Election petition - No change in judgement date - Despite looming JUSAG strike

 August 26, 2013 (Lead Story)

 THE Judicial Service has given an assurance that it is making strenuous efforts with the government to resolve the looming strike by the Judicial Staff Association of Ghana (JUSAG) to pave way for the delivery of judgement on the presidential election petition before the Supreme Court.
According to the Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex B. Poku-Acheampong, “we are making serious efforts to resolve the issue before the judgement date”.
The Supreme Court is billed to deliver its judgement in the petition which is challenging the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong explained that the government had so far released some money to settle part of the allowances due the aggrieved staff.
He said the entire work of the Judicial Service was a national assignment and for that reason the service would not relent in its efforts at meeting the demands of Ghanaians.
“We hope and believe the problem will be resolved early this week before judgement is delivered,” Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong added.
Meanwhile, the leadership of JUSAG has dismissed criticisms that the group would hold the country to ransom if its members carried out their threat of strike two days before the Supreme Court gives it verdict on the petition.
“It is not because of the Supreme Court. It is just coincidence. As we speak, most of the courts are on recess. If we had not announced this in January, people would have been justified that we have an agenda,
 “Those saying that are entitled to their opinion, but they must know that our demands did not start today. We had started demanding these allowances since March and threatened the strike in April this year. It is not as if it came out of the blue,” the JUSAG Chairman, Mr Francis Brakwah, told the Daily Graphic.
He maintained that the association was not taking advantage of the Supreme Court judgement on August 29 to push for its demands.
The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning last Thursday released funds for the payment of allowances, including those for fuel, car and motorbike maintenance and overtime, to the members of the association, with their clothing allowance pending.
But Mr Brakwah maintained that the association would call off the intended strike only if the government paid JUSAG members their clothing allowance.
That, he said, was because “it is the most critical among all the allowances and affects all members of JUSAG, with the exception of judges and magistrates”.
“The other allowances affect just some categories. Not until the clothing allowance is paid, we’ll not call off the strike,” he said.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013, members of JUSAG served notice that they would embark on an industrial action on August 27 if all outstanding allowances due them were not paid by August 26.
In April this year, JUSAG had threatened to embark on strike if their allowances were not paid by April 4.

The Story of the Pink Sheets - Journey So Far

August 26, 2013 (Centre Spread)

IT has been a long torturous and sometimes exciting legal journey on the “corridors of pink sheets.” Followers of the landmark presidential election petition have for the past eight months been treated to pink sheet legal battles embedded with legal jargon, humour, occasional legal fights and intermittent advice and warnings from the Supreme Court panel for decorum.

Legal matters related to the petition are expected to officially come to a close on August 29, 2013 barring the decision of the losing party to apply for review.

The journey has been particularly exciting because Ghanaians from April 16, 2013 to August 14, 2013 were given the opportunity to follow proceedings of a landmark case challenging the highest office of the land, live on television and radio stations across the country.

Article 125 (1) of the 1992 Constitution states “justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution” while Article 125 (2) states, “citizens may exercise popular participation in the administration of justice through the institutions of public and customary tribunals and the jury and assessor systems.”

On the premise of this constitutional principle, viewers and listeners for the past eight months had ample opportunity to witness lawyers for parties in the petition making a case for and against the annulment of votes, the deposing of President John Dramani Mahama and the subsequent declaration of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo-Addo as President of the Republic of Ghana.

Internet websites, facebook, twitter and other social media platforms were not left out in the hearing. Supporters of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the opposition NPP gave and are still giving “their versions” of proceedings on social media and other platforms.

The stakes are so high both sides are challenging each other on social media, and are said to  have gone to the length of betting huge sums of money on the outcome of the petition.

There is an uneasy calm among Ghanaians, businessmen, businesswomen and investors on the possible violence after the delivery of judgement by the nine Supreme Court justices on August 29, 2013.

But the security agencies and leaders of the two contending parties have given numerous assurances that their supporters would not cause mayhem after the delivery of judgment.

With the enormous powers vested in them by the 1992 Constitution, Justices William Atuguba, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Constance Owusu, Jones Victor Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo will determine the fate of the presidential candidates of the NDC and the NPP in the December, 2012 presidential election.

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie precisely pointed out on July 2, 2013 when a member of the NDC Communication team, Mr Stephen Atubiga appeared before the court to answer contempt charges that, “there, will be a judgement, whichever way the axe falls.”

“You will live in a fool’s paradise to think we won’t give a decision. People like you cannot stop us from giving a decision,” Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie emphatically stated while looking in the direction of an apologetic Atubiga, who has since served a three-day jail term for contempt and is now serving as a peace ambassador.

Pink Sheets supremacy at election petition

At the heart of the election petition are pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results for the office of President and Parliament). They are so called because they are pink in colour.

 The petitioners say they studied 24,000 out of the 26,002 pink sheets used in declaring President Mahama as the winner of the polls and arrived at their analysis of gross and widespread irregularities of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets and some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers.

According to the petitioners, their investigation uncovered six main categories of constitutional/statutory violations, commissions, irregularities and malpractices, namely:  Over-voting, widespread instances of polling stations where there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets in clear violation of Article 49 (3) of the Constitution and Regulation 36 (2) of C. I.75, widespread instances of polling stations where voting took place without prior biometric verification in breach of Regulation 30 (2) of C. I. 75 as well as widespread instances where there were the same serial numbers on pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper and due procedure established by EC required that each polling station have a unique serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and the will of lawfully registered voters.

The Rules and Onus of Proof

The petitioners brought the petition under Article 64 of the 1992 Constitution; Section 5 of the Presidential Election Actr, 1992 (PNDCL 285); and Rule 68 and 68 A of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, C.I. 74.

Article 64(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides: “The validity of the election of the President may be challenged only by a citizen of Ghana, who may present a petition for the purpose to the Supreme Court within twenty-one days after the declaration of the results of the election in respect of which the petition is presented” while Article 64(2) says: “A declaration by the Supreme Court that the election of the President is not valid shall be without prejudice to anything done by the President before the declaration.’’

Part VIII of the Supreme Court Rules — Challenge Of Election of President, Rule 68 — provides: “A petition presented pursuant to Clause (I) of Article 64 of the Constitution shall state (a) the full name and address of the petitioner and of his counsel, if any, which shall be an address for service; (b) the grounds for challenging the validity of the election; (c) a statement of the facts relied on to be verified by affidavit, and of the law in support of the petition; (d) the number of witnesses to be called, if any; and by (e) such other matters as the court may determine.”

Since the petitioners have alleged irregularities in 10,119 polling stations, the burden of proof is on them to prove each of the alleged infraction.

At the close of the case, the petitioners are arguing that they have succeeded in producing a “mountain of evidence, sufficient to discharge the burden of proof” that the law placed on them and to obtain a decision in their favour but the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioners failed woefully to discharge their burden of proof.

Issues for determination

After 10 sittings to consider and resolve more than 21preliminary issues raised by parties in the case; the nine-member court has set out two issues for trial.

They are whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012.

It will also ascertain whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the results of the elections.

Controversy over pink sheets and KPMG audit

Matters surrounding the actual number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners were so sensitive and controversial, the court had to eventually order an audit to be conducted into the definite number of pink sheets filed at the Supreme Court registry in order to put the matter to rest.

While the petitioners insisted they filed 11,842 pink sheets, the respondents insisted the petitioners filed less than that.

International audit firm, KPMG was on May 9, 2013 accordingly directed to audit pink sheets and subsequently submitted its final report in five volumes on June 24, 2013.

Snippets of the Final Audit Report

The final report stated that the registrar’s copy of the pink sheets was 13,926 with 3,593 duplicates.

It also indicated that the count of Mr Justice Atuguba’s pink sheets revealed a total of 9,860 pink sheets while 871 of pink sheets in Mr Justice Atuguba’s were sets not included in the registrar’s set.

The Genesis

On December 7 and 8, 2012, Ghanaians exercised their right under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution by casting their ballots in the presidential and parliamentary elections.

Voting had to be suspended and continued on December 8, 2012 at 412 polling stations across the country due to the breakdown of newly introduced biometric machines.

The Declaration

With the powers conferred on him under Article 63 (9) of the 1992 Constitution, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on December 9, 2012 declared President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the presidential poll with 50.7 per cent of the valid votes cast, with the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, placing second with 47.7 per cent.

Prior to the declaration of the results, the NPP leadership had reportedly prevailed upon Dr Afari-Gyan to suspend the declaration because they had uncovered some discrepancies which could affect the final results of the presidential election.

After a marathon meeting with EC officials and members of the Peace Council, Dr Afari-Gyan declined to suspend the announcement of the results on the grounds that the party leadership had failed to prove why the declaration should be halted.

He, accordingly, advised the leadership of the NPP to sue the EC if it felt dissatisfied with the results he was billed to declare.

Reminding him of his words to the party leadership to sue, the presiding judge of the petition, Mr Justice William Atuguba, on July 17, 2013 said to Dr Afari-Gyan who had been discharged from the witness that, “I hope you’ve seen that ‘go to court, go to court’ is not easy.”

Threat to Sue and the Petition

Irked by the EC’s declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the presidential poll, three leading members of the NPP, namely, Nana Addo Danquah  Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, filed a petition at the Supreme Court Registry on December 28, 2012.

They initially alleged gross and widespread irregularities at 4,709 polling stations, but they later amended their petition to indicate irregularities  at 11,916, 11,842, 11,138, 11,115, 10,081 and finally settled on 10,119 polling stations.

In all, a total 3,931,339 votes are affected by the various irregularities in the 10,119 polling stations challenged by the petitioners. 

Reduction in votes and Rebuttal

According to Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Bawumia and the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, if the results of these polling stations are annulled, President Mahama’s votes would be reduced by 2,622,551 which will result in him securing 41.79 per cent of the new tally of valid votes.

They said Nana Akufo–Addo’s votes would also be reduced by 1,233,186 but that will still see him securing 56.85 per cent of the new tally of valid votes, much more than the needed 50 per cent plus one to be declared as winner of the Presidency.

But the respondents have argued that the petitioners have failed to meet their evidential burden of proving the alleged infractions and are accordingly praying the court to dismiss the petition and maintain the status quo.

Options for the court

The court will on August 29, 2013 decide whether or not to annul votes, affirm President Mahama or declare Nana Akufo-Addo president.

It will also determine whether or not to order for a re-run in the event it finds that the irregularities affected the outcome of the poll.

The Journey So Far

For the past eight months, lawyers for the petitioners have led evidence seeking to justify why votes in 10,119 polling stations should be annulled by the Supreme Court, but the respondents have also led evidence, which they say, point out inconsistencies in the case of the petitioners in their bid to maintain the status quo.

As expected in litigations, the lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison entered into occasional altercations with Messrs Tony Lithur, James Quashie-Idun and Tsatsu Tsikata, who are lawyers for President Mahama, the EC and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) respectively.

The judges have in the course of disagreements between the lawyers either ruled affably, arbitrated or displayed their authority with firm decisions.

Interestingly, the arbiters have also been caught in the crossfire on a few occasions, but those did not undermine proceedings in any way.

This article attempts to walk readers through events that transpired from December 7 and 8, 2013 being voting days, preliminary issues disposed of by the court, the filing of the necessary documents including affidavits from witnesses for the parties, the hearing of the petition, filing of addresses as well as other issues that cropped up during the hearing of the petition.

 DECEMBER 2012

December 7 and 8, 2012 – presidential and parliamentary elections held.

December 9, 2012 – Dr Afari-Gyan declared President Mahama winner of polls with 50.7 per cent with Nana Akufo-Addo 47.7 per cent.

Between December 8 and 27, 2012 – Both the NPP and NDC organised press conferences and counter press conferences. Both said they won the elections.

December 28, 2012 – Petition filed challenging results in 4,709 polling stations

December 31, 2012 – Petition amended due to typo errors

December 31, 2012 – NDC applies to join petition on grounds that it sought to protect the interest of President Mahama, who the party fielded for the presidential poll.

January 2013 Events

January 2, 2013 - President Mahama and EC enter appearance in the petition.  Mr Lithur entered appearance on behalf of President Mahama while Lynes-Quashie-Idun and Co entered appearance on behalf of the EC.

January 3, 2013 – Supreme Court Registry sets date for hearing of NDC’s joinder application.

January 5, 2013 - Nana Akufo-Addo opposes NDC’s application for joinder and says it was calculated to delay the trial.

January 10 – Hearing of joinder begins but petitioners object to the composition of the panel. Mr Victor Jones Dotse, also denied claims that he was a member of the NPP as was being alleged in some circles.

January 11, 2013 – Petitioners withdraw opposition to the panel.

January 16, 2013 – The court heard NDC’s application to join the petition as well as the petitioners’ opposition to it.

January 22, 2013 – The court in a 6-3 majority decision gave the NDC the nod to join the petition.

Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.

To be continued.

No change in judgement date despite looming JUSAG strike

August 26, 2013 (Lead Story)

inShare

Chief Justice Georgina WoodThe Judicial Service has given an
assurance that it is making strenuous efforts with the government to resolve the looming strike by the Judicial Staff Association of Ghana (JUSAG) to pave way for the delivery of judgement on the presidential election petition before the Supreme Court.
According to the Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex B. Poku-Acheampong, “we are making serious efforts to resolve the issue before the judgement date”.
The Supreme Court is billed to deliver its judgement in the petition which is challenging the declaration of President John Mahama as the winner of the 2012 Presidential election.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong explained that the government had so far released some money to settle part of the allowances due the aggrieved staff.
He said the entire work of the Judicial Service was a national assignment and for that reason the service would not relent in its efforts at meeting the demands of Ghanaians.
“We hope and believe the problem will be resolved early this week before judgement is delivered,” Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong added.
Meanwhile, the leadership of JUSAG has dismissed criticisms that the group would hold the country to ransom if its members carried out their threat of strike two days before the Supreme Court gives its verdict on the petition.
“It is not because of the Supreme Court. It is just coincidence. As we speak, most of the courts are on recess. If we had not announced this in January, people would have been justified that we have an agenda,

“Those saying that are entitled to their opinion, but they must know that our demands did not start today. We had started demanding these allowances since March and threatened the strike in April this year. It is not as if it came out of the blue,” the JUSAG Chairman, Mr Francis Brakwah, told the Daily Graphic.
He maintained that the association was not taking advantage of the Supreme Court judgement on August 29 to push for its demands.
The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning last Thursday released funds for the payment of allowances, including those for fuel, car and motorbike maintenance and overtime, to the members of the association, with their clothing allowance pending.
But Mr Brakwah maintained that the association would call off the intended strike only if the government paid JUSAG members their clothing allowance.
That, he said, was because “it is the most critical among all the allowances and affects all members of JUSAG, with the exception of judges and magistrates”.
“The other allowances affect just some categories. Not until the clothing allowance is paid, we’ll not call off the strike,” he said.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013, members of JUSAG served notice that they would embark on an industrial action on August 27 if all outstanding allowances due them were not paid by August 26.
In April this year, JUSAG had threatened to embark on strike if their allowances were not paid by April 4.
By Mabel Aku Baneseh & Seth J. Bokpe/Daily Graphic/Ghana

Election Petition: Judgment August 29

AUGUST 15, 2013 (Front Page)

From left: Tsatsu Tsikata (Counsel for third respondent); Philip Addison, Counsel for Petitioners; Quarshie Idun, Counsel for second respondent; Tony Lithur, Counsel for first respondent 











It has been eight months of a long drawn-out legal clash to justify the removal or retention of Mr John Dramani Mahama as the President of the Republic of Ghana.
After the Supreme Court had disposed of more than 20 interlocutory applications, gathered evidence for four months, as well as received 344-page written addresses from lawyers in the petition, it has finally fixed August 29, 2013 as the date for judgement.
On that day, by the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by the 1992 Constitution, it will decide whether or not to annul 3,931,339 votes as a result of the petitioners’ claims of gross and widespread irregularities recorded at 10,119 polling stations during the 2012 presidential poll.
Its decision will also be premised on whether or not to maintain that the declaration of Mahama as the winner of the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election was invalid.
Another decision to be considered by the court will be whether or not to declare Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as the validly elected President.
It is also expected to make consequential orders it deems fit in the petition.
Issues complained of by Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, are that some persons were allowed to vote without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers did not sign pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of result form for the office of President), there was over-voting and some pink sheets had duplicate serial numbers.
But the respondents, namely, President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), have denied the claims on the grounds that the petitioners have failed to prove the said infractions.
They also argue that the election was won by President Mahama on a clean slate and for that reason he should be maintained as President of Ghana.

Clarifications Sought and Given
The court fixed the date after the lawyers for the petitioners and the respondents had answered questions and given clarifications on issues of the actual number of polling stations affected by the request for annulment, over-voting, pink sheets with the same serial numbers, presiding officers not signing pink sheets and persons being allowed to vote without undergoing biometric verification.
Messrs Philip Addison, Tony Lithur, James Quashie-Idun and Tsatsu Tsikata took turns to answer questions from some of the panel members.

Issues for determination
The judgement will be given by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with  Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
Article 64 (2) of the 1992 Constitution states, “A declaration by the Supreme Court that the election of the President is not valid shall be without prejudice to anything done by the President before the declaration.”
Hence, the court has all-encompassing powers to declare the election valid or invalid, affirm and/ or set new ground rules for the holding of elections in future.
On April 2, 2013, the court set out two issues for determination after the parties had officially written to the court on March 19, 2013 informing it that they had been unable to reach a consensus on the issues to be set out for determination.
Consequently, the court, on August 29, 2013, will decide whether or not there had been statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential poll as complained of by the petitioners.
The second issue to be determined by the court is whether or not those statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the presidential election.

Details of Petitioners’ Analysis
The petitioners indicate that over-voting occurred at 1,722 polling stations, while voting without biometric verification occurred at 2,020 polling stations, using pink sheets from the 10,119 polling stations.
The irregularity of absence of presiding officers’ signatures occurred at 1,638 polling stations, while the use of duplicate serial numbers on pink sheets affected 8,987 polling stations.
In all, 3,931,339 votes, according to the petitioners, were affected by the various irregularities at the 10,119 polling stations being challenged.
They also insist that when the results of those polling stations are annulled, President Mahama’s votes will be reduced by 2,622,551, which will result in him securing 41.79 per cent of the new tally of valid votes.
According to them, Nana Akufo–Addo’s votes will also be reduced by 1,233,186, and that will still see him securing 56.85 per cent of the new tally of valid votes, much more than the needed 50 per cent + 1 to be declared as winner of the poll.
The petitioners also showed in their addresses that all the four main irregularities on their own had a material impact on the results declared and that annulling the results at polling stations affected by any of the four irregularities would mean that the declared winner, Mr Mahama, did not secure the required 50 per cent + 1.

Respondents Disagree
Lawyers for President Mahama, the EC and the NDC, have argued that the petitioners failed to prove their case to warrant the annulment of votes and the subsequent declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the presidential poll.
According to them, there was no legal, logical or arithmetical basis for the call for the annulment of votes.
They also argue that allegations of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets and duplicate serial numbers on some pink sheets have not been proved by the petitioners.
Lawyer Lithur fought to convince the court to maintain Mr Mahama as the President, while Mr Quashie-Idun legally assisted the EC to stand by its declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the poll.
Mr Tsikata is guarding the interest of the NDC, which fielded President Mahama for the December 2012 elections.
These three lawyers were up against Mr Addison, who led a 12-member legal team to justify the removal of President Mahama through the Constitution.

Witnesses in the Petition
The court began taking evidence in the petition on April 17, 2013. On April 16, 2013, it gave the nod for live television and radio coverage of the petition.
Dr Bawumia testified on behalf of the petitioners; the General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, gave evidence on behalf of President Mahama, while the Returning Officer of the December 2012 presidential election, Dr Afari-Gyan, testified on behalf of the EC.
All the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination.
Six additional witnesses testified on behalf of the petitioners, while more than 4,000 people testified on behalf of President Mahama and the NDC through sworn written affidavits.

Background to the Petition
The petition, which was filed on December 28, 2012, initially alleged that the stated irregularities occurred at 4,709 polling stations.
It was later amended to indicate that the irregularities occurred at 11,916 polling stations.
However, after more scrutiny, the petitioners reduced the number to 11,842, 11,138, 11,115, 10,081 and finally to 10,119 polling stations.
The petition was filed on December 28, 2012 and three days after its filing, the NDC applied to join.
On January 22, 2013, the court, in a 6-3 majority decision, allowed the NDC to join the petition as the third respondent.

Pink Sheets Controversy
At the heart of the election petition are pink sheets. The petitioners studied 24,000 out of the 26,002 pink sheets and arrived at their analysis of gross and widespread irregularities.
Matters surrounding the actual number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners were so sensitive and controversial that the court had to eventually order an audit to be conducted into the definite number filed at the Supreme Court Registry.
An audit firm, KPMG, was on May 9, 2013, accordingly directed to audit the pink sheets and subsequently submitted its final report in five volumes on June 24, 2013.å

Merger of Brains
Perhaps this petition can claim credit for being the only case that has, on a daily basis, managed to pool the highest number of legal brains.
Aside from the team of lawyers who are representing the parties in the case, it is common, on a daily basis, to find lawyers filling the gallery of the Supreme Court simply to observe proceedings.
The petitioners, for instance, are being represented by 12 lawyers, namely, Mr Addison; Ms Gloria Akuffo, a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice;  Mr Stephen Dapaah-Addo, Mr Frank Davies, Mr Alex Quaynor, Mr Akoto Ampaw, Nana Asante Bediatuo, Mr Kwame Akuffo, Mr Kwaku Asirifi, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, Mr Egbert Faibille and Professor Ken Attafuah.
President Mahama is being represented by Mr Lithur and Dr Abdul Baasit Aziz-Bamba, while the NDC’s interest is being protected by Mr Tsikata and Mr Samuel Codjoe.
The EC, on the other hand, is being represented by Mr Quashie-Idun, Mr Stanley Amarteyfio, Ms Freda Bruce-Appiah and Ms Stephannie Amarteyfio.

NPP, NDC kick against IEA suggestion

August 22, 2013 (Page 19)

From left: Tsatsu Tsikata, Philip Addison, Quarshie Idun, Tony Lithur 










Lawyers  for President John Dramani Mahama and the petitioners in the election petition have stated that it is not for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) to determine that the losing party in the petition should not apply for review in the interest of peace.
While lawyers for the petitioners and President Mahama maintained it was not for the IEA to determine the next line of action to be taken after the delivery of the judgement – lawyers for the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), have declined to comment on the matter.
In a statement issued on August 20, 2013, the IEA urged the party that would lose in the petition challenging the legitimacy of President Mahama to refrain from seeking a review in the interest of peace.
But in separate interviews with the Daily Graphic, counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, said, “it is not for the IEA to determine,” and pointed out that, “that decision is for the parties to make.”
For his part, one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Akoto Ampaw, said “the IEA is not a legal authority and not a party in the matter.”
He also stated that the petitioners would await the judgement of the Supreme Court in order to know the next line of action to take.
When reached for their reaction to the IEA statement, lawyers for the EC and the NDC, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata respectively stated, “no comment.”
In a related development, the National Chairman of the  NPP and one of the petitioners in the case, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, said the issue on whether or not to go for review was not for the petitioners to decide.
He explained that the decision to go to court was determined by the National Executive Council (NEC) of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) but he and the other petitioners went to court because Article 64 (1) required an individual or individuals  to file a presidential election petition.
In a telephone interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, disclosed that he and the presidential candidate of the NPP in the December, 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, and Dr Mahamadu Bawumia would meet the NEC to officially inform it of what had so far transpired in court.
“After the verdict, the National Executive Council will meet again to decide what next. It is not for me as an individual to state what to do next,” he added.
By Mabel Au Baneseh/Daily Graphic/Ghana

Case against PURC shot down

August 21, 2013 (Page 44)

 The Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday dismissed a writ issued against the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURC) by the Truth and Accountability Forum (TAF) over tariff adjustments.
Dismissing the action, the court, presided over by Mr Justice N. M. C. Abodakpi, held that the TAF lacked
 the legal capacity to commence and pursue an action against the PURC.
Describing the suit as being without merit, the court, accordingly, upheld the PURC’s motion for the court to strike out the action for being “frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the court’s process”.
Costs of GH¢1,000 were awarded against the group in favour of the PURC.
The group has indicated that it will appeal against the court’s decision.
The TAF hauled the PURC to court on June 20, 2013 and urged the court to declare that having failed to provide guidelines for the fixing of rates to be charged, the PURC could not go ahead to fix new rates for utility companies.
It had also prayed the court to declare as illegal the failure of the PURC to publish in the Gazette and the mass media approved rates, as well as perpetually restrain the PURC from approving new rates without providing guidelines for the fixing of rates.
 But the PURC, on July 26, 2013, filed a motion on notice and prayed the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the group lacked capacity.
It also urged the court to dismiss the statement of claim of the TAF as being unmeritorious, frivolous and an abuse of the court’s process.
An affidavit deposed to on behalf of the PURC by its Executive Secretary, Mr Samuel Sarpong, stated that although the plaintiff, in its statement of claim, indicated that it was registered under the laws of Ghana and acted as a watchdog to protect members of the public, searches conducted at the Registrar-General’s Department revealed otherwise.
According to the affidavit, the searches, dated July 15, 2013 and July 25, 2013, revealed that “the said entity does not exist in law by the said name and address stated on the writ, neither is it authorised to do business in consonance with that stated on the statement of claim”.

Humour, maturity save Sir John

August 16, 2013

Ayikoi OtooProfessional  experience, diplomacy, tact, humour and the personal experiences a former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ayikoi Otoo, has had with some members of the Supreme Court panel hearing the 2012 presidential election petition saved his client from being imprisoned.
Mr Otoo “stood in the shoes” of the General Secretary of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Kwadwo Owusu-Afriyie, who had been summoned before the Supreme Court to justify why he should not be imprisoned for contempt of court.
It was a tense and unfamiliar moment when known firebrand Owusu-Afriyie, popularly known as Sir John, stood with both hands clutched behind him and awaited his fate from an upset bench.
But Mr Otoo succeeded in treating the bench, lawyers and audience in the parked courtroom to bouts of laughter with the numerous jokes he cracked in an attempt to save his client, classmate and party general secretary from experiencing prison life.
The nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe, as members, laughed intermittently from the jokes.

“Dr” Ayikoi Otoo
At a point, Mr Otoo sounded like a medical doctor when he made strenuous efforts to “calm the temperature” of Mr Justice Atuguba, who was visibly upset by the unguarded comments from politicians which, he noted, had the tendency to derail the country’s peace and endanger the lives of its 24 million citizens.
Mr Justice Atuguba responded and said his blood pressure had always been “normal”, to which Mr Otoo said, “We pray it does not go beyond the normal.”
He stuck to the ‘doctor’ strategy each time Mr Justice Atuguba’s voice shook in anger.
Mr Otoo performed creditably in telling Ghanaians that Mr Justice Atuguba was speaking through his colleagues and not in his personal capacity.

“We are not here to justify anything”
Mr Otoo set the ball rolling by telling the court, “We are not here to justify anything” and that there was no doubt the court had enormous powers “to deal with contempt issues”.
On realising that his description of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution as giving the court “arbitrary” powers in contempt matters had not gone down well with Mr Justice Gbadegbe, Mr Otoo quickly changed the “bandwidth” and pleaded with the court to “show justice with mercy”.
Mr Otoo had also attempted to state that the translator of the tape recording in which Sir John attacked the bench might not have translated properly, but Mr Justice Atuguba asked if he wanted the tape played in court.
Knowing the implication of allowing the tape to be played to the hearing of the public, Mr Otoo quickly declined the request and said, “No, my Lord. We are not here to challenge.”
He then prayed the court to caution Sir John “and advise him to go and sin no more”.

“Gbeshie” Powers
Mr Justice Dotse asked Mr Otoo if he had enquired from Sir John what came over him on the day he uttered the contemptuous words, including asking relatives of the justices hearing the election petition to plan their funerals.
Mr Otoo’s answer drew laughter from the courtroom when he said an unknown power which one had no control over, called “Gbeshie” in Ga, might have come over Sir John.

Today is my birthday
While admitting his client’s wrongdoing and apologising unreservedly, Mr Otoo used his 59th birthday, which fell on Wednesday, August 14, 2013, to persuade the justices to have mercy on Sir John.
He also informed the court that his client had begun purging himself of contempt by issuing communication guidelines to all NPP communicators to be decorous in their utterances.

Illegal Political Galamsey
Still in the mood to nip the irresponsible behaviour of some politicians in the bud, Mr Justice Atuguba said it was important for the authority of the country to be upheld for peace to prevail.
“Are people not entitled to sleep peacefully because of people like this?” Mr Justice Atuguba asked while looking in Sir John’s direction and wondered if people should be “anaemic” because of persons of Sir John’s stature.
He dared any person running against the tenets of the safety of the state and Ghanaians to dare demonstrate his or her power to the court and also asked if 24 million Ghanaians should be taken for a ride by a few “self-bloated individuals”.
Labelling the lack of sincerity in Ghana’s politics as “illegal political galamsey”, Mr Justice Atuguba indicated that things were worsening in the country because of the irresponsible conduct of some politicians.
Turning to Mr Otoo, Mr Justice Atuguba commended him for defending the authority of the bench and wondered why Sir John could not behave like Mr Otoo.
Mr Justice Atuguba, after stating that Sir John saw himself as “specially powerful”, indicated that Sir John “has to be watched closely to be sure he has changed”.

Go back to Pre-general secretary Days
Mr Justice Atuguba said he had been informed that Sir John was a very good lawyer which he (Mr Justice Atuguba) had no doubt about.
He further pointed out that he had also heard that Sir John had been a sober gentleman in his pre-general secretary days and accordingly advised him to go back to those times.

Non-Custodial Sentence
Eventually, the court took into consideration the genuine pleas by Mr Otoo, steps taken by Sir John to purge himself of contempt and the ongoing peace dialogue in the country before deciding not to jail him.
It, accordingly, fined him GH¢5,000 and bonded him to be of good behaviour or go to jail for six months in default.
He has since paid the fine and signed the bond.
The former Member of Parliament (MP) for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa, Mr P. C. Appiah Ofori, issued a cheque for GH¢7,000 to pay the fines for the two contemnors, Sir John and Mr Hopeson Adorye, a member of the Communications Team of the NPP.
Mr Adorye was convicted and fined GH¢2,000 for stating that the heads of members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) would be chopped off if President John Dramani Mahama is  declared winner of the presidential petition challenging his legitimacy.

Conviction and public office
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Otoo said, “I was simply doing the work of an advocate on behalf of a client. The duty of a lawyer is to ensure that his client is not sent to prison.”
He expressed profound gratitude to the bench and said Sir John was not an ex-convict because the offence he committed did not fall under the offences listed under Article 94 of the 1992 Constitution, which include fraud, dishonesty, moral turpitude, high treason, robbery, treason, among others.
“Otherwise, people who are convicted and fined for offensive driving cannot hold public office,” Mr Otoo concluded.

Sir John, Adorye convicted - Of Contempt (August 15, 2013 - Lead Story)

 

inShare

Sir John, Hopeson Adorye 










I am humbled by this baptism of fire,” were the exact words of the General Secretary of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Kwadwo Owusu-Afriyie, before the Supreme Court convicted him for intentional criminal contempt of the court yesterday.
A humble-looking and remorseful Owusu-Afriyie, popularly known as Sir John, stood meekly, with both hands clutched at his back, when the court convicted him and sentenced him to a fine of GH¢5,000.
The court, which was initially skeptical of Sir John’s remorsefulness, accepted the apologies from his lawyer and unanimously found him guilty of criminal contempt, imposed a GH¢5,000 fine on him and directed him to pay the money by the close of work today, August 15, 2013.
In default, Sir John, who was saved by several pleas from his lawyer, Mr Ayikoi Otoo, will go to prison for six months.
He was also bonded to be of good behaviour for six months and to retract and apologise his contemptuous words on the same platform where he uttered them within 24 hours.
Sir John, a lawyer of 32 years’ experience, rushed out of the courtroom after signing the bond to be of good behaviour and refused to grant interviews to the teeming media personnel who had chased him to his vehicle.

Hopeson Adorye convicted
Another culprit, Hopeson Adorye, a member of the Communications Team of the NPP, was convicted of criminal contempt for a similar offence and fined GH¢2,000 or in default face three months’ imprisonment.
Described as a lay man by the Bench, Adorye was also bonded to be of good behaviour for three months or in default face three months’ imprisonment.
Sir John was convicted for accusing the bench of being biased, as well as using unprintable words to describe the panel members, while Adorye was convicted for stating that the heads of members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) would be chopped off if President Mahama was declared victor of the petition challenging his legitimacy.

Bond Signed and Fines Paid
Both contemnors have since signed their bonds to be of good behaviour, as well as paid the fines.
A former Member of Parliament for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa, Mr P. C. Appiah-Ofori, paid the fines on behalf of the contemnors.

Unusual Scene
It was an unusual scene as Sir John, a known firebrand, stood quietly while Mr Otoo rendered unreserved apology to the nine-member panel hearing the election petition amid the cracking of jokes to assuage the anger of the Bench.
Mr Otoo, a former Attorney-General, did not mince words in admitting that his client was wrong in uttering the contemptuous words on Oman FM, a private radio station.
Counsel had a tough time pleading with the bench and at a point told the court that yesterday was his birthday and so the court should take that into consideration in dealing with Sir John.
Mr Otoo conceded that the court had awesome powers, but indicated that his client had begun the process of purging himself of contempt by issuing guidelines to NPP communicators across the country to speak with decorum.
Counsel told the court that Sir John “has taken very decisive steps” which had resulted in the airwaves being calm and free of ill-spoken words and, accordingly, pleaded with the court not to impose a custodial sentence on him.

Power we have no control over
Asked by Mr Justice Jones Dotse if he (Mr Otoo) had enquired from Sir John what had come over him to make him utter those words, Mr Otoo explained jovially that some powers his client had no authority over called “Gbeshie” might have come over him.
Mr Justice Dotse said he could not believe it when he read the content of the newspaper which had published Sir John’s words attacking the bench because “he is a very senior lawyer” who had mates on the Supreme Court panel, adding that it was unfortunate for Sir John to have asked the relatives of the judges hearing the case to plan the funerals of the judges.
He said he was “saddened” that none of the NPP leadership condemned Sir John’s contemptuous words and said it was unfortunate for such words to be uttered because they could endanger the peace in the country
Mr Justice Dotse urged Ghanaians and politicians to be “careful and measured in utterances” and also advised them to speak on issues that would enhance the development of the country.

Mr Justice Atuguba descends on reckless politicians
In a shaky and upset voice, Mr Justice Atuguba took a swipe at politicians and persons who had made it a point to run down the institutions of state by their unguarded actions and statements.
Mr Justice William AtugubaWondering if the state should become “anaemic” because of persons such as Sir John, Mr Justice Atuguba said it was unfortunate for a few politicians who had passports, visas and the opportunity to bolt in the event of a civil strife to endanger the lives of 24 million Ghanaians through their irresponsible acts.
Speaking on behalf of his colleagues, the president assured Ghanaians that the Judiciary would not sit down for their interests and safety to be taken for a ride by a few reckless individuals who did not have the interest of the state at heart.
He asked why people should die for a few negligent politicians who had grown horns and whose actions were purely aimed at running down the state and misleading everybody.
Other members of the panel are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

Young Contemnors
Mr Justice Atuguba reminded the Young Patriots of the NPP that it was contemptuous to write letters to the Supreme Court and, accordingly, said the court would refer their action to the National Peace Council.

Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey calls for decency
Expressing joy at the court’s decision, the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, was full of gratitude to the court for exhibiting “magnanimity and sensitivity” in its decision.
He directed members and supporters of the NPP to put the issues behind them and respect the institutions of state.

Lawyers face Supreme Court

August 14, 2013 (Page 26)

inSha

From left: Tsatsu Tsikata (Counsel for third respondent); Philip Addison, Counsel for Petitioners; Quarshie Idun, Counsel for second respondent; Tony Lithur, Counsel for First respondent 










They have had ample opportunities to lead evidence and subsequently address the court on why Mr John Dramani Mahama ought to be removed or maintained in office as President of the Republic of Ghana.
Today, lawyers for the petitioners, President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Messrs Philip Addison, Tony Lithur, James Quashie-Idun and Tsatsu Tsikata, respectively, will be facing the nine-member Supreme Court panel hearing the presidential election petition to answer questions and clarify issues that may have arisen from their evidence and or addresses.
They will also be expected to expound on some of the issues they have raised on behalf of their clients during the hearing of the petition which lasted four months.
The nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, has Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as members.
The issues before the court for determination are allegations of persons being allowed to vote without undergoing biometric verification, over-voting, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results forms for the office of President) and some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers.

Judgement Date
After seeking the necessary clarifications from the lawyers, the court is expected to announce a definite date to deliver its judgement in the petition which is calling for the annulment of 3,931,339 votes at 10,119 polling stations because of gross and widespread irregularities alleged by the petitioners.
Regulation 69 C (4) of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (CI 74) indicates that judgement should be delivered in a presidential election petition 15 days after the close of the case.
It is, therefore, possible for judgement to be delivered by the end of this month.

The Petition
The petition was brought by the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey.
According to them, after the annulment of the votes, Nana Akufo-Addo would have 56.85 per cent of the valid votes cast, while President Mahama would get 41.79 per cent.
But the respondents have argued that there is no basis for the annulment of votes because the petitioners had failed to prove their case.

Lawyers address court
It was a battle of repartee on August 7, 2013 when each of the four lawyers attempted to use 30 minutes to orally justify why the claims of electoral irregularities at 10,119 polling stations should be upheld or declined by the Supreme Court.
All the lawyers touched on the various categories of allegations and made a case for or against the annulment of votes.

Maintain President Mahama
In his address, Mr Lithur argued that the petitioners had failed to discharge the burden of proof to warrant the annulment of 3,931,339 votes and said it would be unfair for votes to be annulled on the face of the pink sheets.
Counsel held that the December 2012 presidential election was the most transparent Ghana had ever had, adding that President Mahama won “fairly and squarely” and, accordingly, prayed the court to maintain the status quo.
According to him, it was clear from Dr Bawumia’s evidence that there was no polling agent present during the investigations into alleged irregularities and further submitted that no polling agent was questioned on what was found on the face of the pink sheets, adding that the petitioners “poured over paper” to make a request that votes be annulled according to evidence on the face of pink sheets.

Sceptically look at attempts to seek annulment — EC
Making a case for the conductor of the poll, Mr Quashie-Idun was of the view that votes were counted in the full glare of the public and in the presence of polling agents who had earlier participated in the manning of the poll and signed pink sheets accordingly.
He submitted that representatives of the various candidates were present in the strong room of the EC when results from the constituencies were presented and, accordingly, prayed the court to “sceptically” look at attempts to “undermine” the results on the face of the pink sheets.

NDC’s position
Arguing for the NDC, Mr Tsikata also prayed the court to dismiss the petitioners’ case because they had admitted that voters did nothing wrong and that no one voted more than once.
According to counsel, Dr Bawumia, the star witness for the petitioners, disqualified himself with his “You and I were not there” assertions during his testimony on what might have happened at polling stations, adding, “He had no capacity to give testimony to seek the declarations he was seeking.”
Mr Tsikata said the exhibits the petitioners relied on alone could not make a case for the annulment of votes because they fell short by the rules of court, adding, “The petitioners’ claim is factually empty, with no supportable evidence being produced. It is legally pathetic; the petition is poor in arithmetic and extremely poor in logic.”

Declare Nana Akufo-Addo President – Addison
In his concluding address, Mr Addison said the petitioners had led substantial evidence to warrant the annulment of votes at the 10,119 polling stations and the subsequent declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as President.
He said although the respondents had persistently maintained that the 2012 elections were credible and had argued for the court to uphold the results, they in another breath shied away when they were confronted with the pink sheets, which were the primary records of the poll.
Mr Addison argued that the petitioners were able to prove each infraction and said the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, made some critical admissions, including the admission which enhanced and reinforced the concept of one man, one vote.
Dr Afari-Gyan, he further argued, admitted not seeing a single pink sheet before declaring the results, as well as the fact that some results in some polling stations were annulled due to infractions.

Sir John, Adorye’s day in court

August 14, 2013 (Lead Story)

Kwadwo Owusu-Afriyie (Sir John) and Hopeson Adorye 








He is perhaps the only “Sir” in Ghanaian politics and was celebrated widely by his supporters when he won the General Secretary position of Ghana’s largest opposition party, the New Patriotic Party (NPP), three years ago.
This time, he is in a different situation. He has been summoned by none other than the highest court of the land for allegedly making contemptuous comments against the court.
He was present in court when his nickname was first mentioned on July 8, 2013 as having been quoted by a private newspaper for allegedly scandalising the Supreme Court.
The matter was stood down on that day to enable the court to listen to the tape recording of Sir John’s alleged contemptuous statement and advise itself accordingly.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court, on August 9, 2013, issued summons directing Mr Kwadwo Owusu-Afriyie to appear before it today and demonstrate why he should not be imprisoned for contempt of court.
He is to face the nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba. Other members of the panel are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
In the same boat with Sir John is a member of the NPP Communications Team, Mr Hopeson Adorye, who has also been summoned to appear before the same court to purge himself of contemptuous comments he allegedly made against the Bench.
The summons, jointly signed by Mr Justice Atuguba and the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr James Mensah, is asking the two to show why they “should not be committed to prison for contempt of this court, for scandalising the court, lowering the authority and credibility of this court in the eyes of the general public and exciting hatred and ill-will towards the first and second respondents herein”.
The first and second respondents in the presidential election petition are President John Dramani Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC).
Sir John, a lawyer, is alleged to have accused the Bench of being biased, while Mr Adorye is alleged to have stated that the heads of members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) would be chopped off if President Mahama, whose presidency is under challenge, was declared winner of the presidential petition.

“Showdown” in Court
Followers of the ongoing presidential election petition will, today, see how Sir John and Mr Adorye will justify why they should not be put behind bars for contempt of court.
Although Sir John, in interviews with the media, had stated that he had not been served with the summons directing him to appear in court, there are indications that he is likely to be in court.
He has so far declined to comment on the contemptuous comments he is alleged to have made, but Mr Adorye has explained that he made the alleged contemptuous comments before the court issued its final ‘touchline’ warning on June 24, 2013.
According to Mr Adorye, when he made those comments he was reacting to threats that there would be civil war in Ghana if Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo was declared President on the face of pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results forms for the office of President).

The Final Touchline
After several pieces of caution to the public, the Supreme Court, on June 24, 2013, issued a final warning (touchline) to lawyers, journalists, political activists and social commentators against making prejudicial comments on the ongoing presidential election petition.
When it realised that the warning was not being heeded to, the court, on June 26, 2013, banned a Deputy Communications Director of the NPP, Mr Sammy Awuku, from attending the election petition hearing until the final determination.
Before his banishment, Mr Awuku had apologised for accusing the court of being selective and hypocritical for expressing displeasure over a Daily Guide news report.

The “Silenced” Three
The Editor of the Daily Searchlight, Mr Kenneth Agyei Kuranchie, and a member of the NDC Communications Team, Stephen Atubiga, were, on July 2, 2013, sentenced to 10 days’ and three days’ imprisonment respectively, for falling foul of the court’s orders.
They have both completed their jail terms.
By Mabel Aku Baneseh/Daily Graphic/Ghana
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh