The Accra Fast Track High Court has directed the prosecution in the dual citizenship trial of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Dramani Sakande, to file its address by May 31, 2012 to enable the court to give its judgement. The directive follows the prosecution’s request for a week to file its address, since it received the defence’s address late. But counsel for the MP, Mr Egbert Faibille, discredited the claim, saying that the presentation of the prosecution’s address was not contingent on the prosecution receiving the presentation of the defence. The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, had, on May 11, 2012, given the prosecution two weeks to file its address following the submission of a written address on behalf of Sakande by his lawyer. The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP. He was, however, exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010. He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer. The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, gave its ruling on a submission of ‘no case’ in a civil matter brought against the Bawku Central MP over his alleged dual citizenship, asking the plaintiff to file his defence by June 12, 2012. A cattle farmer, Mr. Sumaila Biebel, in March 2009 filed a suit at the High Court challenging the eligibility of the MP on the grounds that the MP held both British and Burkinabe passports and the High Court, in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, counsel for the MP appealed against it, resulting in the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, declaring that Mr Biebel should have gone by an electoral petition, since the matter bordered on electoral dispute. Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal’s decision, Mr. Biebel went to the Supreme Court, which decided to take evidence from him. He has since testified and been cross-examined by Mr Faibille. The defence filed a submission of ‘no case’ after Mr. Biebel had completed his evidence-in-chief and been cross-examined. According to the defence, Mr. Biebel had failed to fully comply with the rules of evidence and, for that reason; there was no evidence before the Supreme Court. It said the standards for submitting exhibits had not been met by Mr Biebel and for that reason the court should strike out his case. Mr Biebel is also the complainant in the criminal action against the MP at the Fast Track High Court.