During the hearings in the case of the Republic versus James G. Quayson, the Member of Parliament for Assin North, the Attorney General made his remarks directed at Tsatsu.
On the left is Tsatsu Tsikata, and on the right is Attorney Godfred Yeboah Dame.
In court on Friday, July 14, 2023, the Attorney General (AG) and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, questioned Tsatsu Tsikata on why he was bothered about the AG not announcing himself in court, when Tsatsu is known for purposefully refusing to mention his own name in any court he appears in. The AG asked Tsatsu why he was bothered about the AG not announcing himself in court.
During the hearings at the High Court regarding the case of the Republic versus James Gyakye Quayson, the Deputy Attorney General, Alfred Tuah – Yeboah, arrived first. He announced that he was in court holding the brief of the Attorney General and that he was the first person to appear.
While in Court
Almost immediately after Mr. Tsikata had finished his submission, the Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame arrived in court. Mr. Tsikata had asked the court to stay the proceedings because he had filed an application at the Court of Appeal challenging the decision of the High Court to dismiss his application for a stay of proceedings, as well as an application for judicial review at the Supreme Court seeking to quash the ruling of the High Court.
Godfred Dame, as soon as he arrived, immediately went on his way to oppose the application of Mr. Tsikata, praying to the court that there were no tangible grounds in Mr. Tsikata's request for the court to stay proceedings because of the pendency of the two applications that had been filed at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Dame claimed that there is no provision in any of the statutes of the country, rule of practice, or settled cases that enjoins the court to stay proceedings solely because those two applications had been filed. She stated that the only reason for the delay would be because those two applications had been filed.
Mr. Dame continued by saying that it should not come as a surprise that Mr. Tsikata, during his whole argument, had not referenced a single authority in support of his arguments because there was not a single authority available.
The Attorney General therefore made a request to the Court, which is presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, to reject the motions and to direct that the trial, which is currently at the point where the State has called its first prosecution witness, who is being cross-examined by Mr. Tsikata, be allowed to continue in its natural course.
The worry expressed by Tsikata
Following the learned AG's opposition to Mr. Tsikata's motion, Mr. Tsikata stood up in open court and claimed that the AG had not announce himself in court but had gone ahead to address the court. This statement was made in response to the learned AG's argument. He went on to say that this is not the standard procedure, and he expressed his wish that the court would not hear such a request.
The trial judge informed Mr. Tsikata at that time that she could see Mr. Dame's name already captured on the screen and that, as a result, Mr. Tsikata's complaint was actually irrelevant at that point.
Dame's jab
Godfred Dame took the floor later and stated that he was shocked that Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata was complaining about the matter of a counsel announcing his presence in a correct fashion. Godfred Dame went on to say that Mr. Tsikata is notorious for never mentioning his name in court, which is a serious breach of the rules.
In addition, the AG made the observation that his presence was indeed caught by the record, and he wrote this fact on the displays in front of all of the attorneys, just as the judge who presided over the trial had previously done. Therefore, there was no genuine problem that warranted the complaint that Mr. Tsikata made.
Court gives directions
The Honorable Justice Yanzuh took objection to Mr. Tsikata's answer to the response from the Attorney General and cautioned him to watch how he uses language while addressing the Honorable Court.
Following these arguments, the judge made the decision that the application that asked her to stay proceedings because of a pending cast at the Court of Appeal cannot be correct because there is no law that enjoins her to stay proceedings simply because there is a motion for a stay of proceedings pending in the Court of Appeal. In other words, the judge ruled that the application cannot be right.
Regarding the motion for judicial review that is currently being considered by the Supreme Court, the court has indicated that it would postpone the dec
blogpay
During the hearings in the case of the Republic versus James G. Quayson, the Member of Parliament for Assin North, the Attorney General made his remarks directed at Tsatsu.
Total Comments: 0