While some admirers have advised me to walk away and let Judge Acquaye enjoy his tartlet, I think justice can only be served if, and when, the Judge Acquayes in the nation’s judiciary are uncovered, and punished. When Judge Kobena Acquaye sidestepped the strictures of his profession to defend his beleaguered friend to unlawfully claim title to my property, he opened up his body armour for pinpointed darts. Below are some of the misstatements in judge Acquaye’s ruling which are in variance with courtroom testimonies, and are grounds for reviewing Judge Acquaye’s current position as an adjudicator in the nation’s judiciary.
Judge Acquaye’s position that Nana Osae-Duodu’s (the plaintiff’s), indenture was executed on 9th June, 2004 raises serious issues than answers. On 15th July, 2004, Mr. Geoffrey Quist, the plaintiff’s lawyer, who is also counsel to the plaintiff’s grantor, wrote a letter to the Greater Accra Regional Lands Commissioner to state the following: (i) That Mr. Emmanuel Roger Amudzi, the plaintiff’ grantor, acquired the said land from Lawyer Aboayge “on and around the 30th day of July 2003.”
He further stated that it took his client “over a year” to register his document. If the preceding account is true, then the estimated time Mr. Roger Amudzi could have completed the registration of his forged document would have been past 30th July, 2004. The stated date would have made it impossible for Mr. Amudzi to have sold my land to Mr. Richard Osei-Duodu, who alleged he registered his documents on 9th June 2004. Mr. Quist’s letter to the Regional Lands Officer contradicted information on Mr. Amudzi’s indenture that he acquired my same land from the Reindorf Family on 24th August, 1995. According to Mr. Quist, Mr. Emmanuel Roger Amudzi “went to back to Carl Josiah Reindorf, after the death Lawyer Kwabena Aboagye, who signed the indenture for him.” Lawyer Kwabena Aboagye died in the early months of 2005.
How does Judge Acquaye address the following questions: (i) why would a 1995 indenture that Mr. Amudzi was allegedly to have duly registered at the Lands Commission, and for which the plaintiff submitted as evidence of purchase, require the signature of Mr. Carl Josiah Reindorf, for a second time, in 2005, after the death of Lawyer Kwabena Aboagye? (ii) That plaintiff could not detect fraud on his grantor’s document when Paragraph Four (4), on Mr. Amudzi’s 1995 indenture plainly cited an Accra High Court judgment between Emelia Reindorf (substituted by Carl Josiah Reindorf) and Ors vs. CFC Construction Ltd? In the case herein (Suite No L.1450/92), judgment was given on the 22nd July, 1997. (iii) Under what magical conditions can a 1995 document be able to cite a judgement that was given in July 1997 without detecting fraud? (iv) How could a plaintiff who admitted in his court testimony that, he was an Executive Director of a Beverage Company (i.e. Waist-and-Power), and was skilled in writing, and reading contracts, not detect the fraud on his grantor’s document, which he, apparently, read before buying the land? (v) How could the plaintiff, and Judge Acquaye, not know that Mr. Amudzi’s indenture was forged when at his indenture clearly states that between 1992 to 1997, the land in dispute was owned by the CFC Construction Ltd, and that the matter was before the court during the stated years?(vi)If from 1992 to 1997, the disputed land was before the court as stated on Mr. Amudzi’s indenture, couldn’t the plaintiff have asked Mr. Amudzi from whom he bought the land in 1995?(vii) How could Judge Acquaye, and the plaintiff, not detect fraud, when Mr. Amudzi’s documents reads that, he registered his indenture in August 1995, yet his witness signed the same document on 10th April, 1998? The misrepresentations on Mr. Amudz’s documents, which are visible to the untrained eye, negate Judge Acquaye’s contention that the plaintiff was an “innocent purchaser of property of legal estate for value without any notice of encumberance.”
Judge Acquaye’s contention that it was the plaintiff who reported the matter to the Police is not true. I was the one who filed complaint with the Greater Accra Police (i.e. Striking Force) and not the plaintiff as stated in Judge Acquaye’s ruling. On the day in question, the police officers who attended the site, with me, arrested three of the plaintiff’s workmen. Their names are; Salifu Abubakar, Yaw Antwi, and Kofi Badu. These three individuals were bailed, on the same day, by the plaintiff at the Greater Accra Striking Force. At a later date, the case was transferred to Police/CID Headquarters under the direct supervision of Mr. Ampewuah (Ex. D/Director/CID). On the advice of the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Amudzi is, currently, facing criminal prosecution at Judge Frank Manu’s court for grand larceny and falsification of government documents.
In their testimonies, both the plaintiff, and his mason, who testified as the plaintiff’s witness, admitted that they were arrested by the police, and were told to stop any further development on my land. During the course of his testimony, the plaintiff’s witness (i.e. the mason) identified me in the court audience. In his testimony, the mason also admitted that at the time the police arrived on site, the workmen were in the process of laying the building’s foundation.
The mason’s deposition which was given in 2006 contradicted the plaintiff’s court initial application October 2004, and Judge Acquaye’s ruling dated 22nd October, 2004 which reads: “Lastly, by the photographs exhibited in this application, the plaintiff’s building is at the lintel level. Considering the cost of building, I am of the view that more hardship will be occasioned the plaintiff respondent if this application is granted.” On the day of the arrest, I took pictures, and tendered them as evidence in court. In these pictures, not only were the plaintiff’s workmen in the process of laying the foundation, as matter of fact, they were at the stage of transporting building materials to the land. In law, any party to a judicial proceeding who gives evidence that is contrary to his/her previous evidence has committed perjury, and his case must be throw out for obstructing justice. This did not happen in Judge Acquaye’s court, even when evidence existed that the plaintiff and his witness were knowingly lying to the court.
I would also like to state that Judge’s Acquaye offer of two million Cedis to the plaintiff that I trespassed on my own property distorts what actually took place on the given day. First of all, the Trespass Act allows an/the owner of a property of value to enter his/her lawfully-acquired property, with police, to prevent an encroacher from taking possession of his/her land. The same law, allows me, as the owner of the said property, to seek the lawful assistance of the police to prevent the plaintiff, his agents, and assignees, from trespassing on my property, which I lawfully did. If the plaintiff’s, and his witness’, testimonies support my position that I arrested the plaintiff’s workmen with the assistance of the police, then wherein lies the justification for the general damage for trespassing? Wouldn’t jug Acquaye have done the same if his property was stolen?
I am deeply troubled by Judge Acquaye’s disregard for the integrity of witness testimony, and his alteration, and embellishment, of courtroom evidence to serve his personal interest. I would also like to state that by modifying courtroom testimonies, Judge Acquaye has committed a serious crime. Thus, he has willfully engaged in misrepresentation by twisting testimonies, knowing they are false. By changing, and stating, a testimony that the plaintiff never made in court, which the court transcripts would corroborate, Judge Acquaye’s has depreciated the value of, and the public’s confidence in, the Ghanaian justice system, and he must be investigated and, possibly, expelled from the Bench. Judge Acquaye’s misrepresentation of courtroom testimony is in consistent with a judge, who knowingly revises courtroom testimonies, and gives rulings, which are contrary to the values of a noble institution.
Judge Kobena Acquaye’s assertion that the plaintiff admitted in his testimony that the Lands Commissioner’s letter “got to him late” is inaccurate. When the plaintiff was cross-examined by my counsel, he forcefully denied ever receiving a letter from the Lands Commission. When he was shown a copy of the stated letter by my counsel, the plaintiff argued that his name was spelt wrong (i.e. Osa(e)-Duodu and not Osa(m)-Duodu). While he admitted that his mailing address was correct, he claimed the registered letter might have gone missing in the mail because his name was spelt wrong. If the plaintiff asserted that this name was spelt wrong, implying that the letter was lost, when did he admit to receiving the same letter without anyone in the court hearing his testimony, with the exception of Judge Acquaye? I would also like to state that, the plaintiff never made any statement to the effect “letter from the Lands Commission’s letter got to him late and since the matter was then in court any decision by the Lands Commission would be of no effect” as stated in Judge Acquaye’s ruling. I was personally in court on the said day, and the plaintiff never admitted to receiving any letter from the Lands Commission. Matter of fact, it was Judge Acquaye, who in one of his customary outbursts said that the “Lands Commission has no power.” I am stunned by Judge Acquaye’s ability to cook-up testimony without a second thought, and not knowing that his actions could, and may, come back to haunt him.
Even if the plaintiff did receive the letter from the Commission, which he denied receiving, why would Judge Acquaye support the plaintiff deposition that the letter would have been of “no effect” knowing that the Lands Commission is a self-regulatory body? As a matter of fact, Chapter Twenty-One, Section 265 of the 1992 Constitution clearly states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this constitution or in any other law which is not inconsistent with this Constitution, the Lands Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority, in the performance of its functions.” By amending, and introducing, a testimony that the plaintiff never made in court, Judge Acquaye not only helped the plaintiff to disrespect the law, he also acted unconstitutionally, and in grave contempt for the law.
The plaintiff’s denial of being aware of my interest at the time he purchased the land is also incorrect. I was the one who filed a complaint with at the Accra Central Police Station, and effected the arrest of plaintiff’s workmen which, in itself, was enough warning to the plaintiff that there was a competing claim to the land, and that by law, he has to cease any further development until the matter was fully resolved at the court (Madam Beatrice Oye Quartey vs. Nichiren Shoshu). When the plaintiff’s lawyer was shown the letter he wrote to the Regional Lands Commissioner, dated 15th July, 2004, he admitted that he was the author of the said letter. Here, the founded presumption is that, as a lawyer to the plaintiff, he would have warned his client that there was a rival claim to the land? Whether, or not, the plaintiff knew of the said letter, or was forewarned by his counsel, is not my contractual obligation, but his lawyer’s. In law, to warn a trespasser, either directly, or by other methods, constitutes a notice of encumberance. For any average-minded person, a single warning is enough to make the trespasser evaluate the potential costs that might ensue, if s/he proceeds to develop the land in dispute. In the case herein, the plaintiff took the risk, and the price tag of his investment cannot become a justification to give him my land.
By going outside of the forensic expert’s testimony, and calling for a protracted hearing, Judge Acquaye not only reverse course in his ruling on the interim injunction dated the 22nd day of October, 2004, he desperately introduced other legal technicalities to free the plaintiff from culpability. On Paragraph Three (3), Page Three (3) on his ruling dated 22/10/2004, Judge Acquaye supported the defendant’s counsel’s position that “The indenture of the plaintiff and his grantor have been duly registered at the Lands and are prima facie evidence which cannot be ignored “until the alleged forgery is proved.” Just as the plaintiff’s grantor’s document was established to be forged, Judge Acquaye allowed the plaintiff to file Motion of Notice for Leave to Amend Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, dated 13th December, 2005. Here, he amended and denied sworn “averments in Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18” on his affidavit despite repeated objections from my counsel. Judge Acquaye allowed the plaintiff to change his initial affidavit from an "owner of a property" to “a bonifide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice of incumbrance."
If Acquaye admitted in his 20th December, 2007 ruling, that “Carl Reindorf's signature on Amudzi's indenture Exhibit “A” was forged”, after the forensic report had established that fact, what was the legal rationale behind Judge Acquaye to giving my land to Nana Osae-Duodu who tendered in a falsified document, and who consistently lied in his testimony to the court? Would Judge Acquaye have called for a full hearing if the forensic examination had established the plaintiff’s document as genuine, and mine as forged? If forensic evidence was of little, or no, evidentiary value, why did Judge Acquaye compel me to fly my grantor from the United Kingdom to provide signature samples when, in fact, there were some already in the court docket?
By changing the substantive issue before the court (i.e. the determination of forgery) to who has “better title to the plot of land in dispute, Judge Acquaye exposed his untiring determination to deny me my right to my lawfully-acquired property. If forensic evidence proved that the plaintiff’s grantor document was falsified, why should I, and not the plaintiff, be made to bear the cost for being deceitful? Couldn’t Judge Acquaye have ordered the plaintiff to bring his grantor to explain the suspicion surrounding his falsified document? If “A” steals “B’s” car, and sells it to “C,” who successfully registered the car, how can “C” lay claim to ownership, if fraud is determined, and “A” is established the rightful owner of the car in dispute? Can “C” lay claim to the stolen car on the excuse that at the time of purchase, he did not know the car was stolen, and that by completing registration, he is the bonafide owner of the stolen car? Wasn’t Judge Acquaye thought basic syllogism in Law School? I took this in Philosophy 101, and I can’t understand how Judge Acquaye is entrusted with such an enormous responsibility without demonstrating some verifiable competence in logic and reasoning.
Judge Acquaye position that the plaintiff “bought the land from Emmanuel Amudzi and tendered as evidence an indenture dated 9th June, 2004 must be also be questioned. If the plaintiff had tendered a registered document bearing his name, and not Mr. Amudzi’s falsified indenture, what was the principal reason for Judge Acquaye to ordering me to fly Mr. Carl Josiah Reindorf, my grantor, from the United Kingdom to give signature samples for forensic analysis? After all the plaintiff’s documents did not bear Mr. Reindorf’s signature. The reason for bringing my grantor was because Mr. Emmanuel Roger Amudzi’s document bore a signature that was alleged to have been signed by Mr. Carl Josiah Reindorf. At the time in question, the plaintiff did not have any document. As part of his trick, Judge Acquaye needlessly adjourned the case to enable the plaintiff acquired a hastily-prepared indenture to tender in as evidence.
The plaintiff’s testimony that he conducted a search at the Lands Commission before registering his document is also false. In his ruling Judge Acquaye admitted that the plaintiff’s documentary evidence showed that he registered the land (on 9th June, 2004) before conducting a search on 3rd August, 2004. Judge Acquaye’s admission of the plaintiff’s statement as tenable evidence defies the laid-down procedure for the admissibility of evidence. First of all, why would one register a land before conducting a search? Isn’t it a standard protocol that a potential land buyer must, first, conduct a search at the Lands Commission before buying the land? The plaintiff’s statement that the conducted a search before buying the land is not in harmony with his document (i.e. receipts), which he submitted to the court and constitutes fraud (i.e. misleading the court). By providing the court with a postdated search receipt is enough evidence to prove my case that the plaintiffs is not an innocent purchaser, as Judge Acquaye contends, but a diligent fraudster who would go at any length to steal people’s property using false pretence.
According to Judge Acquaye ruling, the plaintiff registered his land on 9th June, 2004. How does Judge Acquaye, explain how the plaintiff was able to register his land before even submitting his application for processing, which according the plaintiff’s evidence, he did on the “16th June, 2004?” From the discrepancy, one can easily conclude that in his desperate attempt to backdate his registration date to give his contrived evidence some form of legitimacy, the plaintiff “placed the cart before the horse.” It must also be noted that no person can register a piece of land at the Lands Commission, within (7) days, given the extensive bureaucracy at the secretariat. This can only be done through fraud. Under intense cross-examination, the plaintiff contradicted his past testimony that he conducted a search at the Lands Commission. According to him, it was Mr. Roger Emmanuel Roger Amudzi who prepared, registered, and delivered the document to him at home. Although, Judge Acquaye’s attention was drawn to the discrepancies on the plaintiff’s documents, as he clearly admitted in his ruling, he failed to take a serious view of the matter which further confirmed his open admission that the plaintiff was his friend.
Judge Acquaye’s statement that the Lands Commissioner (DW1) testified that my documents could not be registered because when I presented them Mr. Emmanuel Roger Amudzi's had already been registered, and which, in turn, paved the way for the plaintiff to register his document, did not capture the entire testimony of Mr. J.EK Dadson. In response to my counsel’s question as to who was the rightful owner of the land, the Commissioner said, I was. He, further, stated that, although the land was registered in Mr. Emmanuel Roger Amudzi’s name, Mr. Amudzi couldn’t lay claim (i.e. title) to a property which he acquired under false pretence. The Lands Commissioner submitted evidence to prove that the Lands Secretariat conducted a parallel investigation when I reported the falsification of my document (to the secretariat) in 2004. It was through this investigation that they discovered that Mr. Amudzi’s had submitted a fake document, and registered my land in his name.
In accord with the Commission’s policy, the Regional Land Commissioner said the Commission sent registered letters to Mr. Amudzi inviting him to come to his office to explain how he acquired my land. He declined. He also tendered in registered letter(s) he wrote to both Mr. Emmanuel Rogers Amudzi, and Nana Osae-Duodu stating that their names have been expunged from the Commission’s records. While in court, Judge Acquaye rebuked the Regional Lands Commissioner for registering the land in my name while the case was before him, and warned him not to do so next time. What does the preceding act say about the intention of this Judge?
Judge Acquaye’s statement that I said my land was registered in 2005 is another misrepresentation. First of all, there is a difference between registering a land, and completing the registration process. If Judge Acquaye had taken his time to read the receipts I submitted in court, as evidence, and had listened to the Lands Commissioner, he would have noted that I started processing my land on 26/06/2003, and it was after the plaintiff, and his grantor, have refused to submit themselves to the Lands Commission for investigation, that my land was finally registered in my name in 2005. The Lands Commissioner told the court that they used my document to conduct a parallel forensic investigation, and found Mr. Amudzi’ documents to be doctored.
Judge Acquaye’s opinion that the “plaintiff's document was the first to be registered,” and must, therefore, take “priority” despite evidence of fraud, has no foundation in twenty-first century justice. What kind of law, in the nation’ statute books, stipulates that a plaintiff can retain title to a property that is proven to have been acquired through fraud? Will Judge Acquaye be prepared to forego his house if a fraudster is successful in registering it as his? While an individual could lay claim to a title, it (i.e. the title) ceases to exist, if an investigative machinery determines that, the said property was acquired through fraud, as the police forensic report established in the case herein. In any civilized society, the law protects the rights citizens who acquire(d) their physical possessions through lawful means, and have verifiable evidence to prove their lawful acquisitions. On the obverse, the same law denies any citizen the right to claim title to unlawful acquisitions.
Judge Kobena’s Acquaye’s position that the plaintiff is an “Innocent Purchaser of a legal estate for value without Notice of fraud” and “must be protected” is flawed from the point of law. The plaintiff cannot claim the provision of an “innocent purchaser” when he ignored every warning from the police and built on my property. How does the plaintiff become an “innocent purchaser” when he mislead the court (i.e. that he conducted a search at the Land Commission before he registered his documents?) .What “innocent purchaser” would, suddenly, deny sworn averments (paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18) on an affidavit after a forensic report has invalidated his documents? The plaintiff cannot invoke the provision of an “innocent purchaser” when the date he purported to have registered the land (i.e. 9th June, 2004) predates the date he submitted his application for registration (i.e. 16th June, 2004), and day he conducted his search (i.e. 3rd August, 2004) at the Lands Commission. The standard procedure in land registration is as follows: Firstly, one must conduct a search. Secondly, one must file documentations, and pay the processing fees, and thirdly, one must collect the documents after the registration is completed. These are the established protocols, and Judge Acquaye, and the plaintiff, cannot change them for their personal convenience.
Judge Acquaye’s contention that “the operation of the doctrine of “innocent purchaser” is the time of purchase, and not subsequently” defies legal clarity and modern reasoning. Under what legal criteria did Judge Acquaye establish the concept of an “innocent purchaser?” In every criminal transaction, fraud is mostly, if not always, established after the fact, and not at the time when two conniving parties meet to strategize on how best they could steal, and take advantage of Judge “Acquaye’s law” to protect the criminal acquisitions.
Judge Acquaye’s one-sided interpretation the “Innocent Purchaser” clause seem to have wrongfully implied that the plaintiff could purchase a property, and feign ignorance for his complicity in fraud, even when evidence proves that he is/was not an innocent purchaser. Would Judge Acquaye apply the same law, if his family member was the victim in the case herein? What does Judge Acquaye mean by an “Innocent Purchaser,” when the plaintiff and Mr. Amudzi were investigated for stealing a parcel of land belonging to the late Mr. Allotey, setting his car on fire, and leaving his widow, and her then newly-born baby without a breadwinner? Despite Judge Acquaye’s objections, the plaintiff admitted, under cross-examination, that he knows the late Mr. Allottey, and would want to keep the matter to himself. The police officer who investigated the case is Inspector Mohammed.
In law, the onus to proving that Nana Osae-Duodu is an “innocent purchaser” rests on procurer. Judge Acquaye cannot determine, on an impulse, whether the plaintiff was an innocent purchaser without, first, evaluating the credibility of the plaintiff’s witnesses, and how well they do under cross-exanimation. To prove his innocence, the plaintiff could have done the right thing by inviting his grantor, as I did with mine, and the signatories to the transaction (i.e. Shole Williams and Felix Mortey) to come to court to testify in his defence, which he failed to do. By bringing a mason, whom the plaintiff knew knows nothing about the land, not only speaks volumes about the plaintiff’s criminal motives, it also raises serious questions about Judge Acquaye’s credibility as a neutral arbiter. In civil matters, the objective of a presiding judge is to determine culpability based on the preponderance of evidence, and not whether, or not, the plaintiff was aware that he was purchasing a stolen property. The preceding can only be determined by testing the empirical value of incontrovertible evidence, which Judge Acquaye ignored, and instead applied his subjective interpretation of the law to justify the plaintiff’s contradictory depositions.
Since I filed my counterclaim in his court on 14th December, 2004, until the day of judgment (i.e. 20th December, 2007), Judge Acquaye has always leaned toward the plaintiff. What judge would tolerate a plaintiff’s non-attendance to court, and not dismiss the case for lack of interest? In three years (i.e. from December 2004 to December 2007), the plaintiff only attended court twice. It is also worth bringing to readers’ attention that, having ordered the respective lawyers to file their closing statements in June 2007, which we gladly did, in July 2007, the plaintiff’s counsel did not do so. He failed to file his closing statement in July, August, September, October, and November (22nd). Whether he did so in December 2007, which I doubt, needs to be investigated to answer the unrequited question; why Judge Acquaye did not, and wouldn’t, censure the plaintiff’s counsel for defying the orders of the court.
While it is neither my intention, nor is it my duty, to tell my nation what to do to address a growing problem that has undermined the effectuality of the judiciary, and sapped the public’s confidence in our nation’s criminal justice system, I believe that, all men, and women, if they could, and if allowed, could become tyrants, and who could leave our dearest nation in social disequilibrium. However, what keeps the ambiance of humankind safe, and stable, is the determination of the human spirit to resist the transmutations of the Judge Acquayes as our way of honouring our service to the Transcendent, and our commitment to our young democracy. A justice system that fails the defenders of truth is an indictment on the nation’s moral conscience. Like an insatiable monster, it will come back to greedily eat those who celebrated over Obenewaa’s affliction with a spiteful judge. As humans, let’s reflect by using our God-giving conscience to take stock of the innocent citizens who have been wrongfully convicted, by Judge Acquaye? How many criminals have Judge Acquaye’s criminal-friendly rulings emboldened, and allowed to steal from law-abiding citizens? The voice of sanity, while faint, is enduring. I will prevail, and I surely will. Good day and cheers.
