1.This communication is a response to unfair media reports. It would be helpful to begin with pertinent information to situate matters into context. Following the 14th November 2023 orders of Her Lady the Chief Justice for my arrest and detention on disagreement with her uncomplimentary remarks during court proceedings, the media have been awash with misrepresentation of court judgment and proceedings that involve me. I can understand the drive for the publicity because of my humble professional standing in society.

2. In an earlier press release, I made the point quite clear that the orders were unlawful and abuse of power. I added that the Chief Justice compounded the abuse of power with a cover-up of the true record of what transpired. I also informed the public that I petitioned the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to investigate the conduct of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice had since become aware of the complaint and investigation by CHRAJ. I still stand by the petition to CHRAJ and expect an investigation according to law.

3. The Supreme Court proceeding on 14th November 2023 was on certiorari application during which the orders to arrest and detain were made. Before the orders to arrest, the court made a decision dismissing my certiorari application to quash the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court did not give supporting reasons for its decision refusing to quash the High Court judgment. The public and I are entitled to know the reasoning. I sought a review of the unreasoned decision at the Supreme Court for clarity.

4. On 27th March 2024, the Chief Justice sat in a review panel to determine the review involving me despite the pendency of CHRAJ investigation of my petition. The sitting of the Chief Justice as a panel member on a matter that involves me despite the pending CHRAJ’s investigation of my petition is a clear breach of the rule of natural justice and the impartiality of judges in the administration of justice.

5.I did not object to her being part of the panel during proceedings. The Chief Justice knew or ought to know that at all times, a judge's conduct must be above reproach. The Code of Conduct for judges provides: “A judge shall disqualify herself in any case in which she believes she will be unable to judge impartially” and “The appearance of impartiality is to be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable, fair-minded and informed person”.

6. The Chief Justice was in the panel, presided over and controlled the proceedings despite the subsistence of investigation by CHRAJ at my instance. Justice, they say emanates from the people and is exercised on their behalf by the courts. I leave the appearance of partiality of the Chief Justice who sat and presided over proceedings involving me and at the time CHRAJ was investigating her at my instance to the conscience of reasonable and well-thinking people. I take consolation that reasonable and fair-minded people exude justice.

7. The Supreme Court did not give reasoned judgment on the 27th of March 2024 review, though it dismissed the review. The Supreme Court stated that its reasoned judgment will be ready at the registry by the close of 28th March 2024. My checks at the court registry indicated that the reasoned judgment was not ready by the close of 28th March 2024.

8. On the substantive matter of the High Court judgment, I say without equivocation that the High Court judgment did not explicitly or impliedly suggest my involvement in fraud whatsoever in the acquisition of the property. It was lawyer Sheila Abayie–Buckman, a colleague police officer who introduced me to Evelyn Laryea, the seller of the property. The impugned power of attorney and sale offer on which the High Court rested its judgment had been formalized by lawyer Sheila Abayie-Buckman without my involvement before I had notice of the sale of the property. The High Court judgment is pending appeal at the Court of Appeal. I urge the media and its sponsors to heed the above and be advised accordingly.

AYAMGA YAKUBU AKOLGO ESQ.