The 2008 flag bearer of the People's National Convention (PNC) and six others have challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against them by three members of the party. According to Dr. Edward Mahama and the six other executives of the PNC, the application for the contempt brought against them was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the Fast Track High Court. The other respondents are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban. Three members of the PNC, Dr. Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana, had dragged Dr. Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court's order which directed Dr. Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC party office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr. Tobiga and the two others. In the said case, Dr. Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing. On January 6, 2011, the court directed Dr. Tobiga, Mr. Jatoh, Mr. Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but according to them, Dr. Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the party office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011. In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents, Dr. Raymond Atuguba prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because from the records before the court, it was difficult to identify who the applicant for the contempt suit was. According to the counsel, Dr. Tobiga, Mr. Jatoh and Mr. Gana were the accused persons in the criminal case before the district magistrate's court, but in this particular contempt suit, only Dr. Tobiga was cited as an applicant and for that reason, it was improper for Dr. Tobiga and the two others to jointly sign the affidavit in support of the application. The counsel further argued that assuming without admitting that Dr. Tobiga was the applicant in the contempt suit, there was no affidavit in support of his application. Dr. Atuguba, therefore, stressed that the affidavit in support of the contempt application against his clients which was signed by Dr. Tobiga, Mr. Jatoh and Mr. Gana, who he described as 'strangers', was irregular and must accordingly be struck out. He prayed the court not to award cost against Dr. Tobiga and the others because steps were underway to resolve the differences between the parties in the case. The counsel for Dr. Tobiga, however, argued that his client acted on behalf of Mr. Jatoh and Mr. Gana, adding that the averments in the affidavit in support of the contempt suit attested to that. On the issue of irregularity, the counsel argued that it had been cured by Dr. Tobiga signing on behalf of the others. The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Quist, would rule on the matter on May 12, 2011. Source: Daily Graphic