin Breku

Afari Gyan: – My Lords it could well have been

Counsel Addison moved on to numbers 13 and 14 on the list. These, as had been stated by Dr. Afari Gyan on Thursday, refer to MINING DAWN ICT CENTRE MPATABA and MPATABA COMMUNITY CENTRE all with the same polling station code A012702.

Lawyer Addison informed Dr. Afari Gyan that these two polling stations are in Mpataba, a community in the Jomoro Constituency and that no special voting took place in the two polling stations. He further stated that the special voting for the Jomoro constituency took place at Half Assini and specifically at the Half Assini District Assembly.

Dr. Afari Gyan, however, again shifted from his answers last Thursday and said that all though the information provided by Counsel Philip Addison could be true, he had never said that the polling stations were used for special voting.

Counsel Philip Addison moving on to numbers 15 and 16 on the list which referred to Canteen Savelugu and D/A Primary School Kpalan all with the polling station code H180403 stated that the two polling stations were in the Savelugu Constituency in the Northern Region and that no special voting was held in any of the two polling stations. He further stated that the special voting for the savelugu constituency was held at the Savelugu Police Station.

Again, Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan stated that all he could confirm was that the polling stations were in the Northern Region and that the information provided by Counsel for the petitioners “may well have been” but shifted from his position again on Thursday, this time saying that he had not said that the polling station was used for special voting.

Below is a transcript of the questions and answers of Counsel Addison and Dr. Afari Gyan on Thursday and that of Monday on Numbers 15 and 16 of the list

Last Thursday (11th July) Questions and Answers

Dr Afari-Gyan: Number 15, the polling station code is H180403 and the name is Canteen Savalugu, the exhibit number MBV000002, 16 has the same polling station code H180403 and the polling station name is D/A Primary School Kpalan and the exhibit number is MBV000003.

Mr Addison: Here again the polling station names are different but they share the same polling station code, is that not the case?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes, it’s a similar situation where one was used as the Special voting centre and the other was a normal polling station

Mr Addison: Dr. Afari Gyan you are misleading the court, you have given the names of two different polling stations they are not the same. You have just told the court that one is Canteen, Savelugu and the other is Kpalan, clearly they are not the same,

Afari Gyan: yes I agree the names are not the same but there is a situation where one was used as a special voting centre.

Addison: I thought that all along you have been saying that if it is special voting, it will be the same polling station, now we have a situation which there are two different polling stations sharing the same polling station code. It is there on the face of the pink sheet.

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes, they are different names.

Monday Questions (15th July) and Answers on the same Pink Sheets

Mr Addison: – Now, can you tell us the polling stations on numbers 15 and 16 of the list

Dr Afari Gyan: – 15 is Canteen, Savelugu and 16 is D/A Primary School Kpalan

Mr Addison: – now these two polling stations are in the Savelugu constituency

Dr Afari Gyan: – they are all in the northern region

Mr Addison: – And no special voting took place in either polling station

Dr Afari Gyan: – my lords once again I did not say that special voting took place in all polling stations on this list. I said in some cases they are A and B

Mr Addison: – Now am further suggesting to you that in Savelugu, special voting took place at the Savelugu Police Station.

Dr Afari Gyan: – My Lords it may well have been

Counsel Addison also pointed to numbers 17 and 18 on the list referring to ADDA PRIMARY SCHOOL ‘A’ and BALOBIA JHS ‘B’ all bearing the same polling station code J031203. He informed the court that the two polling stations were all in the Navrongo Central Constituency in the Upper East Region and that no special voting had taken place in any of the two polling stations. He further stated that the special voting in the Navrongo Central constituency took place at the Navrongo District Police station.

Dr. Afari Gyan again responded by saying that all he could confirm was that the polling stations were in the Upper East Region and that the information provided by the petitioners could be true but said that he had not stated that all special voting took place at the stated polling stations.

Counsel Addison proceeded to numbers 19 and 20 on the list, Bulbog and Bulbog Market B polling stations respectively with the same polling station code J072005. He stated that the polling stations were in the Duusi community in the Talensi Constituency of the Upper East region and that no special voting occurred in the two polling stations. He further informed the court that the special voting for the Talensi constituency was held at the Talensi Community Centre.

Dr. Afari Gyan stated that all he could confirm was that they were in the Upper East Region and that the information provided by the petitioners could be true but said he had not said that the polling stations were used for special voting.

Below is a transcript of the questions and answers of Counsel Addison and Dr. Afari Gyan on Thursday and that of Monday on Numbers 19 and 20 of the list

Last Thursday (11th July) Questions and Answers

Mr Addison: Let’s go on to the next one.

Dr Afari-Gyan: 19, the polling station code is J072005 and the polling station name is given as Bulbog and the exhibit number is MBV 000010. Number 20, you have the same polling station code but the polling station name is Bulbog market B and the exhibit number MBV 000011.

Mr Addison: These are also two polling stations sharing the same polling station codes?

Dr Afari-Gyan: Yes. But used for the same purposes as I have mentioned before

Monday (15th July) Questions and Answers on the same Pink Sheets

Mr Addison: – Now let’s look at 19 and 20

Dr Afari Gyan: – 19 is bulbog and 20 is bulbog market B

Mr Addison: – Now these two polling stations are in Duusi, a village in the Talensi Constituency

Dr Afari Gyan: – My Lords they are in the Upper East Region

Mr Addison: –And no special voting took place in either polling station

Dr Afari Gyan: – My lords I have not said so

Mr Addison: – Special voting in the Talensi constituency took place at the Talensi Community Centre

Dr Afari Gyan: – My Lords it may well have been

Again, on numbers 21 and 22 of the list which refer to NURUL ISLAM PRIMARY B and ANINGAZANGA JHS with the same polling station code J050702B, Counsel Addison stated that these were in the Bolgantanga central constituency and that no special voting occurred in the two places. He further stated that the special voting in the Bolga central constituency was held at the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs.

To these two pairs, Dr. Afari Gyan stated that all he could confirm was that they were in the Upper East Region and that the information provided by the petitioners could be true but said he had not said that the polling stations were used for special voting.

Dr. Afari Gyan had earlier in his examination in chief and cross examination said that all polling stations are supposed to have unique polling station codes and no two polling stations should share the same code as the polling station code is the best identifier of a polling station.

The lead counsel for the petitioners in ending his line of questioning on the subject asked Dr. Afari Gyan if all the pink sheets showing different results and sometimes different names but with the same polling station code formed part of his declaration of John Mahama as winner of the elections. Dr. Afari Gyan confessed that yes the all those results were added to his final declaration.

Source: Communications Directorate, NPP/Ghana

No comments