https://www.myjoyonline.com/ablakwa-vrs-kusi-boateng-court-of-appeal-dismisses-objection-to-newly-constituted-panel/-------https://www.myjoyonline.com/ablakwa-vrs-kusi-boateng-court-of-appeal-dismisses-objection-to-newly-constituted-panel/
Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an objection raised by lawyers for the North Tongu Member of Parliament, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa following the constitution of a new panel hearing a contempt case brought by Secretary to the Board of Trustees of the National Cathedral, Rev. Kusi Boateng.

This, according to the court, is because the objection was based on "speculative innuendo."

During sitting on Tuesday, June 25, the panel had been expected to deliver a ruling on a defamation suit filed by Reverend Kusi Boateng aimed at restraining the MP from discussing him concerning the National Cathedral project.

But when the panel sat, lead counsel for Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Thaddeus Sory objected to what he describes as a newly constituted panel.

He contended that the new panel is unconstitutional, and will undermine fair hearing.

Thaddeus Sory, who was given ten minutes to support his objection with legal argument, further contended that the original panel that heard the case had Justice Dzemefe and one other judge, Justice Senyo, who were both missing from the current panel that sat on Tuesday, June 25.

He stressed that once the Chief Justice has constituted a panel, that panel must see to the particular matter for which it was constituted and not be reshuffled.

The lawyer further alleged in open court that the High Court judge who dismissed the contempt application by Rev. Kusi Boateng has since been transferred from Accra to Sunyani and then to Bolga.

He concluded by speculating that it could be because "the Plaintiff has an affinity with the person who constitutes the panel" who is a church member.

However, Kusi Boateng's lawyer, Bobby Banson described the claims by Thaddeus Sory as false. Mr Banson argued that the allegations were based on hearsay and not grounded in law.

This assertion has subsequently been upheld by the court.

Delivering its ruling today, Wednesday, the panel said the lawyers for the MP had no evidence to support their claims.

The court also described the allegations as unfounded, and dismissed the objection.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.


DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.