Supreme Court Strikes Out Coup Monger’s Application

Oliver Mawuse Barker-Vormawor

The Supreme Court yesterday struck out what one of the panel members described as a salad application filed by lawyers for the convener of #FixTheCountry Movement, Oliver Mawuse Barker-Vormawor, seeking to quash the decision of a Tema High Court.

Justice Gertrude Torkornoo described the application as ‘salad’ due to the manner in which it invoked a couple of the court’s jurisdictions with just one application.

The application had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the apex court to quash the decision of the Tema High Court ‘B’ dismissing an application for habeas corpus (to produce the accused before the court) filed on behalf of Barker-Vormawor, who has been charged with treason felony after threatening to stage a coup d’état.

It then invoked the court’s original jurisdiction for the interpretation of Article 14(3) of the 1992 Constitution where they argued that it was wrong for the police to have put the accused before a Magistrate Court which did not have the jurisdiction to determine issues relating to his personal liberties in the first place.

The application also sought for an order for habeas corpus for Barker-Vormawor to be put before the Supreme Court for the determination of liberty.

Moving the motion, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai said the application was premised on two grounds – the first being an error patent on the face of the ruling of the High Court and the other is that he High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction when it refused to grant habeas corpus and failed to refer Article 14 Clause 3 to the Supreme Court for interpretation.

But he was interrupted by Justice Nene Amegatcher, a member of the panel, who indicated that the High Court was dealing with the application which the lawyer had filed before it, and held that the issues of constitutional interpretation had not arisen and that could not be taken as wrongful assumption of jurisdiction.

The court expressed concern about why the lawyer decided to pursue academic exercise rather than filing for bail at the High Court to secure the liberty of his client, and Dr. Srem-Sai said the accused had given specific instructions and he was only following them.

But Justice Dotse told him that it is not all advice that he ought to take from his client, especially one who is also a lawyer, saying “and if you drive recklessly you and the client will go into a ditch. You are in the driving seat and it is your duty to ensure that you and your client arrive safely.”

Justice Yonni Kulendi, another member of the panel told the lawyer that he should have gone to the High Court to apply for bail rather than filing for habeas corpus, adding that Article 14 Clause 3 which he was pursuing borders on liberty and it was his duty as counsel to prioritise the prosecution of that right.

Justice Getrude Torkornoo then asked Akoto Ampaw who led Dr. Srem Sai whether he had not seen the “salad application” and Mr. Ampaw said he did and realised they were going to have a challenge with the court.

Response

The state, represented by a Deputy Attorney General, Diana Asonaba-Dapaah, said they did not file anything in response to the application because a look at the application and reliefs sought showed that the applicant in one breath was seeking to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction and in another they are seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the court.

She said under rule 45 of CI 16, they had 14 days within which to file a response to the instant application, and since it was filed on February 23, they still had seven more days but were willing to respond on point of law.

She told the court that they may not oppose the grant of bail if the application is filed in the proper court, but opposed to any attempt to seek bail before the Supreme Court yesterday.

Withdrawal

Dr. Srem-Sai, after listening to the members of the panel who took turns to advice him about the propriety of the application and why he should rather be pursuing bail at the High Court, decided to withdraw the application, and it was struck out by the court as withdrawn.

 BY Gibril Abdul Razak

Tags: