The political scene - Court to decide on PNC case

June 8, 2011 (Front Page)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court will, on June 24, 2011, decide whether or not to cite the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others for contempt of court.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — 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.
On January 6, 2011, the district 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.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
The other respondents, who are all executives of the PNC, are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Mornah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
The respondents had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court, but on May 12, 2011 it dismissed the application and fixed yesterday for hearing the contempt application.
Moving the motion for contempt, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said apart from Dr Mahama and Mr Mornah, the other respondents had not opposed the application for contempt.
He said the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference, thereby mocking the said court order.
According to counsel, the action of the respondents amounted to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard for the authority and prestige of the court and had, therefore, brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Mr Chambers argued that the court’s order was directed at all party members and for that reason the High Court should punish the respondents as a lesson to others.
Opposing the application, counsel for the respondents, Mr James Agalga, described the applicants’ motion as vexatious and without basis in law.
According to counsel, the lower court’s order was directed at the applicants who had earlier broken into the party office, vandalised party property, as well as made away with party property.
He further stated that the lower court’s order was lacking in terms of clarity and was vague where his clients were concerned but precise and clear where Dr Tobiga and the other applicants were concerned.
Mr Agalga, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the contempt application with punitive costs.