The Supreme Court has upheld an objection against an oral application by Tsatsu Tsikata for tighter controls in the auditing of pink sheets, after respondents raised an alarm that a head count of the number of boxes of pink sheets at the registry shows an increased in number.
Presiding judge William Atuguba in his ruling said “concerns raised by respondents can be put before the referee – KPMG”.
There were fierce and heated arguments between counsel for the first and third respondents on one side, and the counsel for the petitioners in court today over the allegation of extra boxes.
The court had to go on about an hour recess to consider the submissions proffered by the parties before it arrived at its ruling.
The ruling was explicit that the respondents can go back to the referee, which is KPMG, to formally lodge a complaint about their suspicion, which Mr Atuguba said would be incorporated into the report of KPMG.
The respondents would also be given the chance to cross-examine the report, he indicated.
Counsel for the third respondent, Tsatsu Tsikata, this morning complained to the Supreme Court of seven boxes which he claimed have been added to the “original” number of boxes counted by KPMG per orders of Justice Atuguba.
He said it bothered on “matters of criminality”.
However, lead counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison also accused respondents’ counsel of cooking up stories ostensibly to halt the auditing of pink sheet exhibits by KPMG.
But after recess, Atuguba said the happening was “incidental” and directed that the respondents report to the referee, KPMG.
