The three ‘special guests’ invited by the panel of judges hearing the Election Petition have exhibited contrasting responses to allegations of contempt hurled against them. The NDC's Stephen Atubiga was thoroughly remorseful; his counterpart Kweku Boahen denied making the comments for which he was invited but Ken Koranchie was defensive but later reluctantly apologised. Atubiga's apology With his head bowed down, Stephen Atubiga of the NDC Communications Team continued his profuse apology from Thursday. He said he is a poor boy despite living 14 years in the United States. He was also a victim of the Bawku conflict and had his house burnt down. He was addicted to the use of apology in his statement. He mentioned in not less than 10 times that his comments were "irresponsible". When asked by one of the judges to repeat the comments for which he had been dragged before the court, he refused, saying, “I pray to God that those words don’t come from my mouth”, he vowed. Atubiga stated he is a father and a husband and ought to have been a better role model. Boahene's denial Boahene, the Ashanti Regional Youth Organiser of the ruling NDC, on his part denied ever making the statement reported by New Statesman. They were false, he charged. The court should investigate the matter “thoroughly”. He has not been on any radio station for the past two weeks. He said the New Statesman had retracted the publication this Tuesday. He was discharged by the bench. Ken Kuranchie's attempted defence Ken Kuranchie however put in a defence. He was accompanied by three lawyers led by Atta Akyea. Atta Akyea said there was “no trace” of any abuse in his front page comment. His client was only raising concerns, he explained. Without commentary on court proceedings which in been broadcast live, the whole experience would be like a “cemetery”, he noted. He was asking for clearer guidelines, his counsel claimed. But a judge responded the court does not exist to provide tuition. That is the role of lawyers, he said. Ken Kuranchie in his statement said he needed clarity on whether the court had made a charge against him. He said his article was to bring to the court’s notice that worse comments had been made before Sammy’s criticism of the court’s decisions as hypocritical. Ken after being counseled by his lawyer, said if the court felt "great displeasure" because of his commentary, he apologises for the publication. After attempts by the judges to get clarification on his conditional apology, the court recessed to consider all the cases.