Bernard Antwi Boasiako aka Wontumi, the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has stated emphatically that he would not apologize to Ibrahim Mahama in order for the latter to drop a defamatory case filed against him (Wontumi).
The NPP kingpin insists that he is ever prepared to battle Ibrahim in court until the case gets to its logical conclusion, stressing that he is not backing off from it.
Ibrahim Mahama, a younger brother of President Mahama, had sued Wontumi for a staggering GH¢5 million because he claims the NPP regional chairman had defamed him and President Mahama at a public gathering in Obuasi in 2014.
Charles Zwennes, counsel for Ibrahim, had stressed that his client is not interested in the money but rather he (Ibrahim) is in court to clear his name and so he (Ibrahim) would drop the case if Wontumi apologized to him.
Speaking with DAILY GUIDE shortly after leaving the court room in Kumasi on Monday, Egbert Faibille, counsel for Wontumi, stated categorically that his client would never apologize to Ibrahim because he (Wontumi) had done no wrong.
‘The court has not determined that Wontumi has defamed Mr. Ibrahim as the complainant is claiming. Parties in a case pending before court cannot elect and put their own interpretations into cases,’ Lawyer Faibille pointed out.
He said it is only the court which could determine whether indeed Wontumi had defamed Ibrahim or not, stressing that his client was prepared and ready to see to it that the case travels its full length in court.
Earlier in court, Justice E.K.B. Apenkwah, presiding, had adjourned the case sine die, informing the defendant and the complainant that the court’s registrar would inform them of the next hearing date in due course.
He explained that his decision of adjourning the case, which hearing started about one week ago, was based on the fact that he (Justice Apenkwah) was not the substantive judge for the case involving Ibrahim and Wontumi.
According to him, a substantive judge had been assigned to preside over it, but the exact date for the judge to assume duty had not been established.
Egbert Faibille supported the idea that the case be adjourned sine die, explaining that even if the court set a date for them, both parties might end up coming to court when the substantive judge had not assumed duty.
He said he was not in court when Mr. Ibrahim’s witness, Nana Adwoa Owusu of Prime FM, was cross-examined by Ibrahim’s lawyer, so he (Faibille) was entitled to get the proceedings of the court on that day to study it before he could cross-examine the witness, at a later date.
On his part, Charles Zwennes argued that the exact day for both parties to reappear in court should be set since adjourning the case sine die could result in it being delayed saying, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied.’
Ibrahim Mahama, as usual, was present in court but Wontumi was absent and was represented by Riches Oscar.
This article has 0 comment, leave your comment.