FIREWORKS AT AFOKO, NPP CASE

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Thursday, June 16, 2016

There were fireworks at the Human Rights Court in Accra yesterday when the case in which Paul Afoko is challenging his suspension by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) as National Chairman was called for hearing.

Matters came to a head when NPP lawyer, Godfred Yeboah Dame, complained about the sitting position of colleague lawyer, Martin Kpebu, whom the former was cross-examining as a witness for Mr Afoko.

At the Human Rights Court Two, the sitting arrangement has been done such that the witness sits right at the bar (where the lawyers sit to argue out their cases) next to his lawyer, Osafo Buaben, instead of being in the witness box as pertains in other courtrooms.

Deep into the second day of the cross-examination, Mr Dame told the presiding judge, Justice Anthony Yeboah, that he had observed that Mr Afoko’s lawyer (Osafo Buaben) had been ‘whispering’ answers to the witness (Mr Kpebu).

He said he had made the observation on previous adjourned dates and added that he did not want to ‘court unnecessary controversy’ so he refrained from raising it in open court. He said he was only drawing the court’s attention to the situation in order to improve the adjudication of the matter.

Just as Mr Osafo Buaben was about to respond to Mr Dame’s allegation, the judge responded, “This has always been the sitting arrangement,” adding, “It is going to continue that way. It is not going to change.”

The judge said a gadget in the witness box had been faulty and that was the reason he allowed witnesses to sit at the bar to testify.

“Why don’t you petition so that you have the matter taken away from me? I have no interest in this case and I will be glad if it is taken away from me,” the judge charged.

He said that “whoever loses this case will definitely go on appeal” and added that he was handling the case “to the best of my ability.” But Mr Dame replied that he was not expressing unhappiness or reservations about his conduct of the matter, but was only seeking to ‘improve the proceedings.’

The second clash was between the NPP lawyer and the witness when he (Mr Kpebu) insisted on answering particular questions relying on exhibits which were not part of the agreed exhibits tendered for trial.

The NPP lawyer insisted that Exhibit D1 had been expunged from the records at a pre-trial agreement and that Mr Kpebu could therefore not make reference to it. After a back-and-forth argument, the court restricted the witness to only the exhibits set for trial as agreed.

Give And Take

Counsel (Mr Dame): After your preliminary legal objection, the Disciplinary Committee indicated to you that it was ready to proceed with the taking of evidence from the petitioners.

Witness (Mr Kpebu): That’s not true; this is totally false. If the committee had given us their ruling the plaintiff (Mr Afoko) would have been entitled to appeal even on those rulings. That was an easy fight for me so there was no way I would have run away from such an easy fight.

Counsel: Indeed, at that point you ran away from the proceedings by declining to take further part in those proceedings.

Witness: There is no way I would have run away from such an easy fight. By the constitution of the 1^st defendant (NPP), the rulings would have constituted a decision of the committee for which the plaintiff has a right to appeal. As such, the committee itself would not even immediately have proceeded to hearing of the substantive matter without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to appeal.

Counsel: Show me where in the NPP constitution says that the Disciplinary Committee cannot proceed to hear a substantive matter after dismissing your preliminary objection, unless you exercise your right to appeal.

Witness: The NPP constitution is subject to the laws of Ghana and Article 23 of the Constitution requires administrative bodies to be fair, among others, in coming to the decisions concerning the rights of others.

He said that since Mr Afoko was the chairman, the NPP should have been cautious in proceeding with his case by giving him the opportunity to decide what he wanted to do with the rulings in the preliminary legal objections, saying, “By the constitution of the NPP, it gives plaintiff the right to appeal and Article 4 (6) (C). The NPP constitution can’t take away a right to interlocutory appeal.”

Mr Kpebu claimed that Alhaji Rahman did not take part in the Disciplinary Committee’s proceedings of October 21, 2015 but admitted that he (Alhaji) was in the room but he (Alhaji) sat in the ‘periphery.’

He also claimed that the two petitioners - Alhaji Aminu and Alhaji Yiremeah - did not attend the proceedings as put to him by the NPP counsel, although he admitted that he met and interacted with them on the corridor to the meeting room.

Afoko’s Suit

Mr Afoko has sued the NPP and its Acting National Chairman, Freddie Blay, after he was suspended indefinitely in October last year by the party.

The party’s Disciplinary Committee (DC) had recommended his suspension from the NPP after a petition by two members of the party but Mr Afoko wants the court to order his re-instatement as the National Chairman because he alleges that the party’s action was unconstitutional.

Mr Afoko, among other things, is contesting the issue of whether Gifty Eugenia Kusi, MP for Tarkwa Nsuaem, was validly appointed to the National Disciplinary Committee which recommended his suspension to the National Executive Council (NEC).

A similar case instituted by the suspended 2^nd vice chairman, Sammy Crabbe, was thrown out for lack of merit.

Sitting continues today.