Speaker joined to Abodakpi suit
Gilbert Boyefio
27/06/2008
The Supreme Court has ordered that the Speaker of Parliament, the Rules Committee of Parliament and Daniel Abodakpi, Member of Parliament for Keta, be joined in a suit of Constitutional interpretation before it.
The suit filed by Danso Acheampong, a lawyer, against the Attorney General, is seeking Constitutional interpretation of Article 97 and 94(2) of the 1992 Constitution from the Supreme Court. It questions why Abodakpi, after his conviction ,should remain an MP.
Making the order in court yesterday, a five member panel presided over by Justice Sophia Akuffo, asked the AG and the three parties to be joined to file their statement of case by July 11 for hearing to start on the matter on July 15.
Tony Lithur, Counsel for Daniel Abodakpi, who was absent, had earlier on informed the court that they had not been served. He said hearing notice was served on his clients only two days ago and consequently he was instructed by him to appear for him as an interested party.
At this juncture the court told the plaintiff that his suit was against only the AG and enquired from him why he had served people that were not party to the suit. The court also asked Lithur whether he has no idea at all about the suit or was just trying to delay.
Danso Acheampong, the plaintiff, pointed out to the court that the outcome of the suit has a direct impact on Abodakpi, the Rules Committee and Parliament. Lithur also told the court that he only received a sheet of paper, which was the memorandum of issues to be set out before the court. He explained that even at the time he received that, he did not have any directions from his client to that effect.
Stating the stand of the AG's Department on the matter, a Chief State Attorney, Valeria Amartey, told the court that their office was waiting for the outcome of Abodakpi's appeal at the Supreme Court before responding to the present suit. This however, did not go down well with the court, which was of the view that the AG’s Department should either respond now or not respond at all.
The Supreme Court asked the plaintiff to amend his suit to include the Speaker of Parliament, the Rules Committee of Parliament and Daniel Abodakpi, Member of Parliament for Keta, as parties and serve it on them immediately. The presiding judge pointed out to him that if it had not been for the public interest in the matter, they would have thrown it out because it was not properly laid.
Meanwhile, in the case in which Rojo Mettle Nunoo and two others had sued the Electoral Commission concerning the manner in which the 2004 presidential and parliamentary election result was announced, the Supreme Court had directed that the AG be served in the matter.
The court explained that in such matters the court always wanted the EC to make an input, and hence the AG was given up to July 9 to file legal submission in the case, which was adjourned to July 15. The court expressed its intention to finish with the case by the end of July due to the impending December elections.
27/06/2008
The Supreme Court has ordered that the Speaker of Parliament, the Rules Committee of Parliament and Daniel Abodakpi, Member of Parliament for Keta, be joined in a suit of Constitutional interpretation before it.
The suit filed by Danso Acheampong, a lawyer, against the Attorney General, is seeking Constitutional interpretation of Article 97 and 94(2) of the 1992 Constitution from the Supreme Court. It questions why Abodakpi, after his conviction ,should remain an MP.
Making the order in court yesterday, a five member panel presided over by Justice Sophia Akuffo, asked the AG and the three parties to be joined to file their statement of case by July 11 for hearing to start on the matter on July 15.
Tony Lithur, Counsel for Daniel Abodakpi, who was absent, had earlier on informed the court that they had not been served. He said hearing notice was served on his clients only two days ago and consequently he was instructed by him to appear for him as an interested party.
At this juncture the court told the plaintiff that his suit was against only the AG and enquired from him why he had served people that were not party to the suit. The court also asked Lithur whether he has no idea at all about the suit or was just trying to delay.
Danso Acheampong, the plaintiff, pointed out to the court that the outcome of the suit has a direct impact on Abodakpi, the Rules Committee and Parliament. Lithur also told the court that he only received a sheet of paper, which was the memorandum of issues to be set out before the court. He explained that even at the time he received that, he did not have any directions from his client to that effect.
Stating the stand of the AG's Department on the matter, a Chief State Attorney, Valeria Amartey, told the court that their office was waiting for the outcome of Abodakpi's appeal at the Supreme Court before responding to the present suit. This however, did not go down well with the court, which was of the view that the AG’s Department should either respond now or not respond at all.
The Supreme Court asked the plaintiff to amend his suit to include the Speaker of Parliament, the Rules Committee of Parliament and Daniel Abodakpi, Member of Parliament for Keta, as parties and serve it on them immediately. The presiding judge pointed out to him that if it had not been for the public interest in the matter, they would have thrown it out because it was not properly laid.
Meanwhile, in the case in which Rojo Mettle Nunoo and two others had sued the Electoral Commission concerning the manner in which the 2004 presidential and parliamentary election result was announced, the Supreme Court had directed that the AG be served in the matter.
The court explained that in such matters the court always wanted the EC to make an input, and hence the AG was given up to July 9 to file legal submission in the case, which was adjourned to July 15. The court expressed its intention to finish with the case by the end of July due to the impending December elections.
Comments
Post a Comment