Thursday,
April 18, 2013
As we inch gradually toward April
23 for the first hearing of Justice Kpegah’s suit of impersonation against
Akufo-Addo, opinions remain divided on the substance of the suit.
Akufo-Addo, his lawyers, and
followers are optimistic that the suit will be dismissed outright because it
lacks substance. On the other hand, those critical of Akufo-Addo’s professional
stature think that he has questions to answer and will be disappointed if the
case doesn’t go the whole hog for them to know who and what exactly Akufo-Addo
is.
These critics of Akufo-Addo
remain unconvinced of his calling and repeatedly say that he is not a qualified
lawyer just because they haven’t been told where he had his training in law.
Not even the confirmation of the listing of William Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as
being called to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple will make them
change their minds.
They may be right because there are questions on pupillage
and other requirements for one to be certified as a lawyer, even after having
being called into the Middle Temple. Such questions haven’t yet been answered.
They claim that the Nana Addo
Dankwa Akufo-Addo they know is not the same as the William Addo Dankwa
Akufo-Addo in the record books. These people seem poised to see the case heard
to its logical conclusion. And they are those likely to sustain the
image-denting propaganda against Akufo-Addo.
Within that context, it is only
when the case is heard fully and documentary evidence (especially his
qualifying and enrolment certificates) adduced by Akufo-Addo to confirm his
claims that the situation will change for the better for him.
Thus, any dismissal of the case
on the basis of legal technicalities will give Akufo-Addo only a Pyrrhic
victory that won’t solve the problems created by all these allegations splashed
on him perennially.
On the surface, this victory will
give him some bragging rights as a successful lawyer who can defend others and
himself successfully. Definitely, he will quickly thump his chest for adding
another feather to his legal cap.
After all, his main legal
arguments on the motion he filed for the case to be struck out underscore his
assertion that the action is “frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the Court’s
process, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action upon the grounds
contained in the accompanying affidavit and for any further order(s) as to this
Court may seem meet.”
Additionally, he argued in
paragraph 22 of his affidavit in support of his motion that “as the Plaintiff’s
action questions the status of a lawyer, by the combined effect of Sections 1, 2, 3, 7 and 16A of the Legal Profession Act, 1961 (Act 32), Plaintiff’s
action is not in the proper forum since the power to determine matters
bordering on the status and qualifications of lawyers, professional misconduct
and whether a person ought to be struck out from the roll of Lawyers is vested
in the General Legal Council.”
Clearly, we can see the legal
technicalities on full display here. But there is more to the issue beyond
these technicalities.
Akufo-Addo’s response covered
essential and substantial aspects of interest to us, namely, his admission that
he is indeed William Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, though he has “always been known
as Nana Addo Dankwa-Akufo-Addo, and have as a matter of fact, constantly been
referred to in all my professional life as Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo”
(paragraph 10).
Curiously, we see a peculiarity
here in the surname, which is “Dankwa-Akufo-Addo” (three names constituting his
surname?), not the known compound name “Akufo-Addo”. This is Akufo-Addo’s own
writing of his name!
A typographical error in the
addition of the “Dankwa” to this compound name or are we being given a new
name? Who knows? In this legal suit where name is a crucial element, anything
peculiar will raise a red flag and draw attention to itself.
His firm admission is that “Nana
Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and William Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo are one and the same
person” (paragraph 11).
Akufo-Addo also touched on his
professional background, saying “I studied law in England and was consequently
duly and specially admitted to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple (one
of the four (4) Inns of Court in England) on 13th January, 1969 as
William Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo” (paragraph 12).
This part is still of interest
because he didn’t mention the particular institution in which he “studied law
in England”. Of course, one of the concerns of his detractors has to do with
the particular institution at which he studied law, not necessarily the fact
that he was called to the “Utter Bar of the Middle Temple” on July 22, 1971.
So, if this part of his response
still leaves out the vital information, I don’t think that his detractors will
be satisfied as he will be that his motion for the case to be struck out would
be upheld for him to celebrate as a victory over Justice Kpegah.
Another element in the saga is
Akufo-Addo’s being called to the Ghana Bar, especially within the context of
the NOTE that E. Bart-Plange Brew signed for him, dated Tuesday, October 16,
2007. That NOTE makes it categorically clear that Akufo-Addo had claimed that
he lost his qualifying and enrolment certificates.
Thus, his detractors would
quickly ask: If it was this same General Legal Council that issued him with the
certificate on July 8, 1975, what happened on) October 16, 2007 for the same
general Legal Council to give him a NOTE as an affirmation of his enrolment
into the Council instead of issuing him with a duplicate certificate (assuming
that he had even reported the loss of his qualifying and enrolment certificate
to the Council before October 16, 2007)?
Against this background,
Akufo-Addo’s response in paragraph 15 that “on returning to Ghana, I undertook
the post-call law programme required of lawyers who have qualified abroad and
after passing the relevant examination, I was duly called to the Ghana Bar on 8th
July, 1975 as as William Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo” doesn’t assuage doubts.
Another area that is interesting
is paragraph 17 of his response, where he says that “for the almost forty years
of my law practice in Ghana, I have practiced in all the Courts of Ghana and
appeared before judges of the Superior Courts, including Plaintiff himself
(that is, Justice Kpegah), as Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. This has never
raised any question of impersonation.”
Interesting, intriguing,
compelling, isn’t it?
Now, Justice Kpegah has sued him
for impersonation, which suggests that unless the case is pursued for evidence
to be adduced and substantiated or debunked and neutralized, the mere striking
out of the case won’t persuade the Akufo-Addo detractors that he doesn’t have
any skeleton in his cupboard.
To me, then, it will be in Akufo-Addo’s
own interest for the case to be heard fully so that the incontrovertible
evidence he has can be used to clean the minds of the millions who have bought
into the image-denting campaigns that have negatively affected his stature.
Indeed, Akufo-Addo’s professional
accomplishments are striking, and he should be bold enough to do and say what
will shame his detractors. Then, he will be accorded the genuine respect he
deserves even as he pursues the thread to achieve his political ambitions.
Anything short of that won’t help him.
Of course, we note that his
unrelenting attempt to have over 4 million votes annulled by the 9 judges at
the Supreme Court for him to be declared the winner of Election 2012 has added
a different complexion to his public image. Everything seems to be an affront
to his integrity whether politically or professionally, which calls for a
decisive effort by him to use this suit as a trump-card to re-position himself
in the public sphere.
Those supporting him and claiming
that he has no image problem and should be left alone can continue to tickle
him, even as his political sun dips across the skyline above the Supreme Court
building toward setting.
In the
next opinion piece, we will touch on the claim that Akufo-Addo had been called
to the English Bar. There are new aspects that should be known to sustain the
conversation. As for me, I am just an outsider peeping in to see how the tide
flows. And I will report that ebb and flow, regardless of whose ox is gored.
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment