AMICUS LAWYER KICKED OUT

Benoni Tonny Amekudzi

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

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.

Ruling

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 1^st and 3^rd 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.

Flashback

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.