Justice Charles Quist, the High Court Judge presiding over the trial of Adamu Daramani Sakande, Member of Parliament for Bawku Central who has been accused of perjury, yesterday ordered the MP to file his written address.
He also ordered the state to file its address by the next hearing date, March 9, 2012.
This was after counsel for the MP indicated that they had closed their case and did not have any more witnesses to call.
Egbert Faibille, counsel for the MP, said they had just been given copies of the record of proceedings for perusal to ensure that whatever was recorded was really what had transpired in court.
The judge consequently had the case adjourned for the defence team to go through the records and file a written address so that they the state could also do likewise.
The prosecution called an immigration officer, Nolasco Nhyiedu, the Municipal Electoral Officer of Bawku, John Bosco Anyigire and Sumaila Bielbiel, who claimed the MP was a British citizen.
The MP, who denied any wrongdoing, brought Marlon Praises Anipa, the friend who accompanied him to the lawyer to renounce his British citizenship, and Stanley Opoku of Stanley Adam & Co Chambers in the United Kingdom (UK), an immigration and asylum consultant who prepared his renunciation papers.
The immigration consultant, at the last hearing, testified that he prepared the renunciation documents for the MP and said that the documents were genuine.
He also refuted allegations by the prosecuting state attorney, Rexford Wiredu, that he had no right to quote any law in England without bringing the said law, and explained that the British Nationality Act he quoted was easily accessible.
The witness said this when he was under cross-examination by Wiredu.
The witness, who was accused of not being a lawyer, was asked by Mr. Wiredu to tell the court which Inn he was called to, to which he said it was only barristers who were called to the bar and when asked of his solicitors license, replied that it was only solicitors who were given solicitors license in the UK.
Explaining further, the witness said he was a non-practicing lawyer who specialized in immigration and asylum law and was not a barrister as barristers argued cases in court while solicitors did solicitors work, adding that there were various categories of the law, as a result of which lawyers there were regulated by different bodies depending on their area of specialization.
Wiredu put it to the lawyer that he was a 419 man who just paraded about as a lawyer, to which the court said it found the language unacceptable.
The immigration lawyer had earlier told the court that he flew from his base in London to come and testify because as a lawyer, he was interested in helping the court to arrive at the truth.
He said he had been practicing for the past 16 years and had never come across a situation like that of the MP�s, so he felt he had to come because he was the one who processed the renunciation forms for the MP, adding that he did not want to sit down without telling the court his side of the story as he might lose clients as a result.
The witness had stated that he took the British passport of the MP and then sent it to the Home Office as part of the renunciation process.
He noted that after an applicant had paid the statutory fees, the person processing the renunciation documents was only required to post the documents to the Home Office, after which the applicant would no more be considered a British National.
<<Print>>