Lawyer Challenges Abodakpi’s Status

By Stephen K. Effah
Friday, 27 June 2008

THE Supreme Court yesterday described as "odd", a writ filed at the court by an Accra legal practitioner, Kwasi Danso Acheampong, seeking legal interpretation of Articles 94 and 97 of the Constitution as to whether a convicted Member of Parliament could keep his seat or not.

The five-member panel, presided over by Justice Sophia Akuffo, expressed surprise that Mr Acheampong copied the writ to the Attorney-General, the Speaker of Parliament and the MP for Keta, Dan Abodakpi, as interested parties instead of serving them as defendants.

The court explained that the parties are affected in the matter and should therefore have been served as defendants.

"The writ was not directed to the parties…this is a very odd document we have here. We should have thrown this matter out," Justice Akuffo said, but explaining that since the issue is of national interest, it cannot be thrown out.This was after the panel had pointed out the irregularities in the writ to Mr Acheampong.

The Supreme Court therefore gave Mr Acheampong up to Monday to amend the writ to include the three parties as "defendants without any prejudice", in view of the fact that they are affected in the matter.

The three parties, the court pointed out, are also to file their respective cases if any, by July 11, for hearing to commence on July 15.

When the case was called, the judges questioned Mr Acheampong as to why he was in his law robe and wig since he was in the court as a plaintiff, to which he replied: "My lords, I was misled by my colleague", and he was obliged by the court to remove the apparel.

Mr Tony Lithur, representing Mr Abodakpi told the court that he was not served with the writ pointing that what his client received on Tuesday was "just the memo of issues of the writ".
The A-G was represented by Ms.Valerie Amartey, a Chief State Attorney.

The case was thus adjourned to July 15 to allow the amendment to be made and for the defendants to respond to the writ.

Other members of the panel are Justice Allan Brobbey, Justice Sophia Adinyirah, Justice Darteh Baah and Justice S.K Asiamah.

Article 97 clause (1) sub-clause (e) and Article 94 clause (2) sub-clause (e) together, state that a convicted and imprisoned Member of Parliament ceases to be a Member of Parliament, or the seat he occupied before his imprisonment is declared vacant if he fails to vacate the seat voluntarily.

Mr Acheampong is therefore asking for, among other reliefs from the Supreme Court, a declaration that an MP on being convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment by any court mandatorily, vacates his or her seat.

Further, a declaration that an appeal filed by a convicted and imprisoned MP is not by itself a stay to suspend the vacation of seat by the imprisoned Member of Parliament as mandatorily required by Articles 97 and 94 read together.

Mr Acheampong maintained in a statement of claim accompanying the writ, that the Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Justice F.T. Faakye, a justice of the Court of Appeal, convicted Mr Abodakpi for defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state and in consequence, sentenced him to a term of ten (10) years imprisonment with hard labour.

"Having been convicted and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction, plaintiff expected Mr Abodakpi to vacate his parliamentary seat voluntarily and mandatorily as required by the express provisions of Articles 97 Clause (1) Sub-Clause (e) and 94 Clause (2) Sub Clause (e) of the 1992 Constitution read together," Mr. Acheampong stated.

He had earlier pointed out that PNDCL 284 which was made on the July 24, 1992 and notified in gazette August 7, 1992 has to be construed to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the 1992 Constitution that came into force on January 7, 1993 as required by Article 11(6).