KWABENA AGYEPONG DUMPS AFOKO

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Thursday, June 16, 2016

It has been confirmed that suspended General Secretary of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Kwabena Agyei Agyepong will not be testifying for the beleaguered and suspended National Chairman, Paul Afoko, who has sued the party over his suspension in October last year.

Court documents showed that Mr. Agyepong was listed as a witness for Mr. Afoko but the plaintiff’s (Afoko’s) lawyer, Osafo Buaben, announced at the Human Rights Court, Accra, yesterday that the suspended General Secretary was unavailable and therefore the plaintiff was closing his case.

“You will realize that we have Mr. Kwabena Agyepong as part of the witnesses to be called by the plaintiff but he is unavailable so that will be the end of the plaintiff’s case,” Mr. Osafo Buaben told the court, presided over by Justice Anthony Yeboah.

The judge then said once Mr. Afoko was closing his case without bringing Kwabena Agyepong as witness, the statement given by him (Agyepong) would have to be expunged from the records; and that was done.

Reason

DAILY GUIDE learnt that Kwabena Agyepong might have chickened out at the last-minute after realizing that he took part in the decision to suspend the embattled chairman.

Therefore he would have possibly suffered embarrassment if he had mounted the witness box to give testimony.

This comes barely two weeks after an Accra High Court dismissed a suit by the second National Vice Chairman of the party, Sammy Crabbe, who was also challenging his suspension from the party.

Crabbe’s case was described as unmeritorious by the court.

As it stands, Mr. Afoko has closed his case after calling only one witness - Martin Kpebu - who happened to be his lawyer in the initial preparations when he (Afoko) was filing the suit against the party.

Mr. Kpebu had said during cross-examination on Monday that he is not a member of the NPP.

Final Cross-Examination

Concluding his cross-examination yesterday, Mr. Kpebu insisted that a disciplinary proceeding against any member of the party must be suspended in the case where the member appeals against the dismissal of a preliminary objection, but could not quote the specific provision in the party’s constitution.

Counsel (Godfred Yeboah Dame for NPP): You agree with me that your position that the Disciplinary Committee (DC) ought to have suspended proceedings after the dismissal of your preliminary objection in order for the plaintiff to appeal is not based on any specific provision of the NPP constitution.

Witness (Lawyer Kpebu):  No. This matter about giving the chairman an opportunity to appeal was in a context of a hypothetical situation: that is if there had been a ruling, then I would have expected that they would give him the opportunity to appeal before proceeding.

Counsel: Where in the appeal provision or the NPP constitution requires that if the plaintiff appealed, proceedings of the DC ought to have been suspended?

Witness: My answer is based on the whole tenor of the constitution. Reading the constitution as a whole and the ramifications of the assumption of jurisdiction, especially in the teeth of Article 4 (3) (d). Plaintiff is chairman of the 1^st defendant (NPP) and ipso facto a member of the National Executive Committee. In my humble opinion, this is a matter that must be presented to the National Council of the NPP and indeed there was precedent for it when Mr. Harona Esseku, one time chairman of the party, had a case against him dealt with by the National Council; which means that the committee would not assume jurisdiction in this case under Article 4 (3) (c).

Counsel: The provision that you just read, does it say that the DC proceedings against any member must be suspended in the case where the member appeals against the dismissal of a preliminary objection?

Witness: Yes, in its spirit.

Counsel: Did you ever apply for a copy of the record of proceedings from the DC?

Witness: No because the committee never sought to take down proceedings as is being done in this court.

Counsel: Is the DC a court of law?

Witness: No, but it is a quasi-judicial committee.

Counsel: You are aware that the DC does not take any decision binding on any member of the NPP.

Witness: Yes, it has profound powers. It is the body that makes findings of facts and makes recommendation based on which the NEC takes a decision.

Counsel: Those profound powers which you stressed are still not binding on any member of the party.

Witness: Yes, it follows from my previous answer.

Counsel: Did you also apply for a copy of the report of the DC?

Witness: No, especially where there had been no trial.

NPP Witness

Immediately Mr. Afoko’s lawyer said he had closed the plaintiff’s case, the judge asked Mr. Dame to bring in the NPP’s witness but counsel said he anticipated that the length of the testimony of Mr. Afoko’s next witness might not allow him (Mr. Dame) to present a witness.

He indicated to the court that Peter Mac Manu, Campaign Chairman of the NPP was expected to testify on behalf of the defendants but was not readily available.

The judge then reminded Mr. Dame that the court had prompted him to get his witness ready but since he (witness) was not in court, the judge was compelled to adjourn the proceedings until June 24, 2016.