The Accra Fast Track High Court will, on June 24, 2011, decide whether or not to cite the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr. Edward Mahama and six others for contempt of court.

The members of the PNC- Dr. Somtim Sobiga, Ahmed Jatoh, and Abu Seidu Baba Gana- dragged Dr. Mahama and others to court for allegedly flouting a District Magistrate’s court order which directed Dr. Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of the case brought against Dr. Tobiga and the two others.

On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr. Tobiga, Jato, Gama and the party members to vacate the party office until final determination of the criminal case, but according to them, Dr. Mahama and the other respondent flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organize a press conference on January 18, 2011.

The press conference, according to applicants, was captured on national television.

The other respondents, who are all executive members of the PNC, are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, National Chairman; Bernard Mornah, General Secretary; Attik Mohammed , Alhaji Mohammed Baba, Col George Luri Bayorbor (ret.) and Abraham Kaban.

The respondents had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be missed by the court, but on May 12, 2011 it dismissed the application and fixed Tuesday for hearing the contempt of application.

Moving the motion for contempt, counsel for the applicants, Mr. C.A Chambers, said apart from Dr. Mahama and Mr. Mornah, the other respondents had not opposed the application for contempt.

He said the respondents flouted the court’s order by forcibly breaking into the party’s office to organize a press conference, thereby, mocking the court’s order.

According to counsel, the action of the respondents amounted to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard for the authority and prestige of the court and had, therefore, brought the administration of the justice into disrepute.

Mr. Chambers argued that the court’s order was directed at all party members and for that reason the high court should punish the respondents as a lesson to others.

Opposing the application, counsel for the respondents, Mr. James Agalga, described the applicants’ motion as vexatious and without basis in law.

According to the counsel, the lower court’s order was directed at the applicants who had earlier broken into the party office, vandalised party property.

He further stated that the lower court’s order was lacking in terms of clarity and was vague where his clients were concerned, but precise and clear where Dr. Tobiga and the other applicants were concerned.

Mr. Agalga, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the contempt application with punitive costs.

Source: Daily Graphic

Tags: