Ernesto Yeboah had no locus to petition CHRAJ over Ford gift - Lawyer

Read Comments Comments (8)

• PRINCE KWASI ADADE (OFIE P33) 7 years ago

  JDM SOLD HIS DIGNITY 4 JUST A CAR!! ABA! *****----- AUTHOR: JAB-------*****--guys are you crazy? You guys are fools that's why you call yourselves "young Cadres". If this is not a bribe what will it be? Guys don't talk about ...
  read full comment

  JDM SOLD HIS DIGNITY 4 JUST A CAR!! ABA! *****----- AUTHOR: JAB-------*****--guys are you crazy? You guys are fools that's why you call yourselves "young Cadres". If this is not a bribe what will it be? Guys don't talk about a gift from Ex- Libyan President to Kuffour. The question is if someone is your friend, that person is awarded a contract which is inflated and later spent $100,000 on a gift to the friend. What will you classify this? Let's say the person is not the president of Ghana. You guys are suffering and you are defending this nonsense. When there are too many fools in a country that is the end result.

  reply
• True talk 7 years ago

  ls he not a Ghanaian?.

  ls he not a Ghanaian?.

  reply
• Apuu toooooooooooooo 7 years ago

  One of the Msakola Half baked lawyers speaking. These days you can be harvesting cocoa all year round and still get a university certificate. If Ernesto had no locus, why did CHRAJ entertain the case. The university which gav ...
  read full comment

  One of the Msakola Half baked lawyers speaking. These days you can be harvesting cocoa all year round and still get a university certificate. If Ernesto had no locus, why did CHRAJ entertain the case. The university which gave you the law certificate must bow its head in shame

  reply
• T and T 7 years ago

  What do U mean by "U can be harvesting cocoa all year round...."
  My parents before me were cocoa farmers, I live abroad but I go straight into our plantation any time I come home. We work hard on the plantation to expand it, ...
  read full comment

  What do U mean by "U can be harvesting cocoa all year round...."
  My parents before me were cocoa farmers, I live abroad but I go straight into our plantation any time I come home. We work hard on the plantation to expand it, we are never poor because we work hard. We are very well informed and we feel proud because we are good citizens.

  reply
• DOG BEATER 7 years ago

  TWIT HASNT READ THE REPORT OR STORY. FOOL THREE COMPLAINANTS SO CHRAJ MERGED ALL PETITIONS. CPP WERE QUERIED BY CHRAJ BUT SURVIVED COS PPP HAD CAPACITY.READ B4 U TALK RUBBISH IDIOT.DO U HV A DEGREE ?THIS CAPACITY ISSUE IS IN ...
  read full comment

  TWIT HASNT READ THE REPORT OR STORY. FOOL THREE COMPLAINANTS SO CHRAJ MERGED ALL PETITIONS. CPP WERE QUERIED BY CHRAJ BUT SURVIVED COS PPP HAD CAPACITY.READ B4 U TALK RUBBISH IDIOT.DO U HV A DEGREE ?THIS CAPACITY ISSUE IS IN REPORT

  reply
• DOG BEATER 7 years ago

  USED A BRANCH OF CPP WHO HAD THE NO POWER TO FILE.SO ERNESTO OR CPP SHD HV FILED PERSONALLY. CHRAJ RAISED THE ISSUE BUT LET IT GO.CHRAJ ASKED THEM 4 BETTER PROOF SINCE THEY CITED ONLY JOY FM REPORT BUT SAID HAD NONE SO CRAJ H ...
  read full comment

  USED A BRANCH OF CPP WHO HAD THE NO POWER TO FILE.SO ERNESTO OR CPP SHD HV FILED PERSONALLY. CHRAJ RAISED THE ISSUE BUT LET IT GO.CHRAJ ASKED THEM 4 BETTER PROOF SINCE THEY CITED ONLY JOY FM REPORT BUT SAID HAD NONE SO CRAJ HAD TO COLLECT THE EVIDENCE FOR CPP YOUTH PPP AND THEN DO THEIR MANDATED INVESTIGATIVE JOB

  reply
• BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ. 7 years ago

  PLEASE,IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR-PLAY FOR THE PUBLISHER OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE TO RESPECTFULLY RESPECT EVERY PERSON OR PERSONS IN GHANA AND TO STOP THINKING THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE GHANAIANS THAN OTHERS. ...
  read full comment

  PLEASE,IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR-PLAY FOR THE PUBLISHER OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE TO RESPECTFULLY RESPECT EVERY PERSON OR PERSONS IN GHANA AND TO STOP THINKING THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE GHANAIANS THAN OTHERS.
  THAT GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 57 CLAUSES 4,5 & 6 THAT PROVIDED WITH DUE EFFECT THAT "A SITTING PRESIDENT OF GHANA CANNOT BE AMENABLE TO THE COURTS OF GHANA AND CANNOT ALSO BE HELD LIABLE TO ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL ACTS EITHER BY HIS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE/PERSONAL ACTS, THERETO.
  THAT IT WAS AS RESULT OF THE ABOVE THAT I HELD THE TWO (2) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS AT THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA. THAT IT WAS BECAUSE TONY LITHUR, WHO WAS PRESIDENT JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA LAWYER WHO TOLD THE COURT AMONG OTHERS, THAT HE HAS NOT SEEN ANY USEFULNESS OF IT.
  MAY BE ONE DAY HE WILL SEE THE USEFULNESS OF ARTICLE 57 CLAUSES 4,5 & 6.
  BUT PLEASE< GHANA BELONGS TO ALL OF US AND THOSE DRAWING "THE LINE BETWEEN US SHOULD NOW LEARN TO THINK TWICE".
  THAT IT IS THE ACTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE NDC AND OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES THAT CAN HELP WIN OTHERS TO THE SIDE OR TO JOIN THE PARTY.
  RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

  reply
• BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ. 7 years ago

  PLEASE, TAKE NOTICE OF A PUBLICATION OF THE "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS" THAT I DULY FILED AT THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS PETITION/CHALLENGE AS BELOW;
  
  VERY TRULY YOURS,
  BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI,ESQ.
  IN ...
  read full comment

  PLEASE, TAKE NOTICE OF A PUBLICATION OF THE "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS" THAT I DULY FILED AT THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS PETITION/CHALLENGE AS BELOW;
  
  VERY TRULY YOURS,
  BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI,ESQ.
  INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT
  
  PLEASE, SEE THE PUBLICATION, BELOW:
  
  Supreme Court Ghana
  It seems each day comes with its own drama in court for the parties in the on-going NPP and John Mahama case. Once again, Benoni Tony Amekudzi who calls himself a “Friend of the Court” has been thrown out of court, failing to stop the Supreme Court from proceeding with the Election Petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Mahama…
  Graphic Reports;
  
  “Friend of the Court”, Benoni Tony Amekudzi Tuesday failed once again to stop the Supreme Court from proceeding with the Election Petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Mahama.
  Amekudzi told the Court that the 1992 Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, protects the sitting President from being sued or being joined in any litigation processes before the court and was therefore improper that the Court should entertain the present election petition filed by three members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
  But the Court held that there was no ground whatsoever to review its earlier ruling and that where the court was prompted to have taken up the issue by itself, Mr. Amekudzi patently lacked the ‘locus standi’ to apply for the review.
  Mr Amekudze was unsuccessful on May 2, when he applied for leave of the court in an amicus curiae application to move a motion to stop the hearing.
  On that occasion the court held that Article 64, on which he based his application was a special constitutional provision that did not apply to his case. He was also told he failed to file his affidavit evidence to support his case as per the rules of the court and was therefore not properly before the court.
  
  In his review application, Amekudzi contended that per a number of precedents, the President after he was sworn into office as the father of the nation cannot and
  should not be part of the present petition.
  He said since it was a well-established position of the law, he expected the court to have taken up the matter and thus decline jurisdiction to the petition filed by Nana Addo Dankwa-Akufo-Addo, NPP presidential candidate in the 2012 general election; Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, vice presidential candidate of the party and Jake Otanka Obetsebi Lamptey, NPP chairman.
  Not even several interventions and directions from the bench would deter the determined Amekudzi, who spoke with such verve and style that one of judges had to ‘plead’ with him to bring his pronunciations to the Ghanaian level for all to understand.
  Counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison did not oppose the application but chose to leave it in the capable hands of the court, while counsel for the respondents, Messrs.’ Tony Lithur, James Quashie-Idun, and Tsatsu Tsikata all opposed the application and urged that it be dismissed.
  While Lithur said the applicant failed to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction properly, Tsatsu maintained his earlier submission that the applicant be treated as an inter-meddler whose admission was only going to needlessly delay the petition hearing.
  Justice William Atuguba, Chairman of the panel of judges read the decision of the court as follows;
  “When invoking our review jurisdiction, we prefer to look at the substance thereof, we consider it on its merit. As far the refusal to grant him leave to intervene as Amicus Curiae is concerned, there are no grounds whatsoever for reviewing our earlier ruling. That remains the issue that the court itself should have raised the point. Even there the applicant first needs locus standi to apply for this review which he patently lacks, however the constitution being a fundamental law and this court having jurisdiction under Article 129 Clause 3, to depart from its decisions on point of law, we deem it meet to give some thought to the matter. We think that Article 64 is a unique and special provision as we held in our earlier ruling and nothing that has been urged on us moves us to change our position to that effect. The application is accordingly dismissed.”

  reply