Former Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine has criticized Attorney-General Godfred Dame for the best way and method he went about making use of for the expeditious listening to of the injunction utility towards the consideration of the brand new ministers of President Akufo-Addo.
He defined that when the A-G applies for an abridgment of time in a case, he has to serve the lawyer for the opposite occasion with the intention to stop surprises.
In his view, that was not executed on this specific case.
“If you apply for a speedy listening to of the case you must serve the lawyer for the opposite half, that was not what was executed on this specific case.
“It is unethical to ambush the lawyer for the other party.,” he advised journalists. in Accra on Wednesday, March 27.
Mr Godfred Dame had mentioned that he utilized for a speedy listening to of Dafeamekpor’s injunction utility towards the consideration of the ministerial nominees.
He defined that the Court Act and the Constitution allow a celebration to a case to use for expeditious listening to of the case therefore he doesn’t perceive the criticism towards the Supreme Court for listening to this matter rapidly.
His feedback come on the heels of the criticisms by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) towards Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonorr, within the scheduling of political circumstances within the Supreme Court. The NDC accused her of being biased towards them.
The occasion’s concern was close to the itemizing of the case filed by Mr Dafeamekpor, for listening to, forward of the case of Richard Dela Sky v. the Parliament of Ghana and the Attorney-General.
According to an announcement issued by the NDC on Wednesday, March 27, 2024, it was intriguing that “Richard Dela Sky filed his writ of summons in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024, on the 5th of March 2024. This was almost two (2) clear weeks before Hon. Rockson Dafeamekpor filed his writ of summons on 18th March, 2024 challenging the constitutionality of the latest ministerial nominations by the President.”
But chatting with journalists in Accra after the Supreme Court dismissed Dafeakpeos’ utility, Mr Dame mentioned “The obligation to repair the date for the listening to rests with the registry of the Supreme Court and I don’t perceive the place this enterprise of individuals truly scrutinizing when purposes are mounted for listening to or why this case has not been mounted for listening to, got here from.
“Back within the day, for those who file an utility within the Supreme Court of Ghana it takes you even three months so that you can get a date for a listening to. It is just after a celebration has made an utility for an expeditious willpower of the method that the matter will come up for listening to. even the file present that on this specific case, I particularly utilized for an expeditious willpower of the matter so it isn’t the Supreme Court of Ghana selecting and selecting which location ought to hear and to not hear.
“My first application for an expedited hearing hearing of a matter in the Supreme Court I did it way back in 2006 and I did another one in 2013 when we were in opposition. so it is always the prerogative of the Supreme Court registry to fix applications for hearing and if the date for the hearing has not been fixed or it is too far it is incumbent on the party to apply for the CJ in accordance with the court act and constitution for an expedited hearing.”
He additional described the injunction utility Dafeamekpor towards the consideration of the ministerial nominees, as frivolous and an abuse of the courtroom course of after stating that it was an utility was an try to frustrate the work of the federal government.
Asked why it seems he’s taking a eager curiosity in solely issues that favor the federal government and never submitting for an expedited listening to within the utility towards anti-gay invoice, Mr Dame mentioned “we have now filed a related affidavit in opposition in that matter, so I believe all these feedback are undesirable and certainly are baseless. we truly filed our opposition to the affidavit in reply to the Richard Sky matter earlier than we filed the affidavit in reply at the moment to this one.
“It is most instructive that parliament itself was opposed to this application for interlocutory injunction by Dafeamekpor and I find it very interesting because the same Speaker of Parliament who earlier on adjourned proceedings in my view wrongly, on account of the pendency of this application then later on somersaulted and came to the supreme court and opposed the application and that is a point of interest to me. I think it shows clearly that the application clearly was frivolous and it ought not to be any manipulation of what went on in court, even parliament itself was opposed to the application.”
He added “It is most unfortunate that persons who file processes before the court and then fail to take an interest in it. Indeed even when the same application for interlocutory injunction is pending has not been determined, a day before they proceed to go and file another application for interlocutory injunction, there cannot be a greater demonstration of a desrre to abuse the court process than this. clearly, it shows an attempt to frustrate the republic from pursuing its business and all. That is why it is necessary that as lawyers for the Republic, we take a keen interest in what happens and we make sure that such things are dealt with so that the state business can proceed.”
On Wednesday, March 27 the Supreme Court dismissed an injunction utility filed by Dafeamekpor towards Parliament’s approval of ministerial nominees by President Akufo-Addo.
By a unanimous determination, the apex Court mentioned the injunction utility is frivolous and an abuse of the courtroom course of.Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor had filed an injunction restraining Parliament from vetting and approving new ministers in addition to reshuffled ministers given varied portfolios. He was praying the courtroom to deem the motion by President Akufo-Addo as unconstitutional.
President Akufo-Addo on February 14, 2024 had introduced a reshuffle consisting of 13 ministers and 10 deputy ministers being relieved of their put up, whereas 6 of them had been reassigned into varied portfolios.
On Wednesday, March 27, 2024, when the case was referred to as, the South Dayi Member of Parliament in addition to his lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo had been each absent.
Events took an attention-grabbing twist when the five-member panel chaired by the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkonoo stood down the listening to for about 10 minutes to establish the small print of paperwork submitted by the courtroom bailiff.
The bailiff had indicated that in his quest to serve courtroom processes to the Speaker of Parliament (1st defendant) and Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor (Plaintiff) the latter had refused service.
Joshua Benning narrated to the courtroom {that a} listening to discover and affidavit in opposition paperwork which had been despatched to the regulation agency of representatives of Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor had been rejected as a result of “an order had been made by the lawyer Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo not to receive any service”
The Chief Justice then ordered for the listening to of the case to progress after the bailiff confirmed that the Speaker of Parliament had duly been served and he had additionally left the courtroom paperwork on the premises of the plaintiff’s lawfirm.
Attorney-General Godfred Dame then described actions by the plaintiff’s lawyer as the very best type of disrespect to the apex courtroom and as skilled misconduct and referred to as for the dismissal of the swimsuit.
Responding to the swimsuit, Thaddeus Sory, counsel for the Speaker of Parliament additionally against the injunction utility citing that it didn’t fulfill the necessities for an injunction to be granted.
Ruling on the matter, the apex courtroom dismissed the injunction utility by Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor with the explanation that the swimsuit was towards minister nominees whose names haven’t been submitted.
Mr Godfred Dame additional mentioned “It is remarkable for a lawyer who has filed an utility within the matter to reject the route and the processes which have been filed by the opposite facet.
“It is admittedly for me, a gross skilled misconduct. Be that as it might, the courtroom proceeded to take care of the matter and that’s it. I believe it was very unlucky particularly as the identical counsel was in the identical day submitting processes within the Supreme Court of Ghana earlier within the morning It was rejected the processes from the Supreme Court of Ghana and within the afternoon he proceeded to file processes in the identical Supreme Court of Ghana.
“I think the processes of the highest court of the Republic ought to be respected, and the dignity and authority of the court always ought to be protected and respected by all counsels.”