Tue. May 18th, 2021

The Supreme Court case is not about grammatical expressions – Oppong Nkrumah jabs Tsatsu

2 min read

Spokesperson for the second Respondent in the 2020 Presidential Election Petition hearing, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has said lawyers for the president and Electoral Commission Chair do not have interest in showing their English prowess but argue out their case out according to the law.

According to Mr Oppong Nkrumah, unlike the lawyer for the Petitioner who spends hours arguing his case out, the lead counsels for Nana Akufo-Addo and Jean Mensa go straight to the point backing their arguments with law.

The Information Minister-designate was answering to a question posed to him by the media as to what accounts for the long argument the counsel for the Petitoner usually presents compared to the crisp submissions by counsels for the respondents.

In his response, Oppong Nkrumah answered that “As a matter of fact, you’d notice that the counsel for the petitioner sometimes has about an hour…in fact today you’d notice from nine thirty something to over ten thirty thereabout he was on his feet making arguments and counsels for first respondent and second respondent are very crisp in their responses. It is because this is a court if law not a court of public opinion.”

“When you make an application before the court, you must satisfy what the law requires and back it with authorities that are relevant or the legal implications that are relevant

“…what does the law say and that’s what we are interested in arguing…We don’t need a lot of grammar to make our case and that is why you’d notice that we are not spending too much time speaking English but we are speaking law.”

Meanwhile, an application by lawyers for former president John Dramani Mahama, to inspect documents of the first respondent has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice Anin Yeboah who read the ruling on behalf of the justices said “the proceedings so far show that the petitioner has copies of the documents which are the subject of this application. We are of the view that no proper case has been before us to warrant the exercise of our discretion in favour of the applicant.

“Order 29 of CI 47 which is the basis of this application should not be read in isolation, It should be read in conjunction with Rule 11 of the said Order.”

Also, another application to produce an additional witness for the petitioner, however, is pending following an admission by petitioner’s lawyer that the potential witness is indisposed with health complications.

Lead lawyers for the parties involved retired to the chambers to deliberate since the illness could not be publicly disclosed.

However, after a 20-minute in-camera discussion, the Chief Justice, Kwasi Anin-Yeboah adjourned the hearing to Friday, February 5, 2021, without speaking on what was dialogued behind closed doors.

0Shares

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *