You are here: HomeNewsElections 20082013 09 24Article 286761

Constitutional confab in the offing

Comment: THE CASE OF LAWYERS WHO NEVER TALK LAW !

Author:
BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.
Date:
2013-09-24 08:32:14
Comment to:
Constitutional confab in offing


FROM: BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.

EBAA LAW CONSULT, LEGAL PRACTITIONERS/CONSULTANTS

NO. 4 GRAPHIC ROAD, P.O.BOX AN 5966, ORCADECO BUILDING

FIRST FLOOR

ACCRA.

MOBILE PHONE NO. 0545758633

TO: H.E. PRESIDENT OF GHANA JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA

H.E.VICE PRESIDENT OF GHANA AMISSAH ARTHUR

FIRST LADY OF GHANA LORDINA MAHAMA

HON.MR. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT OF GHANA DOE ADZAHO

HER LORDSHIP CHIEF JUSTICE OF GHANA GEORGINA THEODORA WOOD

HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GHANA

INFO TO:

HON. CHAIRMAN OF NDC DR.KWABENA ADJEI

HON. GENERAL SECRETARY OF NDC JOHNSON ASIEDU NKETIA

HON. MINISTER OF TRANSPORT DZIFA ATTIVOR

DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013

SUBJECT: TO RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY REFER TO THE ABOVE RELATED SUBJECT-MATTER WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTED MY PERSONALITY AND THE ISSUES THEREON RAISED WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE SO CALLED LAWYERS/COUNSELS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES TO ENABLE THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THE JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

THEREFORE MAKING OUR DEAR PRESIDENT OF GHANA H.E.PRESIDENT JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA AS LITIGANT THAT WOULD AFFECT FUTURE PRESIDENTS OF GHANA TO BE SUBJECTED TO FRIVOLOUS, MALICIOUS, CAPRICIOUS AND VEXACIOUS LAWSUITS.

THAT AS I HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AS THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS THAT I STILL BELIEVED THE RESPONDENTS COUNSELS DID NOT EXERCISE REASONABLE AND DUE DELIGENCE AS REQUIRED FROM COUNSELS/LAWYERS TO PROTECT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLIENT(S).

THAT I ALSO BELIEVED THAT "THERE SHOULD BE FINALITY TO LITIGATION" BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA JURISPRUDENCE IT BEHOOVES ON ME AS INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT TO RAISE THE ISSUE SINCE THE RESPONDENTS COUNSELS WOEFULLY FAILED TO EVEN TALK TO ME AS FRIENDS OF THE GHANA BAR AND EVEN WHILE THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF AND THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVES AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NDC EXPRESSED "CONDOLENCES" TO ME EVEN AT THE COURT WHEN THREE (3) DAYS TO MOVING THE MOTION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF TO PROTECT THE BEST INTEREST OF H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA, TO PROTECT GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION ITSELF AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION UNDER CHAPTER 001 ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE COUNSELS FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT TONY LITHUR AND COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT TSATSU TSIKATA DEEM ME AS "INTERMEDDLER ---" AND EVEN THE CASE I RESPECTFULLY MADE CONCERNING THE PETITIONERS FRIVOLOUS PETITION AND PRAY TO THE COURT TO TAKE "A JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE PETITION ITSELF" AND TO DISMISS SAME DID NOT EVEN SEEM USEFUL TO COUNSEL FOR FIRST RESPONDENT TONY LITHUR.

THAT BECAUSE THEIR CALIBRE OF LAWYERS ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO OTHERS BUT SEEKING THEIR OWN SELFISH AND SELF SEEKING INTEREST.

THAT IT IS MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION THAT BECAUSE COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENTS DID NOT EXERCISE REASONABLE LEGAL RESEARCH AND DUE DILIGENCE BUT BASED THEIR ARGUMENTS ON MERE "LOGIC" AND RATIONALIZATION OF THE FACTS BROUGHT SHARP DIVISION AT THE COURT WHICH CULMINATED IN MAJORITY AND MINORITY DECISIONS INSTEAD OF OUTRIGHT STRIKE OF THE FRIVOLOUS CASE BASED MAINLY ON HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ERRORS ON PINK SHEETS. THAT THE PURPORTED MALPRACTICES NEVER OCCURRED AT THE ACTUAL POLLING STATIONS THAT ALSO RESULTED IN THE SECOND PETITIONER DR.BAWUMIA POSTULATION "YOU AND I WERE NOT THERE BUT ON THE PINK SHEETS".

THAT THE SECOND PETITIONER DR>BAWUMIA WHO IS AN ECONOMIST RATHER GAVE THE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS EXPECIALLY HON.NANA AKUFO ADDO WHO WAS GHANA FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL RATHER NEVER SPOKE A WORD IN THE SUPREME COURT BUT RATHER BEING SEEN TO BE RECEIVING PRAISES. WHAT A PROVERBIAL SCENARIO SITUATIONS THAT WE AS GHANAIANS ARE EXHIBITING AND RELEGATING "TRUTH" RATHER FROM THE SCENE?

IT IS AT THESE RELATED BACKDROPS THAT I STILL HOLD THAT THE "MINORITY DECISION WAS TAKEN "PER CURIA" IN GROSS VIOLATION OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AND OTHER LAWS.

THAT AS INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT I WOULD NOT WAIT FOR ANY OTHER LAWYER FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO RAISE THE ISSUES.

IT IS THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE THAT I AM RESPECTFULLY PUBLISHING JUST SOME FEW EXCERPTS FROM THE DRAFT PROCEEDINGS AT THE SUPREME COURT CONCERNING MY MOTION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND TO HUMBLY REQUEST THE COURT ITSELF AND ALL THE MEDIA HOUSES THAT CAPTURED THE PROCEEDINGS TO PUBLISH THE FULL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOTION FOR REVIEW OF THE "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF".

" DRAFT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, THE SUPREME COURT {CIVIL DIVISION} SITTING IN ACCRA ON TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2013

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF AMICUS CURIAE

AMEKUDZI : RESPECTFULLY YOUR LORDSHIPS, THIS IS AN APPLICATION OR AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF YOUR LORDSHIPS DECISION, PER INCURIAM, ON A MOTION ON NOTICE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS OR FRIEND OF COURT BRIEF TO DRAW THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE COURT TO RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND A SETTLED LEGAL PRECEDENT THAT THE COURT IN THE FIRST INSTANT SHOULD HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION ON BEFORE ENTERTAINING THIS PETITION, FRIVOLOUS PETITION BROUGHT AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT OF GHANA, WHERE THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE COURT ON MAY 2ND, 2013, WHERE THE GIST OF IT SIMPLY WAS THAT, THE MOTION ON NOTICE FOR LEAVE FOR AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WAS DISMISSED AND THE "RATIO DECIDENDI" FOR DISMISSING THE MOTION ON NOTICE FOR LEAVE WAS A GROSS ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, A DIRECT SLAP AT THE FACE OF JUSTICE, TWISTING, IF NOT TRYING TO BREAK THE ARM OF THE 1992 CONSTITUTION THAT FRAMERS OF THIS CONSTITUTION THAT WAS RATIFIED IN A REFERENDUM BY THE PEOPLE OF GHANA NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT WHILE IN OFFICE SHALL NOT BE SUED OR JOINED TO A LAWSUIT AS DEFENDANT.

NOW THE RATIO THAT THE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON WAS ARTICLE 64 AND C.I. 16 AND I WILL DEMONSTRATE TO THIS HIGHEST COURT OF GHANA THAT THE DECISION BASED ON THAT RATIO WAS A GROSS ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE REALM, WHICH WILL SERVE A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT IF NOT REVIEWED BECAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIO UNDER WHICH THE SUPREME COURT RELIED ITS DECISION ARTICLE 64, IF YOUR LORDSHIPS WILL KINDLY PERMIT ME TO READ THE ARTICLE 64 THEN I WILL DEMONSTRATE TO THE COURT THAT THE FRAMERS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION NEVER CONTEMPLATED, NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT WHILE IN OFFICE SEEKING RE-ELECTION SHOULD COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 64 SECTIONS 1 AND 2, EVEN 3 BECAUSE OF C.I.16 THAT YOU RELIED ON----YOUR LORDSHIPS< THE HEADING----CHALLENGING ELECTION OF PRESIDENT---SECTION 1 PROVIDES THAT COUNSEL READS OUT.

ATUGUBA: MR. AMEKUDZI, SINCE YOU RESPECT THE SACROSANCTSY OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS NECESSARY TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTIONYOU ARE SEEKING TO DEFEND IS DIVIDED INTO ARTICLES AND SECTIONS ONLY IN THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, AS YOU DON'T TRANSPOSE THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ARRANGEMENT TO THE MAIN BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION. YOU HAVE TO BE SACROSANCT ALL THE WAY.

AMEKUDZI: THANK YOU.

(----RESERVED THE OTHER PROCEEDINGS LATER BUT TO TOUCH DIRECTLY ON TONY LITHUR AND TSATSU TSIKATA SUBMISSIONS)

TONY LITHUR: I THINK I AM TEMPTED TO SAY "RESQUI SALO QUITO,". I THINK YOUR LORDSHIPS HAVE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE REVIEW JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT OUGHT TO BE INVOKED PROPERLY, I THINK THIS MATTER SHOULD BE DISMISSED. I HAVE NOTHING USEFUL TO IT. AND I MUST SAY THAT IT IS REVIEWED ON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE AFFIDAVIT NOTING HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO SHOW THAT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR REVIEW OF YOUR LORDSHIPS' EARLIER DECISION.

TSATSU TSIKATA: MY LORDS, I BELIEVE THE ISSUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLES OR CLAUSES OR SECTIONS, BUT IT HAS DO WITH SOMEONE WISHING TO BE AMICUS CURIAE AND AS WE INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, THE PRESIDENT IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND I THINK THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION IS IN THE NATURE OF INTERMEDDLING AND DOES NOT SATISFY ANY OF THE RULES AND WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR IT TO BE DISMISSED.

ATUGUBA: WELL, HIS APPLICATION IS NOT ENTIRELY FRIVOLOUS, IN SENSE THAT HE WAS SAYING THAT THIS POINT EVEN IF HE COULD NOT COME IN, THE COURT ITSELF OUGHT TO TAKEN UP THE POINT, YOU SEE, TO THAT EXTENT, I THINK THERE IS AN ARGUABLE POINT THERE.

IN FACT, YOU KNOW THE FIRST EVER PRESIDENTIAL PETITION IN THIS COUNTRY CAME IN 1969 ON VERY SIMILAR GROUNDS AND IT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOT THE PRESIDENT, SO IT IS NOT ALL THAT WASHY-WASHY, BUT, WELL WE HEARD YOUR SUBMISSIONS.

(----OTHER PROCEEDINGS RESERVED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION)

THAT AT THIS TIME AND TIME MATERIAL, I AM RESPECTFULLY RESTING MY CASE AND ALSO CHALLENGING THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF AND ALL THE MEDIA HOUSES THAT COVERED THE PROCEEDINGS TO PUBLISH THE FULL EXCERPTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SINCE TO EVERY ISSUE THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO IT, THEREFORE CALLING ON ALL CONCERNED IN THIS RELATED MATTER TO COME OUT WITH THEIR SIDES ALSO.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

GOD BLESS GHANA AND LONG LIVE GHANA !

VERY TRULY YOURS,

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT

This article is closed for comments.

09-24 07:45
 
 
 
THE CASE OF LAWYERS WHO NEVER TALK LAW !
BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.
09-24 08:32