Summary of proceedings at Wenchi High Court on Techiman South election petition

The Supreme Court of Ghana
The Supreme Court of Ghana



1. Petitioner: Dr. Christopher Beyere Baasongti was personally in Court.


2.1st Respondent: was represented by Richard Asamoah, NPP Techiman South Constituency Secretary.

3. 2nd Respondent: was represented by Sampson Ofori Gyamfi, Municipal Electoral Officer.


1. Justin Pwavra Teriwajah Esq, for the Petitioner.

2. Atuah Asare Esq, held brief for Frank Davies as counsel for 1st Respondent.

3. Emmanuel Addai Esq, for the 2nd Respondent.


Counsel for the Petitioner continues his cross-examination of PW6.

1. Mr. Dwamena Frempah, are you aware that when a person deliberately makes a false statement under oath, that person is committing a crime known as perjury.

Answer: My Lord, yes I know.

2. Yet you had no qualms stating in paragraph 1 of your answer to the interrogatories that the results of Al-Khariya Upper Primary-Atomic Road- Techiman 1 Polling Station results were received by you on 8/12/2020 between 4:10 and 4:20pm when you clearly know that this was a falsehood under oath. Not so?

Answer: My Lord, what I said was/is truth. I have already informed the Court I received all Form 8A from the results from the Presiding Officer(P.O) and assembled all together before we finally did the collation. Yesterday, I made the Court aware that Al-Khariya Upper Primary-Atomic Road Techiman 1 (K011504), we did recount. After the recount, the P.O filled the Form 8A and added to what we had already collected from the Presiding Officers.

3. I put it to you that paragraph 13 of the 2nd Respondent answer to the Petitioner, you were addressing, its about outstanding results not received, and not outstanding results not collated.

Answer: My Lord, the lawyer has asked it more than 5 times. And I have explained the word “received”many times. Maybe, I will have to re-explain it to him.
“Received” in this case is a technical term used by the Electoral Commission. If we say, “received”, this is the explanation: I have assembled the results, have announced the results, collated the results. If I say, I have not received, it means, all these three things have not been done. If I assembled and not collated, I can classify it as ‘not received’.

4. I put it to you that, there is no such technical term in use by the 2nd Respondent. This is just a figment of your imagination.

Answer: My Lord, there is such word in use.

5. I put it to you that, even within the 2nd Respondent’s operations as well as the law governing its operations, the word “received” is not a term of art, since the 2nd Respondent itself has not employed that term of art in paragraph 13 of his answer to the Petitioner, which you will have to address.

Answer: My Lord, the answer I gave on 26/05/2022 and the answer I gave yesterday, 20/06/2022, and the answer I’m giving today,21/06/2022, I still stand by that answer.

6. I also put it to you that, when you stated the figures 227 and 330 in paragraph 4 of your answer to the interrogatories, it was again another falsehood deliberately created by you, so that you can say ‘To err is human’.

Answer: That’s not so, my Lord.

7. I put it to you that, your attempt to come out with the real results of Al-Khariya Upper Primary-Atomic Road Techiman 1, was an afterthought geared at carrying your tracks after you have forged entries in Form One C to give undeserving victory to the 1st Respondent.

Answer: My Lord, there’s no truth about that. We did our work at the EC fair and open. I have worked with the EC since 2012 as a Deputy R.O and R.O. We harbour no mindset of helping a candidate to either win or lose.

8. In 2012, you were not the substantive R.O. Not So?

Answer: My Lord, I was not. I have already said collation is a team. When we brought our Form One C, we explained to the Court that, some of the figures on the Form One C were written by my Deputies. Due to that, I have a role in the final results.

9. I put it to you that, being a Deputy, you could not have your way if the R.O was an upright man, unlike this time (2020) when you were in charge.

Answer: My Lord, I disagree. If I would manipulate, I would have manipulated in favour of the 2012 NPP Parliamentary Candidate, Mr. Prince Yaw Donyina, who is my my father’s sister’s son. He lost to the NDC candidate.

10. When you recounted the results of Al-Khariya Upper Primary-Atomic Road Techiman 1 Polling Station on the evening of 7/12/202, you will agree with me that, the Petitioner’s agents recorded audios and videos of the recount.

Answer: My Lord, I will not know. My mind was on the recounting.

11. I put it to you that, they recorded the recounting and your answer to the interrogatories is a mere attempt to cover your tracks in Form One C.

Answer: My Lord, I have already indicated to the Court, I’m unaware of any recording. I have also made the Court understand that, the results from Al-Khariya Upper Primary-Atomic Road Techiman 1 was transpositional error. And if that error is corrected, it will not change the results of the election. The winner will still win. If corrected, Martin K.A.M.K will get 49,784 and Dr. Chris B.B will get 49,565.

12. I put it to you that, there were no 10 Polling Stations outstanding as at 4:10pm on 8/12/2020.

Answer: My Lord, when I stood here on 26/05/2022, I made the Court aware that, around 11:30pm, we had collated 257 polling stations, while we were collating the rest of the 10 P.S. This was when the Petitioner and his team came in shouting that, he had won. I didn’t know what he had in mind. The commotion that they brought in delayed the collation. After the commotion subsided, we collated the other 10 Polling Stations. If the lawyer said, there were no 10 Polling Stations outstanding, it is not true.

13. You will agree with me that, it was after 3:00pm on 8/12/202, when the Regional Director of the EC came and asked you to do the collation polling station by polling station.

Answer: My Lord, that’s not correct.

14. Take a look at Form One D(summary sheet), attached Exhibit C of the Petitioner’s Witness statement, and you will agree with me that, you erased the name of the Constituency on the same Form One D. Yes/ No?

Answer: My Lord, we cancelled. We did not erase it.

15. You will agree with me that, when something is cancelled, it will still be possible for someone to read, but when you erased it, it cannot be read.

Answer: Yes, I agree, my Lord.

16. Can you read to this Court the original name of the Constituency that was printed on the form?


17. And what is the Serial Number (S.N) originally printed on Form One D?

Answer: That One, I can’t see.

18. Therefore, you agree with me that, the S.N was erased and not erased.

Answer: Yes, I agree, my Lord.

19. You also agree with me that the name of the District in Kintampo North in Form One D cannot be seen.

Answer: No, my Lord.

20. What is the name of the District?

Answer: Kintampo Municipal.

21. You will agree with me that, you were supposed to report the summary of the collated results on the Form One D assigned to the Techiman South Constituency, and not any other Constituency. Not So?

Answer: My Lord, I have already made this court understand that, the Petitioner and his supporters came and caused commotion at the time of completing the Collation on Form One C. When we were looking for Form One D, we could not find it, and realized it was missing. Therefore, I informed the Municipal Electoral Officer, and he also immediately informed the Regional Director, who in turn informed the Storekeeper, and she brought us a new one.


Before she brought it, she had cancelled the name, “District” on the Form One D. My Lord, this is not strange. It does happen in Elections. We do cancel and correct things.

If the lawyer said that, this is an anomaly, similar one happened elsewhere which I thought the lawyer could have raised. If you refer to EC Exhibit 5, S.N 224, polling station code *K012504 at Koforidua Sreso D/A Primary School and Nkrankrom D/A Primary School. Their Forms 8A swapped to each other. So we had to cancel the names and rewrite them.

There was Court break!

It resumed after 10 minutes!
22. I put it to you that, what you did in the Form One D is very much different from the Forms 8A that you are trying to hide under for your conduct.

Answer: My Lord, its not true. The Form One D, we cancelled and put the correct thing. The same with Form 8A, the Presiding Officer cancelled and wrote the correct polling station name on it. So, if the lawyer is saying it has a mistake, I stand to say that the same way the Form8A, the Presiding Officer cancelled and wrote the correct answer. Therefore, it is also not correct.

23. In the Form 8A that you are using to justify your conduct, there were good faith cancellation that led to the identifying features of Pinksheets unaltered and legible, while what you did was a clear attempt to hide your tracks.

Answer: My Lord, that is not correct. Every cancellation is a cancellation. If the lawyer is not actually preaching double standard, he would have brought the Polling Stations, there were similar anomalies. Because, his client won those polling stations, that is why he overlooked those polling stations.

If his client had won the entire parliamentary election, he would not have raised issues about the Form One D we used for declaration. I want the to know that, whatever we did was written within the remit of the law. We did not break the law.

24. How many of the Form One D’s were issued to you by the EC?

Answer: My Lord, they gave me one(1).

25. I put it to you that, you had more than Form One D’s, and that when you originally filled them together with the Form One C, you realized that the Petitioner had won, so you discarded it and filled new to enable your favorite candidate won. That’s why you are even hiding it in this Court.

Answer: My Lord, it’s not true. They gave me only.

26. I put it to you that, that is precisely why you try to cover the identifying features on Form One D to bury/cover your tracks.

Answer: My Lord, that’s not so.

27. You agree with me that, the Petitioner and his team led by the General Secretary of his party visited you in your office on the 11/12/202. Yes or No?

Answer: My Lord, it’s true they came to my office and ambushed me.

28. Mr.Dwamena, you will agree with me that, they came to ask of Form One C and D in relation to this Election. Not so?

Answer: My Lord, General Secretary Mosquito, Collins Dauda, Baba Jamal, Lawyer Kojogah Adawudu, Peter Otukunor, Col. Gbevelo Lartey, the P.C of Techiman South and some Executives of Techiman South and Regional executives of NDC came to my office and ambushed me, even without any official notification. When they came, I asked of their mission, so the General Secretary explained that, they came to know what exactly happened in the election. I also explained to them from 7/12/2020 in the evening, when the alleged supporters of the Petitioner beat up my Presiding Officer by name, James Adjei Addo at D/A JHS-1B, Ahansua.

They also asked for Form One C and Form One D.

29. And you will agree with me that, you did not give them copies of Form One D and Form One C. Yes/ No?

Answer: Yes my Lord, I did not give them a copy. The reason being that, the time we declared Martin K.A.M.K as the winner, I called them (Agents) to come and signed their copies. They declined because, they were angered.

When they left, I called one of the agents, Abdul- ‘Hakeem’ Bin Laden, and he said he wanted to consult his superiors before. My Lord, I never heard from him again, until the 10/12/2020 around 11:00am, when a bailiff from Sunyani High Court with an injunction on the declaration.

The next day 11/12/2020, General Secretary Mosquito and his team came. Then another bailiff came from Sunyani with Mandamus seeking recollation of results. The Regional Director therefore, advised me not to give them the said documents, since they have gone to Court.

Lawyer Emmanuel Addai also advised same.

30. You will agree with me that, per C.I 127, the Petitioner is entitled to those documents as a matter of right, whether he will go to court or not.

Answer: Yes my Lord, I called his agent, but he didn’t come.

31. You will agree with me that, on that day you told them you have given the documents (Form One D and D) to the Regional Director of the EC.

Answer: My Lord, I said so. When I finished my work on 8/12/2020,(parliamentary collation and declaration), I was trained to give everything to my supervisor, who is the Regional Director (R.D) of EC.
So, on 8/12/2020, I handed everything to the R.D of EC, and indicated to them, if they needed copies, they should go to the R.D of the EC.

32. I put it to you that, you are not doing good to this Court. If you had handed them to the Municipal Electoral Officer, he could have given it to the Petitioner.

Answer: My Lord, I have already told this court, our lawyer advised me not to give it so. Because, it is a legal advice, if they had gone to any of our office, they would not have had it.

33. Clearly, on your admission, you sent the Petitioner and his team on a wild goose chase for what the LAW requires you to do so!

Answer: No, my Lord. It was a suggestion I made to them.

34. I also put it to you that, you filled the Form One C in the absence of the agents, that’s why you were now calling them to come for it.

Answer: My Lord, all the agents were present before I filled them.

35. Did you tell Mr. Emmanuel Addai that, you had made wrong entries in Form One C before he advised you?

Answer: No, my Lord.

This was the last question for the day.

The Court therefore adjourned to reappear tomorrow Wednesday, 22nd June,2022 for continuation.

The time was exactly, 2:10.

Thank you.
Compiled by
Mujiib M. Ronaldo.
The ACCA Secretary


Leave a Reply