It’s unethical to ambush lawyer for the other party – Ayine tells Dame on expeditious hearing

Former Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine has criticized Attorney-General Godfred Dame for the way and manner he went about applying for the expeditious hearing of the injunction application against the consideration of the new ministers of President Akufo-Addo.

He explained that when the A-G applies for an abridgment of time in a case, he has to serve the lawyer for the other party in order to prevent surprises.

In his view, that was not done in this particular case.

“If you apply for a speedy hearing of the case you ought to serve the lawyer for the other part, that was not what was done in this particular case.

“It is unethical to ambush the lawyer for the other party.,” he told journalists. in Accra on Wednesday, March 27.

Mr Godfred Dame had said that he applied for a speedy hearing of Dafeamekpor’s injunction application against the consideration of the ministerial nominees.

He explained that the Court Act and the Constitution permit a party to a case to apply for expeditious hearing of the case hence he does not understand the criticism against the Supreme Court for hearing this matter quickly.

His comments come on the heels of the criticisms by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) against Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonorr, in the scheduling of political cases in the Supreme Court. The NDC accused her of being biased against them.

The party’s concern was with regards to the listing of the case filed by Mr Dafeamekpor, for hearing, ahead of the case of Richard Dela Sky v. the Parliament of Ghana and the Attorney-General.

According to a statement 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 speaking to journalists in Accra after the Supreme Court dismissed Dafeakpeos’ application, Mr Dame said “The duty to fix the date for the hearing rests with the registry of the Supreme Court and I do not understand where this business of people actually scrutinizing when applications are fixed for hearing or why this case has not been fixed for hearing, came from.

“Back in the day, if you file an application in the Supreme Court of Ghana it takes you even three months for you to get a date for a hearing. It is only after a party has made an application for an expeditious determination of the process that the matter will come up for hearing.  even the record show that in this particular case, I specifically applied for an expeditious determination of the matter so it is not the Supreme Court of Ghana picking and choosing which location should hear and not to 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 further described the injunction application Dafeamekpor against the consideration of the ministerial nominees, as frivolous and an abuse of the court process after stating that it was an application was an attempt to frustrate the work of the government.

Asked why it appears he is taking a keen interest in only matters that favor the government and not filing for an expedited hearing in the application against anti-gay bill, Mr Dame said “we have filed a relevant affidavit in opposition in that matter, so I think all these comments are unwanted and indeed are baseless. we actually filed our opposition to the affidavit in answer to the Richard Sky matter before we filed the affidavit in answer today 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 application filed by Dafeamekpor against Parliament’s approval of ministerial nominees by President Akufo-Addo.

By a unanimous decision, the apex Court said the injunction application is frivolous and an abuse of the court process.Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor had filed an injunction restraining Parliament from vetting and approving new ministers as well as reshuffled ministers given various portfolios. He was praying the court to deem the action by President Akufo-Addo as unconstitutional.

President Akufo-Addo on February 14, 2024 had announced a reshuffle consisting of 13 ministers and 10 deputy ministers being relieved of their post, while 6 of them were reassigned into various portfolios.

On Wednesday, March 27, 2024, when the case was called, the South Dayi Member of Parliament as well as his lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo were both absent.

Events took an interesting twist when the five-member panel chaired by the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkonoo stood down the hearing for about 10 minutes to ascertain the details of documents submitted by the court bailiff.

The bailiff had indicated that in his quest to serve court processes to the Speaker of Parliament (1st defendant) and Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor (Plaintiff) the latter had refused service.

Joshua Benning narrated to the court that a hearing notice and affidavit in opposition documents which were sent to the law firm of representatives of Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor were rejected because “an order had been made by the lawyer Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo not to receive any service”

The Chief Justice then ordered for the hearing of the case to progress after the bailiff confirmed that the Speaker of Parliament had duly been served and he had also left the court documents at the premises of the plaintiff’s lawfirm.

Attorney-General Godfred Dame then described actions by the plaintiff’s lawyer as the highest form of disrespect to the apex court and as professional misconduct and called for the dismissal of the suit.

Responding to the suit, Thaddeus Sory, counsel for the Speaker of Parliament also opposed to the injunction application citing that it did not satisfy the requirements for an injunction to be granted.

Ruling on the matter, the apex court dismissed the injunction application by Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor with the reason that the suit was against minister nominees whose names have not been submitted.

Mr Godfred Dame further said “It is unheard of for a lawyer who has filed an application in the matter to reject the direction and the processes that have been filed by the other side.

“It is really for me, a gross professional misconduct. Be that as it may, the court proceeded to deal with the matter and that is it. I think it was very unfortunate especially as the same counsel was in the same day filing processes in the Supreme Court of Ghana earlier in the morning It was rejected the processes from the Supreme Court of Ghana and in the afternoon he proceeded to file processes in the same 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.”