Mahama, others challenge contempt case

May 4, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others have challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against them by three members of the party.
According to Dr Mahama and six other executive members of the PNC, the application for contempt brought against them was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the Fast Track High Court.
The other respondents are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
In the said case, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents, Dr Raymond Atuguba, prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because from the records before it, it was difficult to identify who the applicant for the contempt suit was.
According to counsel, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the accused persons in the criminal case before the district magistrate court but in this particular contempt suit only Dr Tobiga was cited as an applicant, arguing that for that reason it was improper for Dr Tobiga and the two others to jointly sign the affidavit in support of the application.
Counsel further argued that assuming without admitting that Dr Tobiga was the applicant in the contempt suit, there was no affidavit in support of his application.
Dr Atuguba, therefore, stressed that the affidavit in support of the contempt application against his clients which was signed by Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana, whom he described as ‘strangers’, was irregular and must, accordingly, be struck out.
He prayed the court not to award costs against Dr Tobiga and the others because steps were underway to resolve the differences between the parties in the case.
Counsel for Dr Tobiga, however, argued that his client acted on behalf of Jatoh and Gana, adding that the averments in the affidavit in support of the contempt suit attested to that.
On the issue of irregularity, counsel argued that it had been cured by Dr Tobiga signing on behalf of the others.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, will rule on the matter on May 12, 2011.