Former Attorney General Ayikoi Otoo is unimpressed with the explanation Tsatsu Tsikata counsel of the third Respondent in the Presidential Election Petition gave for his late filing of address.
He said in this era of technology it was entirely possible for Tsikata to take a quick peep through the Petitioners address which was filed and served on them, before filing his.
Tsatsu Tsikata flouted the court’s order to file his address for the third Respondent on the 30 July, 2013.
He however filed the address a day after all the parties involved in the case had filed theirs.
He told the Justices hearing the case that “mechanical challenges” prevented them from meeting the deadline and filing simultaneously as the other parties.
According to him, they had to bind the addresses before submitting them and that caused the delay.
Counsel for the Petitioners Philip Addison objected to the late filing. He told the court that the face of the counsel of the third Respondents shows men who had had no sleep throughout the night, adding they read through the Petitioners address to improve theirs.
He argued that the proper thing counsel for the third Respondent ought to have done after he realised he was unable to meet the deadline was to seek written application from the court and not to come with an oral application after he had flouted the court’s orders.
He accused Tsikata of employing ‘communist inferior tactics’ in a case that is so crucial to the country’s democracy.
The judges reprimanded Tsikata for his late filing, but they nonetheless accepted his address because they did not want to ‘visit the sins of the lawyer’ on the client.
Discussing the late filing drama on Multi TV and Joy FM’s news analysis programme Newsfile, Ayikoi Otoo found it curious how Tsikata for two weeks purported to have had challenges binding his address but somehow was able to finish the binding 24 hours after the Petitioners filed their address.
According to him, he checked from the Registry and he was told that the Petitioners’ address was served on the Respondents the very day it was filed which meant Tsikata may have had an idea as what was contained in the Petitioners address.
In this technological era, Otoo believes it is entirely possible for the third Respondent to ‘cut and paste’ portions of the Petitioners address to improve their own address.
But Abraham Amaliba, a member of the NDC legal vehemently objected to that assertion.
He said Ayikoi Otoo’s assertions would have been true, somewhat, if it were to be another lawyer but not when Tsatsu Tsikata is the man at the centre of this controversy.
He said Tsatsu’s ‘credibility’ “quality” and competence surpasses one who would peep into the opponent’s addresses before filing his.
Amaliba reiterated that Tsikata had not seen the Petitioners’ address before filing his.
Whilst agreeing completely with the view that court orders must be respected, he was quick to add that nobody must break his back or neck before meeting a court order.
Leave a comment. 0 comment so far.