General News of Wednesday, 9 December 2015
The defamation suit against K.T. Hammond could set the stage for a legal banter between two fine legal luminaries as Tsatsu Tsikata crosses path with Prof. Kwaku Asare.
The Adansi Asokwa MP, K.T Hammond is facing legal suit from Mr. Tsikata, a former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, for defamation after he claimed the latter has criminally been paid some monies to the tune of GHC1 million.
The MP first made the claims on the floor of Parliament but repeated same on various media platforms.
The NPP MP has called for a Presidential enquiry into the payment to four former GNPC employees including Mr. Tsikata which he believed is illegal.
Tsatsu Tsikata who has denied receiving any money yet filed a suit last week challenging the MP to back his claims with evidence.
But the US-based Ghanaian law professor, Stephen Kwaku Asare has waded into the debate by asking Tsatsu Tsikata to drop the suit because it “would amount to nothing”.
He explained on his facebook page, “Clearly, Tsatsu’s writ will drown in jurisdictional waters if it hinges on statements made by Hammond in Parliament.”
Mr. Tsikata however told Joy FM’s Super Morning Show Wednesday that Prof. Kwaku Asare may have to prove his mettle in court.
K.T. Hammond was served with the summon on Tuesday, Tsatsu Tsikata noted.
He believed what the MP said were “very serious allegations” and must therefore be given the opportunity to explain himself in court.
“He (Prof. Asare) probably would have to go and represent Hon. KT Hammond in court and make the argument that he makes,” Tsikata challenged him.
According to Mr. Tsikata the terms of the constitution is different from what Prof. Asare was interpreting.
“I think he needs to go to what the constitution says about the immunities of parliamentarians but I am not about to offer Hon. K.T. Hammond legal advice; I think he has people like Prof. Asare who can probably offer him advice about their interpretation of the constitution. I think in court the interpretation of the constitution would be very clear.”