[ad_1]
Some aggrieved members of the People’s National Convention (PNC) have dragged the party to an Accra High Court for contempt.
The action follows the holding of the 7th National Delegates Congress in Wa in the Upper West Region December last year when a suit seeking to stop the congress was before the court.
The plaintiffs-David Apasera, National Treasurer; Abubakar Sadiq Kwashie Ebla, who was vying for the national chairmanship slot and Henry Haruna Asante, National Communications Director—dragged the party to court over what they described as the refusal of the Congress Committee to disqualify Bernard Mornah, the party’s General Secretary, now National Chairman of the party, from the race for allegedly issuing a dud cheque to the party in order to file his nomination.
The three persons, in their statement of claim, said Mornah issued a post-dated cheque on November 6 with the face value of GH¢5,180 for the payment of his filing fee, which was subsequently referred to the drawer by Societe Generale, bankers of the party.
The plaintiffs said that Mornah had not filed his nomination at the close of nominations and was therefore disqualified from contesting the election.
Despite the plaintiff’s petition, the party allowed Mornah to purportedly pay the filing fee on November 23-10 days after close of nominations.
.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, among other things, stated that the PNC’s conduct of accepting payment from Mornah after the close of nominations was wrongful, noting that it violated the rules of engagement set up to bind all potential candidates which was unfair and discriminatory against them.
But even before the court, presided over by Justice Sophia Rosetta Bernasko Essah could rule on the case, the party purportedly organized the said national delegates conference regardless of the case before the court.
The plaintiffs, as a result, want the court to jail particularly Alhaji Abu Ramadan and Mornah, the former National Chairman and National Chairman respectively for “their wanton and willful disregard” for the pendency of the case and the application for injunction before the court.
The three requested the court to set aside the congress, insisting that if not the respondents would have been allowed by the court to defeat the determination of the suit and the application for injunction.
The plaintiffs argued that the respondents by their actions had been “judges in the suit and delivered judgment allowing them to hold the congress to themselves.”
They said by holding the congress, the application for injunction could no longer be moved to seek an order to restrain the holding of the congress, rendering it useless.
The plaintiff’s lawyer stated that the respondents, if not punished, would send a wide signal to the general public that anybody such as the likes of the respondents can act similarly and the court cannot act to redeem its own dignity, integrity and authority trampled upon.
By Jeffrey De-Graft Johnson
[ad_2]