Thursday, May 30, 2013


Tony Lithur with Tsatsu Tsikata & Chris Ackumey

Posted on:
By William Yaw Owusu 
Thursday May 30, 2013.

The beauty of yesterday’s Presidential Election Petition hearing was marred by a rude conduct displayed by Tony Lithur, lead counsel for President John Dramani Mahama who is the 1st respondent in the petition.

Displaying what could be termed as gross disrespect to the bench and in the full glare of the camera, he threw away a huge book containing the further and better particulars where the petitioners are claiming irregularities occurred during the December 2012 presidential election when the petitioners counsel wanted a witness to identify the document.

The Reprimand
His behaviour attracted a sharp criticism from a member of the nine-member panel Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie who said “This behaviour is very much uncalled for; it is clearly condemnable.”

The incident happened when the 3rd respondent (National Democratic Congress - NDC) represented by its General-Secretary Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah aka General Mosquito was winding up his cross-examination at a packed court.

Philip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioner conducting the cross-examination tried to pass on a document said to be a compilation of a list of Further and Better Particulars of pink sheets in contention and as practice demands the document has to go through the witness’ counsel first.

As the court interpreter presented the document to Mr. Lithur he looked at it for a few seconds before rudely pushing it away to the bewilderment of everybody in the courtroom.

The action attracted a protest from Mr. Addison and eventually a stern reprimand from the bench.

Counsel (Mr. Addison): This is the man who talks about respect in the Supreme Court with this kind of behaviour.

Mr. Lithur: When counsel seeks to bring that kind of document to court as Further and Better Particulars, I don’t know what he expects. The further and better particulars were given in volumes indicating which paragraph is referring to what, and it’s not just one volume …talking about respect, I beg your pardon!

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie: This behaviour is very much uncalled for; it is clearly condemnable. You know your behaviour is towards the court? You should know that. You have been telling your witness that anytime he answers a question, he should say; “Yes My Lord”…. You should know that whatever reaction you put up is clearly an affront to the bench.

In any case, you know you should interject when a document should not be tendered or should not be identified. The document to the person (the witness) is not meant for you, it was supposed to go to the witness. It is after the witness has identified the document that you can come in. But clearly, to throw the document the way you did was wrong.

Mr.  Lithur: Apologies my lords.

Justice Atuguba: I was going to say the same thing, but you see, jettisoning of cargo is not something to be done at the bar.
Philip Addison

Mosquito’s Tape Recording
Before ending his cross-examnation, Mr. Addison confronted General Mosquito with an interview he purportedly granted Accra based radio station on December 20, 2012, where counsel said he admitted most of the issues he had earlier denied while in the witness box.

He had stated that he did not hear the EC Chairman Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan declare that all polling stations where the votes in the ballot box exceeded the number of people verified to vote would be annulled and said that the Inter – Party Advisory Council never took any such decision.

He told the court that the EC could not have used press conferences to formulate new laws meant for the election and insisted that such a decision was ever taken at the IPAC.

Eventually when the tape was played in open court, the witness admitted that it was his voice and on the recording he was heard clearly stating that at the IPAC meeting, the parties had agreed that no person should be allowed to vote without verification.

“Let somebody come out to say that at this particular polling station there was voting without biometric verification and that those polling stations must be annulled. We agreed at IPAC level that there is no way voting should take place without biometric verification and these were all agreed before we went into the election. So it is surprising that any political party would not inform its agents or the electoral commission would not inform its officials and that would happen,” the court heard.

He even went as far as far as recommending the jailing of such officials for allowing the malpractice in their polling stations when he was confronted by the radio station with the issues.

“I think that those people must be in jail by now, if anything of that nature happened because I would be surprised. You remember that the last two weeks of the elections, the clarion call of all the parties and electoral commission in all the adverts and all was no verification, no vote,” the court heard.

He even said that in polling stations where irregularities affecting the conduct and outcome of the polls should were said to have occurred he called for the annulment of the result and the tallies taken out of the national data.

“If there is evidence that any such thing happened, you and I know that the electoral law provides that where irregularities are detected at particular polling station, the sanctions could be that the results of those particular polling stations would be cancelled and taking out of the national tally; so that is it,” the court heard further.

He also said on the tape that “If something happens that should not have happened according to the electoral law, the results if cancelled and taken out of the constituency tally would affect everybody equally because nobody would know who has cast his ballot there and in much the same way if you open the ballot box and you count and the number of votes inside the ballot box are found to be in excess of the number that actually voted, or if the votes there are in excess of the number of registered voters at the polling station, that is automatic cancellation.”

But in court yesterday, he disagreed with the petitioners counsel when he was confronted with the issues.
Ato Ahwoi with Kobby Acheampong

EC Takes Over
There was a bizarre legal spectacle in the courtroom when James Quarshie-Idun, lead counsel for the EC took his turn to cross-examine Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah.

Instead of cross-examination, he was clearly seen re-examining the witness compelling Mr. Addison to raise objection to the line of questioning.

In all the questions Mr. Quarshie-Idun asked the NDC General-Secretary, it was questions that Mr. Addison used in pinning down the witness in cross-examination and clearly wanted him (witness) to refine his answers.

As it went on for a while, Mr. Addison asked the court if the EC counsel was cross-examining or re-examining the witness.

He said he the EC counsel could cross-examine the witness but did not have to “cross-examine on my questions…he is clearly doing re-examination.”

Mr. Quarshie-Idun defended his action insisting that “we are entitled to test the credibility and confirmation of our case.”

Mr. Addison came back arguing that “his cross-examination has been turned into re-examination. He is trying to unravel some of the things that we have done and in all fairness he has to restrict himself to the witness examination-in-chief.”

The court in a unanimous decision sustained Mr. Addison’s objection and said the EC counsel was entitled to do cross-examination but not to re-examine the witness.

Put in a tight corner by the ruling, Mr. Quarshie-Idun asked Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah about provisional voters register and sought to know whether or not a CD Rom accompanied the document and when the witness answered the question, he said “that will be all for this witness.”

Mr. Tsikata then said “there will be no re-examination for the witness. That closes our case,” before Mr. Lithur also said “we have no re-examination,” for their witness.

Afari-Gyan in the Box
With Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah completing his cross-examination, the EC Chairman who was the Returning Officer of the Presidential Election is expected to be the next witness to mount the box.

However, unconfirmed reports reaching Daily Guide indicate that he has given Amadu Sulley, the EC’s Director of Finance and Administration the power of attorney to represent him in the box.

It was the same strategy adopted by President Mahama when he gave Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah the power of attorney to represent him in the box.

Since the proceedings started, Sulley Amadu is the person who has been deposing to majority of the affidavits filed in the process.

Centres for Special Voting
The first objection of the day was raised by Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for the NDC when he said the petitioners counsel was trying to ask Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah questions on a list that he (witness) did not generate.

He said the list which contained centres used during the special voting had not been identified or tendered and the witness was not in a position to answer any question but Mr. Addison countered that the witness was in the process of identifying the list and had been asked to go through.

After a back-and-forth argument the court unanimously sustained the objection raised by Mr. Tsikata after which Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah was asked by the petitioners counsel to explain the processes of special voting.

Collation Form
Another heated debate ensued when Mr. Addison tried to ask Mr. Asiedu-Nketiah to identify a form which turned out to be Akwapim South Collation Form.

Mr. Tsikata again raised objection saying that the witness was not in any position to identify a document of that nature since it was produced by the EC who are the custodians of electoral materials.

“The fact that he is familiar with collation forms does not mean he can answer questions on its content. There is no pleadings or exhibits that were attached by the petitioners in respect of this document,” he argued.

Mr. Addison replied that “the witness is giving evidence as to what goes into a collation form. We are seeking to contradict what he said in his earlier evidence in respect of the collation form. We are seeking to confront him on his own evidence.”

The court in a 5-4 majority with Justices Julius Ansah, Rose Owusu, Annin-Yeboah and Baffoe-Bonnie, dissenting, sustained the objection.

In almost all the questions put to him, the NDC General-Secretary preferred not to give direct answers but rather went on a long winding jolly ride, sometimes asking Mr. Addison to repeat his questions.

At a point he said “I am getting confused with your questions …could you repeat that for me?” generating a lot of laughter in the courtroom.

Unknown Polling stations
Counsel: Now, my Asiedu Nketia, you attached to your affidavit, exhibit JAN 5 that sought to explain the polling stations which the petitioners said were unknown, am I right?

Witness: Yes my lord, you are right.

Counsel: Do you have a copy with you?

Witness: Yes

Counsel: If you can turn to that (Waits as witness assess the exhibit). Now if you have a look at exhibit MBAB2, Ghana National Fire Service, code B023100. You provided it as a special voting polling station in cape coast.

Counsel: This polling station code is not in the list of special voting provided by the second respondent [the Electoral Commission] for the Central region, what do you have to say to that?

Witness: My lord it is in the list, otherwise, special voting would not take place there. My lord, you can see that there is a polling station code attached to it, even though counsel is insisting that special voting does not use codes

Counsel: Now the next one is MBAB3 Aminam. The polling station name is Aminam, the code given is F341100. Now you gave the name as Temporary Booth Aminamu and polling station code F341101?
Dr. Kwabena Adjei, Yaw Boateng Gyan and Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah

Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel: Now both the name and polling station code you have given is not on the pink sheet in contention?

Witness: My lord, but the physical location of the polling station is not in doubt.

Counsel: Can you answer my question? The name and code you have provided is not on the pink sheet in contention.

Witness:  My lord, the name and code are to identify the polling station and the physical location of the polling station is known, elections took place at that place…

Counsel: Can you answer my question?

Witness: My lord, the spelling may be different, but the physical location of the polling station is known.

Counsel: Can you please answer my question? The name and code of the polling station is not on the pink sheet, is it there or not?

Witness: My lord, the identity and the physical location of the polling station is known and it is not in doubt (Justice Baffoe-Bonnie intervenes)

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie: Answer the question; you can explain, but you have to answer the question.

Witness: Well my lord, the spelling is not what you see on the pink sheet, but the idea of the name and code is to identify a polling station, and the identity of that polling station is not in doubt.

Counsel: Now, I’m further suggesting to you that the name and code you have even provided is not in the list of polling stations provided by the second respondent…?

Witness: My lord, we know the polling station to have this name, and the code…

Counsel: Is it in the list or is not in the list?

Witness: My lord, I may need to check, but I know that this is the name of the polling station and that is the code as is assigned to it and the physical location is not in doubt.

Counsel: Let’s look at the next one: MBAB4 Din Ayo Royal Rising School with code C10166. Now you give the name as Royal Rising School, Gyenayo A with code C160504, again the name and the code you have provided is not on the pink sheet.

Witness: My lord, the spelling-as I have explained, goes by my initial explanation.

Counsel: (Repeats the question) answer that and explain.

Witness: My lord, it is not on the pink sheet as is given but the physical location has never been in doubt and my lords, I went the length to explain how the coding is done; that is to facilitate the identification of any polling station

Counsel: Mr. Asiedu Nketia, I am further suggesting to you that that name and polling station code you have given is even not in the list of polling stations provided by the EC.

Counsel: My lords it is in the list of polling stations provided by the EC 9Counsel went on to show exhibits of three more polling stations which do not appear on the official list of the EC)

The Figures
Counsel: I’m suggesting to you that the petitioners supplied information on 11,842 polling stations.

Witness: My lord in my affidavit, I spoke about pink sheets that was when I spoke about numbers, I didn’t talk about a list having been supplied or not supplied.

Counsel: My question is that information on 11,842 polling stations had been provided to you?

Witness: My lord, I disagree.

Counsel: Can you tell the court how many witness affidavits you filed in this court?

Witness: My lord, we filed 5,316 affidavits

Counsel: So you did not file 7,200?

Witness: No my lords, there was an attempt to file 7,200 but I understand we were beaten by time so we couldn’t get everything through.

Counsel: The petitioners have been served with 4,941

Witness: My lord, we filed 5,316…

Counsel: And of this 4,941affidavits, 1,278 were duplicates

Witness: I can’t confirm that

Counsel: I’m suggesting to you that 1,278 of these affidavits were in fact duplicates

Witness: My lord, I can’t confirm that.

Counsel: And a further 291 were not at all in the list of 11,842 polling stations.

Witness: My lord, again, I can’t confirm that.

Counsel: 291 did not relate to the polling stations in contention, now again, 171 are included in the list of 704 polling stations that we are no longer relying on…?

Witness: My lords, I can’t confirm that.
Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr. Owusu Afriyies Akot & Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia

Serial Numbers Vrs Deposit Slips
Counsel: (Showing the witness a pink sheet exhibit) Now, you see that on the top right hand corner is embossed certain numbers in red?

Witness: Yes my lords.

Counsel: Now, that is the serial number on the pink sheet and you would notice that it is the only number that is embossed on the form?

Witness: Yes my lord, it is the only number that is embossed on the form, I cannot call it serial or otherwise.

Counsel: Now, all other figures or numbers on that form is hand-written?
Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel: I’m suggesting to you that the purpose for that number being embossed on the pink sheet is for security reasons.

Witness: My lord, I can’t tell because in the training before the elections, we all were told about the security features and what our agents should look for, so the agents act as checks on the election officials and the officials also would act as checks on the EC. We did not discuss anything like this. My lord if you look into the Guide to election officials, there is a specimen form which was used in training, there is nothing like serial number on the specimen form, so I disagree with you when you suggest that this number there is for security reasons.

Counsel: Yesterday, you gave an analogy of a deposit slip; does a deposit slip have a serial number?

Witness: There could be numbers on the deposit slip, depending upon the printing; some printing houses would put the numbers to check the quantity….

Counsel: I’m suggesting to you that deposit slips don’t have serial numbers and the reason it is so is because it can be used interchangeably, am I right?

Witness: My lords, pink sheets don’t have serial numbers…

Counsel: Answer the question, (He repeats the question)

Witness: Yes my lord, deposit slips don’t have serial numbers, but pink sheets don’t have serial numbers either.

Special Voting
Counsel: Mr. Asiedu Nketia, do you know how many polling stations were involved in the special voting?

Witness: My lord, I can check, but I believe it’s below 40, I don’t remember the figure immediately.

Counsel: So special voting took place in places other than polling stations?

Witness: They all took place in polling stations, as far as I could remember.

Counsel: I’m suggesting to you that special voting took place in other places apart from polling stations.

Witness: My lord, I can remember that all special voting took place in polling stations, unless for special reasons, the polling station is relocated, the name, the code and everything would reflect the same polling station.

Counsel: I’m suggesting to you also that special voting does not have any code number.

Witness: My lord, I disagree with you. Special voting uses the same code number of the polling station where the voting takes place.

Counsel: Now, Special voting takes place at one place in the constituency, are you aware of that?

Witness: There are constituencies without special voting at all, but there are places where you could have more than one in a particular constituencies, depending on the number of people involved in the special voting.

Counsel: Now take a look at this document (Showing the witness a document) can you identify the document?

Witness: No my lord it is some list without title. I see District, Constituency, Constituency Centre and Number of voters, but I cannot identify what the constituencies represent.

Counsel: You have not come across the list of special voting centres…?
Witness: My lords, I haven’t dealt with it myself.

Counsel: So do you know the procedure for special voting?

Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel: And you haven’t dealt with this list?

Witness: Yes my lord

Counsel: You do not know the centres where special voting took place?

Witness: Well…if I’m confronted with the list of districts, constituencies centre, number of votes, I do not know what it is for…

Counsel: You are not answering my question; you do not know the centres where special voting took place?

Witness: My lords, I can know the centres where the special voting took place but if I’m confronted with the list…

Counsel: You are saying that you are not familiar even with this list and I am asking you a simple question; do you know the centres where special voting took place?

Witness: My lords, I haven’t dealt at the… (Stammers a bit) level of voting with this special voting, so am not able to tell immediately when I am confronted with a list of names and centres….I cannot be carrying the names and centres in my head wherever I go….

Counsel: Forget this document for the time being. I’m asking you as Asiedu-Nketia, do you know the centres where special voting took place?

Witness: I cannot remember all the names of the centres of special voting.

Counsel: Do you remember some at all?

Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel: So can you tell us?

Witness: I can remember Jauso Court Hall for instance, special voting took place there.

Counsel: Juaso Court Hall is in what constituency?

Witness: It is in Asante Akyem South constituency.

Counsel: If you go through the list, if it was one of the centres for special voting, it would be in the list… (Asked the witness to go through the list but Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the third responded interrupted, saying the list has not been identified and cannot be a subject of the witness’ testimony. But counsel replies to the objection). My lords, we are in the process of identifying the list and I’m assisting witness in refreshing his memory in that regard, so that he can identify the document. He cannot remember all the centres unless he refreshes his memory, and ones he does that, he would be in a position to identify the document. (However, the bench sustained the objection from the third respondents)

Justice Atuguba: The objection is sustained.

Counsel: As the court pleases. Now, did the second respondent supply the NDC with a list of centres for the special voting?

Witness: Yes my lord.
Some NPP gurus

Counsel: And the list that was supplied to the NDC was different from the list I gave you?

Witness: I can’t tell. That list was on a proper letterhead of the Electoral Commission, so I knew where it was coming from, but this [referring to the list that was rejected] I don’t know where it’s coming from.

Counsel: I’m suggesting to you that Juaso Court Hall which you named as one of the centres, was not one of the centres for special voting.

Witness: My lord, it was a centre for special voting

Counsel: Do you know the procedure for special voting at the centre?

Witness: Very well, I do my lord.

Counsel: Can you tell the court?

Witness: (He recounts his version of how the special voting is conducted, after which counsel hands him a collation form)

Counsel: Mr. Asiedu Nketia which constituency collation form is that?

Witness: Akuapem South.

Counsel: Are you familiar with this collation form?

Witness: Yes my lord.

Counsel: You are? We would like to tender it through you (Counsel for third respondent, Tsatsu Tsikata rose to object to the tendering. By a 5 to 4 majority ruling, the objection was sustained, so counsel takes on a different line of questioning). My Asiedu Nketia, I am suggesting to you that on the collation form, the result of the special voting is entered without a code?

Witness: My lords, as I have indicated earlier the results are entered with the code of the special voting centre.

Counsel: The results are with the code?

Witness: Yes my lord.

Sitting continues today.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013


Benoni Tonny Amekudzi

Posted on:
By William Yaw Owusu
Wednesday, May 29, 2013

The Supreme Court finally brought to an end an attempt by an eccentric lawyer Benoni Tonny Amekudzi to be part of the ongoing Presidential Election Petition as friend of the court.

Mr. Amekudzi who claims to be a staunch member of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) had filed a motion for review challenging  the court’s decision to dismiss a similar application he moved on March 5, 2013, by the nine-member panel chaired by Justice William Atuguba.

As a result, two judges were added to the nine Justices to review the application and they unanimously dismissed Mr. Amekudzi’s Amicus Curiae Brief (Friend of the court) yesterday.

Mr. Amekudzi, said to be a ‘returnee’ lawyer from America, was thrown out by the court on the basis that his application seeking to be friend of the court (Amicus Curiae) was not properly before it and the court again threw him out on similar and other grounds.

The motion
With ample gesticulation, Mr. Amekudzi moved his motion without even attaching his statement of case as required and virtually moved the court to its feet with some of his references.

Some of the judges and members of the audience could not help but laugh at certain points.

Once again in a loud voice, spiced with his exotic accent, he tried to draw the court’s attention to certain relevant provisions in the law made it impossible for a sitting President to be sued and added that the instant petition is ‘frivolous’.
Philip Addison for petitioners

“It was a gross error on the face of the law, a direct slant at the face of justice and twisting if not trying to break the arm of the 1992 Constitution,” he roared.

Mr. Amekudzi who uses accreditation designed for the ruling NDC officials appearing in court said that framers of the constitution did not contemplate that a sitting President whilst seeking re-election could be brought to court and accused the petitioners of abusing the constitution.

Judges Intervene
Justice Atuguba then reminded him that he needed to report ‘sacrosanctly’ in the constitution since it had been divided into articles. The Amicus lawyer then quoted Article 57 (4, 5 & 6) amid stamping of his feet in the courtroom and using some celebrated cases to back his motion.

Justice Jones Dotse then asked him to bring his pronunciation of some words including names to the local level so that everybody would understand what he was talking about before he added that “a sitting President should not be seen to be litigating his own citizens.”

Justice Annin-Yeboah asked counsel where his statement of case was but instead of giving a direct answer, Mr. Amekudzi said “the court erred” in throwing him out in the first instance and it was going to serve as ‘dangerous precedent’ if that decision was not reviewed.

The judge again asked him to look at the procedure carefully before Justice Dotse added that “my brother is only drawing your attention to Rule 56 (1) of the C.I.”

Justice Dotse then asked Tony Lithur, counsel for President Mahama who had a copy of the C.I. ready to lend to Mr. Amekudzi but  counsel continued to argue without the C.I. he was asked to refer to.
Tony Lithur for President Mahama

The Judge also also sympathized with Amekudzi for the ‘difficult’ situation he found himself as had lost his brother over the weekend in a motor accident.
Justice Annin-Yeboah however cut in to tell Mr. Amekudzi that “You cannot bring an application without a statement of case,” but counsel persisted.

The judge then asked counsel: “Are you properly before the court?” to which he said “yes, I am.”

Justice Sulley N. Gbadegbe then asked “where is your motion paper,” and as counsel started to read, another Justice, Vida Akoto-Bamfo cut in to say “that is the heading, look at the body.”

Without reading further, Mr. Amekudzi exploded “This is the highest court of the land and I want the court to do the proper thing.”

He said he could not find some books at the Supreme Court Library to cite authorities to back his case saying “even Bempong Buta’s book, there is only one copy,” drawing more laughter.

Justice Atuguba then said “it appears you have covered all notes to which Mr. Amekudzi said “I have but if it will not go against me again.”

Parties Input
Phillip Addison lead counsel for the petitioners said they were leaving the matter “entirely in the capable hands of the court,” while Mr. Lithur said Mr. Amekudzi did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstance to warrant grant of the review.

He said the court had already clear that the applicant had not properly invoked the court’s powers for the review before James Quarshie-Idun, counsel for the EC added that they were leaving it entirely in the hands of the court.

Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the NDC said President Mahama is ably represented and did not need any intermeddler at this stage.

The eleven-member panel held that even though procedures for a review application had not been strictly adhered to by the applicant the court was looking at the substance of the issue.

Justice Atuguba said the applicant had not submitted any grounds that would warrant a review of the court’s earlier ruling, saying “he needs locus standi to apply for a review which he lacks.”

He said Article 64 of the 1994 Constitution which the applicant quoted to support his case was ‘unique’ and added that there was special provisions for the challenge of the election of a President and nothing was moved by the applicant to change the court’s earlier position.
Tsatsu Tsikata for NDC

The application had been slated for yesterday when the 1st and 3rd respondents through NDC General-Secretary Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah mounted the witness’ box to open their defense but the court adjourned the process until Monday May 27 for it to be moved.

However, in view of Monday being a statutory public holiday, the court had to hear the motion yesterday.

The Dismissal
Consequently, the Supreme Court threw out the motion arguing that since a petition is filed before a winner in a presidential election is sworn in, he could be sued in an election petition.

 Reading the ruling, the Presiding Judge of the Panel, Justice William Atuguba said “We are of the opinion that the intervention cannot properly be termed an application to present an Amicus Curiae brief, it being in support of one party represented already by counsel…” He quoted Article 64 of the 1992 constitution and Constitutional Instrument 16 (CI. 16) relating to the application.

“As much as an election petition in any rate can be commenced before the person becomes President and being sworn into office, the application is therefore dismissed,” Justice Atuguba concluded.

Upon hearing the ruling, Mr. Amekudzi having burnt up his gusto, stood up and bowed before he left the front row to the back row of the court.

On Tuesday May 28 will have his day once more in the Supreme court in front of live television while Ghanaians wait to see if he will be second time lucky with his curiae brief application.

It is recalled that on March 5, 2013, a strange spectacle unfolded at the Supreme Court when Mr. Amekudzi sprang up with his initial application.
Lawyers on both side of the petition have barely finished introducing themselves when he sprang to the floor to lay a motion before the court.

Without going through the standard procedures, he launched himself at the bewildered panel and tried to move a motion to the effect that a sitting President cannot be sued or joined as a defendant or a respondent to a lawsuit or petition.

It was unclear how he sneaked himself into the front row where the case is being argued, as he is usually spotted sitting behind the NDC executives and having the same accreditation as the NDC members.
James Quarshie-Idun for Electoral Commission

When he sprang to his feet, lawyers from all sides of the divide looked at him in disbelief for such an audacious diversion of attention from the matter currently being argued in court.

He did so by circumventing the standard processes of filing for such motions in the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, the standard procedure is for such an application to be accompanied by an affidavit. Mr. Amekudzi had none.

The bewildered court audience shifted uneasily and murmured in amusement at the motion that Mr. Amekudzi was seeking to smuggle into the fray. The lawyer claim he was filing as Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) because his motion was in the supreme interest of the general public.