AG debunks claims about Chief Justice in Opuni case
The AG notes that such publications are ‘laden with falsehood and contain an imputation that the composition of the panel for the hearing of the appeal on May 8, 2024, was unusual, questionable, or in violation of the Constitution. “
The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah, has bemoaned the distortion of facts in the May 8, 2024, proceedings in the Stephen Kwabena Opuni case at the Supreme Court.
He notes that such publications are ‘laden with falsehood and contain an imputation that the composition of the panel for the hearing of the appeal on May 8, 2024, was unusual, questionable, or in violation of the Constitution. “
In a statement released on May 14, 2024, the Attorney General asserts that per the Constitution and the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), the Chief Justice determines the composition of every court for the hearing of any matter.
The AG, who is a party in the suit, recounts that arguments in an appeal filed at the Supreme Court by Dr. Stephen Opuni against an order of the Court of Appeal dated July 3, 2023, for adoption were heard by the Supreme Court on May 8, 2024, and not on any date before.
He added that the appeal, which was originally listed for hearing at the Supreme Court on January 17, 2024, did not come on because no written submissions had been filed in the matter, and that the apex court also did not invite any of the parties to make oral submissions.
The statement further indicates that on May 8, 2024, when the case was listed, the panel for the hearing of the appeal was reconstituted by the Honourable Chief Justice in the exercise of her powers under the Constitution, 1992.
The AG states that counsel for Dr. Opuni raised an objection to the reconstitution of the panel, and he prayed for the dismissal of the objection, which the court heeded after considering the submissions of both counsels.
He therefore describes the persistent attacks by some media houses as a gross misrepresentation of the evidence presented at the trial because “no party to proceedings in court has a right to insist on a particular court or panel of a court to hear his or her case.”
Mr. Dame thus cautions such persons to be mindful of their acts since “a deliberate disregard of these basic principles is inimical to the sound adjudication of cases and portends danger for the entire society.”
