RE: With Tsatsu Tsikata, NPP is doomed in court - Ama Benyiwa Doe
I feel obliged to rebut a publication found on Ghanaweb on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 titled, "With Tsatsu Tsikata, NPP is doomed in court". Ama Benyiwa Doe, the NDC iron lady, now an outgoing Central Regional Minister is alleged to have made that unfortunate utterance amongst others. ? The happy mood, in which she made that statement, giggling and full of herself, deserves a castigating rebuttal from me. Tsatsu Tsikata conceited about being the lead Counsel for the NDC has cheered the NDC up and filled them with false hopes. By the end of my write-up, every reader would have seen and established how vainglorious the abilities of Tsatsu Tsikata are faced with the monumental credible evidence due to be unveiled in court by Nana Akuffo-Addo, alias "Obuggie" ? There is nothing more overcoming than to see Ama Benyiwa Doe retreat to her bedroom and weep herself inconsolably. This will be her portion on the day that the Supreme Court will deliver her verdict in favour of Nana Akuffo-Addo. I want to state on authority to Ama Benyiwa Doe that in the presence of absolute truth and substantive hard evidence, Tsatsu Tsikata with his entire exaggerated or unduly elevated ego will pale to nothing. He will sink to his knees, submerged by the sheer volume and weight of the evidence.
There is no any judge, whether credible or dishonest, under the Sun, Moon and Stars, who will debase him or herself, by pronouncing a judgment that is at variance with established truth based on provision of evidential documents.
As the whole world is watching with my White legal minds closely monitoring the situation, the empanelled Supreme Court judges had better do the most honourable thing by dispensing justice professionally. They should not allow their personal interests to crop in to cloud their mental and professional vision where if it does, will make them objects of international ridicule for the rest of their days on earth. ? In the face of hard evidence, legal technicalities and circumstantial evidences have no role to play. The NDC will weep their eyes out and will be shocked at the abysmal performance by Tsatsu Tsikata if they are counting on him to rely on technicalities.
? To make things clearer for my noble readers who are avid for knowing the grounds of my assertion(s), I will narrate the following legal encounters of which a friend of mine was personally involved.
Many years back in Paris (France), he went to court to defend himself against a civil suit brought against him by his corporate landlord. To begin with, his lawyer first wrote to the court to postpone the hearing that the court and the plaintiff's lawyer accepted. When the hearing was due, his lawyer decided to request a further adjournment. He wanted the case postponed for a month in order for them to assemble enough evidence. He wrote him a letter to take to the judge and the lawyer of the plaintiff on the set date for the hearing of the case. ? The plaintiff's lawyer objected to the second time request for adjournment which decision the judge did second. My friend had no choice but to become a "self-defence lawyer". He argued his case, citing the various instances of racism, harassment and victimisation against him as the lone black family within two blocks of flats of say, fifty flats, by not only the corporate landlord but also, other Whites in the house including a female Portuguese housekeeper or cleaner. He told the court, one day one Mr Atuahene, resident in Dusseldorf (Germany) and unknown to him before then, was directed to contact him for help on his first trip to France by one Kwame Mensah, his compatriot from Effiduase but resident in Hamburg (Germany). Mr. Atuahene instead of using the pedestrian gate, went through the main gate normally used by vehicles for entry and exiting the block of flats but could not shut the gate properly. The corporate landlord wrote a letter to my friend about Mr Atuahene going through the wrong gate and copied in all the landlords and tenants in both blocks. She placed copies of the letters in their letterboxes. He asked the judge what was the motive and sense in notifying everyone in the house(s) about the incident.
Failing to close the gate properly had no direct harmful effect on anyone and many a time has he found the gate in same situation and closed it hence, her motive was racist and directed at ridiculing his family. ? Again, the court had sent a Police Inspector and a lawyer to his flat to control the identities of his family or better put, those living in the flat to tell how many they are. This was about two weeks to the court sitting. The nominated persons as just mentioned did go to his flat. What was the outcome of their official visit? They sent a report to the court of which he only became aware when the judge read it to him. They had only indicated the date and time they came to his home and written how violent he was towards them, without stating how many people live in his flat and whether or not they did control their identities. Straight away, he rubbished their report. He told the court how the court had tasked the lawyer and the police officer to carry out a specific duty - to control the identities of those living in the flat and state how many they are. Where in their report did they mention they did control the identities and state how many people live there? It was nowhere stated. He told the judge and the court they had come only to pursue their own different agenda other than what the court had tasked them to do hence, he, resisting their fictitious motive. ? In addition, the corporate landlord had once called in a lawyer to go through his rubbish placed on the pavement in front of the house pending collection by the refuse trucks. This was her attempt to establish how many people live in his flat. He never knew she had done that until she told him herself what she did a few days ago. She said the lawyer told her what he, the lawyer, was doing, was illegal yet he proceeded to do it at the bidding of the woman. He told the court what she had told him. The judge asked, "How do you know a lawyer went through your rubbish, he, asserting that what he was doing was illegal? He pointed at the woman and said, "She told me" and that the judge could ask her. The judge said to him, "Do not point at her but talk to me or point at me".
The woman and her lawyer could not talk. His truth and how his questions and narrations were flowing, made the lawyer and the woman look complete idiots. The courtroom was full of lawyers, spectators, and those waiting for the turn of the hearing of their case. Some stood there agape at the oratory of a young Blackman making a fool of a corporate landlord who even the White French landlords and tenants are scared to confront. ? He won the case. The court communicated the judgment in writing to his lawyer, who, sadly, was nowhere near the court vicinity on the day of the court hearing. He won the case because he told nothing but the absolute truth, with the provision of evidence. ? He has also been able to cause the resignation of a Senior Area Manager of a big cleaning company in London. Her assistant also got the sack and other heads rolled. It was all because a Ghanaian woman working for the company was wrongly removed from her site and threatened with a sack after a year's suspension on pay. The defence letters he wrote for her, quoting the relevant laws the company was in breach of, and how the action amounts to harassment, victimization and discrimination, they budged in the end. The company has since reinstated her. She won the case because she told nothing but the absolute truth supported by evidence. ? Finally, about a fortnight ago, he made a lawyer look a big fool before his daughter and him. His daughter is even putting pressure on him to help her countersue the lawyer for causing her needless stress that has the potential to adversely impact on her pending University exams. The lawyer of the plaintiff walked up to him, for the first time that they had met, and said, "I will put up my hand and say to the judge, I am sorry, it was my fault, and ask for the case to be closed". She had come to this conclusion after receiving a letter vividly explaining, amid quoting relative laws and regulations, and subsequent breaches, with hard copy proofs attached. My friend intended by the statements in the letter to refute her earlier petition made to the court, which though the court had granted without knowing it was based on falsehood. He copied the court and his daughter's landlord in the letter.
In the face of the credible evidence sent of which both the judge and the landlord had been made aware of, the only honourable thing for the lawyer to do was to ask for the withdrawal or the closure of the case when appealed by his daughter. She would be the greatest fool to have acted differently at the sheer volume of the credible evidence.
When they were ushered in, after taking Ttheir seats, the judge just looked up and asked the lawyer, "What do you want me to do for you. Have you come to cancel the case?" She stood up, gladly and hurriedly said, yes. The judge bent his head down, took down some notes, raised his head and said I have done it you can go. All this lasted for about three minutes. How quick it was!
My friend asked the judge a few questions but the judge kept insisting he has cancelled the case and there was nothing else to do. Finally, he told the judge, and then my daughter will have to initiate a counterclaim against her landlord for the inconvenience and harassments caused to her. The judge said, "I cannot give you any advice". My friend said, that will be another court case then. The judge said yes. They then left the courtroom.
The three true case scenarios tell that in the face of credible evidence, even the most stupid judge, blinded by corruption, cannot rule against the truth.
I hope Ama Benyiwa Doe and the like-minded ignorant NDC faithful will cease being over confident in Tsatsu Tsikata as capably surely to win them the case pending against Kwadwo Afari-Gyan and John Mahama. He will rather capitulate when Nana Akuffo-Addo's lawyers make bare the evidence in court for all to see. He should not make himself a fool by seeking to twist the facts using legal technicalities. That will not wash in the presence of credible evidence. Will the above-narrated cases be of any usefulness to them as clued in ignorance as they are?