THE REPUBLIC v. NATIONAL SECURITY CO-ORDINATOR & 6 OTHERS EX PARTE: NII AKO NORTEI IV
2018
HIGH COURT
A.D 2018
CORAM
- JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
A.D 2018
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This ruling addresses an objection to the admissibility of an affidavit filed in opposition within contempt committal proceedings under Order 50 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). After the Applicant initiated contempt proceedings on December 6, 2017, the 6th and 7th respondents swore their own affidavits, but a separate 15‑paragraph affidavit on behalf of the 1st–5th respondents was deposed by Miss Tricia Quartey, Senior State Attorney at the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department. Applicant’s counsel, Mr. Frank Davies, argued that because contempt is quasi‑criminal, each respondent must personally depose to an affidavit. The Chief State Attorney, Mrs. Patience Adumua Lartey, countered that the Attorney General represents the 1st–5th respondents and the deponent acted on official information; counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents, Mr. Kwesi Fynn, likewise opposed the objection. The court found no law or rule requiring personal affidavits in contempt, distinguished admissibility from relevance, and overruled the objection, admitting the affidavit for what it is worth.
OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF 1 ST – 5 TH RESPONDENTS AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION FILED
i. Background:
[1] The issue for my determination is free from complexity but an important procedural issue. On December 6, 2017 the Applicant filed at the registry of this Court an Application for Committal for Contempt of Court pursuant to Order 50 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004, C.I. 47 of all the named Respondents. After the service of the application on the Respondents, the 6th and 7th Respondents deposed to affidavits in opposition by themselves; in effect they have spoken for themselves. On January 17, 2018 Miss Tricia Quartey (Senior State Attorney) of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department deposed to a 15-paragraph affidavit in opposition for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents to the application. The Court’s admission and reliance on the said affidavit is the subject-matter of the instant legal objection by Counsel for the Applicant who has submitted with some amount of force urging on the Court to reject the affidavit on the grounds that “there is no affidavit in opposition for the 1st to 5th Respondents” because they have not deposed to individual affidavits in opposition.
ii. Arguments for & arguments the Objection:
[2] Learned lead Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Frank Davies submitted to the Court that “the title of the application speaks for itself’ to the extent that this is a contempt application. Counsel submitted that it is trite learning that contempt is quasi-criminal and conviction potentially carries a penalty of custodial sentence even if for a day or hours and therefore it is the “accused” who ought to answer for him or herself. Counsel further submitted that “in the body of the Court, the Respondents stand before the Court as accused persons and that is why they have to respond to the charge and/or explain their absence to the Court.
[3] Further, Mr. Davies submitted that “we all know that nobody takes a plea for an accused because the punishment is in personam,” therefore according to Learned Counsel the persons cited for contempt who are known persons in the country ought to speak for themselves. To that extent and in the view of learned Counsel, Tricia Quartey SSA cannot by any stretch of imagination attempt to depose to an affidavit for the Respondents. Mr. Davies further submitted that should the Respondents be convicted, the deponent cannot go to jail for them. Learned Counsel anchored h