Petitioners on their way out after the court proceedings
www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Lead counsel for the National Democratic
Congress (NDC) Tsatsu Tsikata, in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition, received
a sharp reprimand from the Supreme Court Justices for failing
to file his written address on time.
Mr. Tsikata, one of the most experienced counsel in the case, also tried to belittle the petitioners' address when he himself was clearly out of time in filing the NDC's address as ordered by the court and
Justice William Atuguba, presiding over the nine-member panel, had to order him to
withdraw his remark.
Justice
Atuguba: I was going
to remark that the pinch at the end of your reply to Addison’s objection was in
bad taste. No you can’t do that. Please withdraw that, we can’t accept that.
Mr.
Tsikata: Yes my Lords I withdraw that.
The NDC escaped within a whisker of being
disallowed from filing their legal address at the close of evidence after it
failed to meet the July 30, 2013 deadline set by the court for all the parties to
file simultaneously.
Interestingly, the petitioners, 1st
respondent (President John Dramani Mahama) and the 2nd respondent
(Electoral Commission) had all obeyed the court’s order and filed accordingly
but the NDC did not.
Tsatsu Tsikata with NDC junior lawyers
It was when Philip Addison, lead counsel for the
petitioners drew the court’s attention to the fact that the NDC was
disrespecting the orders given that Mr. Tsikata who had already informed the
court that they had just filed their process, tried to demean what the
petitioners had done.
Mr
Addison: My Lords, court orders are meant to be obeyed.
When the third respondent realized they could not meet the deadline given by
the court, the proper thing to do was to bring a formal application before the
deadline because they must have been aware that they could not meet the
deadline. The order of the court was that all parties were to file
simultaneously, they delayed filing and they have been severed with our address
obviously spending the whole night going through our address. Looking into
their eyes, they have had no sleep at all.
Mr. Tony Lithur representing President Mahama then
tried to rebut Mr. Addison’s comment saying “I didn’t think counsel was getting
this desperate…that is a very desperate suggestion to be honest with you.”
Communist
Inferior Tactics
Ignoring the 1st respondent’s counsel, Mr.
Addison persisted that “Now having taken ideas and inspirations from what has
been done by the petitioners, they come this morning meekly to seek leave
orally. My Lords this is what is called Communist Inferior Tactics.”
Prof Ken Attafuah & Gloria Akufo
He added that “I thought that with the breakdown
of communism, we would have seen the end of these kinds of tactics but well
here we are today, they have come here asking for leave orally after the event.
We leave that entirely in your hands my Lords.”
Tsatsu’s
Responsibility
Mr. Tsikata was on his feet again saying “I
respectfully indicate that I had a very long sleep last night and I may say
respectfully that I have not up till now seen a copy of theirs.
Now I
understand and I have to take responsibility for the lateness in our service.”
He said “we did have our address completed…we also
had appendices that were completed. We did not think that it was appropriate
for your Lordships that we should have loose documents filed in that manner and
therefore we had to face the mechanical challenge which I personally had not
anticipated the length of time that it
will take for the mechanical process binding the appendices with the addresses
itself.”
Subtle
Insult
He then added that “in the normal practices of the
court, this is not something about which I even expected that my learned
colleague will be raising an objection to because in all fairness we have not in any way sought to take
advantage by this lateness in filing and even though it was meant as a joke,
the suggestions that we have looked at their written submissions and taken some
inspiration is actually quiet offensive
to me because I do not respectfully think that there is any inspiration
to be taken from the conduct of my learned friend in relation to this case and I
will just respectfully ask that your Lordships grant leave in respect of this
lateness in the filing.”
Atuguba’s
Reprimand
Justice Atuguba then stepped in saying “I was
going to remark that the pinch at the end of your reply to Addison’s objection
was in bad taste…No you can’t do that…Please withdraw that, we can’t accept
that” before Mr. Tsikata readily withdrew his comment.
Prof Frimpong Boateng & Tony Lithur
‘Intangible
Response’
Justice Rose Owusu
said she did not find Mr. Tsikata’s response ‘tangible’ because counsel was the
same person who stated in court that he was writing his address during the
evidence stage and could not have turned around to say that he could not file
it on time.
She then enquired from Mr. Tsikata if binding of
the document should have taken you three days but counsel said “I did not say
that it was completed on Friday.”
Justice Owusu:
No!
no! no! that is what I am saying and even if your addresses were completed by
Friday, the binding of the appendices shouldn’t have taken you 3days. You see
as Mr Addison said, orders of the court are meant to be obeyed.
Mr.
Tsikata: My Lords indeed orders of the court are meant to
be obeyed. I had also indicated to the court that I had started my address I
didn’t indicate when we finished our address.
Justice Owusu: That is
neither here or there. You have to work within the time given you by the court.
Sit Down!
As Justice Owusu continued to reproach the NDC lead
counsel, he tried to interrupt with further explanation but Justice Sophia Adinyira said “sit down and allow her to speak…you have made your point.”
Dotse’s Concern
Justice Jones V. Doste came in saying
“we don’t make orders and set timelines for nothing. Timelines and orders are
meant to be complied with and this is the highest court of the land and the
courts down the ladder must take inspiration from the way we conduct our affair
that is why some of us are not comfortable with the apparent delay by the third
respondents in this matter.
Dan Botwe & Asiedu-Nketiah
He also told Mr. Tsikata that “If they
knew as at Monday or yesterday that they could not comply, they could have come
for a formal application to that effect.”
Mr. Tsikata reiterated his point that he was
taking personal responsibility for the failure to file saying “I had taken the
view that we could file it as loose document but based on advise of other
colleagues, I had to change that position and that is why we initiated the
process yesterday of having them mechanically bound and I did underestimate the
length of time that it will take to get through that.”
Justice Sulley N. Gbadegbe asked Mr. Tsikata
whether he was asking the court to “wave the irregularities” and the NDC
counsel replied “that is correct my Lords, that is the effect of my
application.”
Ruling
on NDC Address
Justice Atuguba stated in the ruling that even
though the ruling party was clearly out of time in filing its address the court
was looking at “sheer magnitude and gravity of this case” as one of the few
reasons that made the court to accept them.
Some political party gurus
“We note that that act that caused the delay in
complying with the deadline of 30thJuly, 2013 for filing addresses
was for the benefit of this court, nonetheless counsel should have as a senior
counsel been guided by the reasonable forcibility test in preparing his loose
appendices ab initio.”
“It must
not likely be thought that court orders are any but solemn matters which ought
to be treated as such. However considering the close extent of the delay, the
third respondent’s address was filed at 9:50am this morning.”
“The fact that the sin of counsel should not be
visited on the head of the client and the convenience of this court which was
the mischief aimed at in defaulting to comply with the time limit set by this
court and the sheer magnitude and gravity of this case, we wave the default and
admit the address as filed on behalf of the third respondent,” the court ruled.
Fresh
Timelines
The court then adjourned the proceedings until
August 7, 2013 for all the parties “to be heard orally by way of clarifications
and necessary additions.”
Party gurus
The court also made it clear that in presenting
oral argument, each party is entitled to 30 minutes of talk time.
Three
New Patriotic party (NPP) stalwarts leading the case are the party’s 2012
presidential candidate, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo who are
challenging the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President in the December
7 & 8, 2012 presidential election by Electoral Commission (EC) Chairman,
Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, running mate to the NPP presidential candidate and
Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, NPP National Chairman.
The
respondents are President Mahama, the EC and the National Democratic Congress
(NDC).
No comments:
Post a Comment