Home   >   News   >   General News   >   201710
Court Sets Nov 2 To Rule On EC Boss Case   
  << Prev  |  Next >>
Comments ( 0 )     Email    Print
Related Stories
The Accra High Court (General Jurisdiction Division) presided over by Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo has fixed Thursday, November 2, 2017, to determine whether lawyer Thaddeus Sory could represent Mrs Charlotte Osei, chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC).

Maxwell Opoku-Agyemang was dragged to court by the EC chair for professional misconduct and defamation, but he filed a counter suit to challenge the legitimacy of counsel representing the EC boss.

It was the case of lawyer Opoku-Agyemang through his counsel Julius Opoku Agyei that lawyer Sory, who is counsel for the EC, could not represent both the EC and Mrs Osei as a person being the chairperson of the Commission.

But Justice Ackaah-Boafo, after hearing arguments from both parties in court yesterday, deferred his decision on the matter until November 2.

Applicant case

Counsel for the applicant, in his argument, prayed the court to either dismiss the suit or, in the alternative, injunct Thaddeus Sory or [email protected] from representing the applicant in the case.

The affidavit in support said the allegations in the petition put the plaintiff in the performance of her duties at the EC and her personal interests against the interest of the EC and the Republic of Ghana.

The deponent argued that Opoku-Agyeman was not responsible for the leakage and circulation of the petition in the media.

He further argued that Mr Sory had participated in meetings and was privy to happenings at the EC, which he could use to prosecute the defamation suit against him (Mr Opoku-Agyemang).

Counsel said he would plead justification in the course of the hearing of the defamation suit against him, as well as the manner in which the services of [email protected] was engaged and retained by the EC.

The applicant said the engagement of the services of [email protected] was part of the dispute in the petition and for that reason it was imperative for the court to place an interlocutory injunction on the applicant.

Affidavit in support

An affidavit in support of the motion on notice deposed to by Mr Opoku-Agyemang said it was clear the petition was filed by staff of the EC and for that reason he could not be held for defamation.

It said the suit was initiated by Mrs Osei in her personal capacity and not on behalf of the EC.

The affidavit in support further noted that Mr Sory and his law firm, [email protected], were not competent to issue the writ of summons and the statement of claim as lawyer for Mrs Osei because they were conflicted.

“That [email protected] is the law firm retained by the commission and Thaddeus Sory is the sole owner and head of chambers of [email protected],” the affidavit in support submitted.

The suit

On July 25, 2017, Mrs Osei sued Mr Opoku-Agyemang, the lawyer for petitioners who are calling for her impeachment for defamation.

She asked the court to compel Mr Opoku-Agyemang “to publish a retraction and an apology with the same prominence as the defamatory words on his Facebook page, as well as one publication in the Daily Graphic.”

And “an injunction restraining the defendant, whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise, from authorizing, permitting and/or causing to be published the same or similar words by Mrs Osei.”

She is further urging the court to award costs, including legal fees, against Mr Opoku- Agyemang.

The EC chair is also praying the court to award general and aggravated damages against Mr Opoku-Agyemang for publishing spurious and defamatory statements against her and following up to defend those words in the traditional and social media.
Source: Daily Heritage

Comments ( 0 ): Post Your Comments >>

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority.
Featured Video