The judge's decision on the plea of ​​indemnity is contempt – the lawyer of Ayariga

General News on Tuesday, June 4th, 2019

Source: Myjoyonline.com

2019-06-04

A judgment by a High Court judge regarding a compensation certificate at the trial of Bawku Central MP Mahama Ayariga, may constitute contempt of court, said one of his lawyers.

Judge Afia Botwe, Judge, said on Tuesday that Mr Ayariga, who faces tax evasion cases and bus-related problems for his constituency, must introduce himself at his trial whenever he is required to do so.

Judge Botwe rejected a certificate issued by the Speaker of Parliament, Mike Oquaye, informing the court that the MP had work to do in Parliament.

Previously, Mr. Ayariga had written to the Special Prosecutor to clarify that he could not appear in court because of parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Ayariga was accompanied to court by NDC deputies, including Samuel George (African print shirt)

But the judge ruled against the certificate and ordered the member to go to court whenever it was necessary because he was not a witness.

James Agalga, one of Mr. Ayariga's lawyers, believes that the judge should have taken the time to consider the constitutional issues before her. He added that the President's Certificate specifically referred to section 118, which refers to the calling of witnesses in cases where a member of Parliament, the Speaker or the Clerk of Parliament is summoned to appear as a witness in court.

"The judge was correct in saying that Mr. Ayriga was not a witness and therefore the President's certificate did not apply, but he should have gone beyond Article 118 because the arguments of Mr. Ayariga had not been forgotten at all.

"Ayariga claimed immunity from jurisdiction, not just a summons to appear. He was only protesting that, during his stay in Parliament, he enjoys immunity so as not to be dragged to court at the same time, "said the lawyer.

The member for Builsa North said that the judge, in his ruling, should have read sections 117 and 122 and taken into account its cumulative effect.

If, in doing so, she felt it was necessary to go to the Supreme Court, exclusive jurisdiction to properly interpret these articles and their cumulative effects, the MP said.

"But in this case, she also limited herself to article 118 and came to the conclusion that Mr. Ayariga was responsible in his court and that the trial should continue."

He added that the actions of the Special Prosecutor and the Court could constitute contempt of Parliament because "the provision makes it very clear that any act preventing Parliament or a Member of Parliament from performing its duties constitutes contempt of Parliament. . The wording is very clear. "

Article 117 provides: "Civil or criminal proceedings by a court or a place outside Parliament shall not be served or performed in relation to the President, a member or the Clerk of Parliament while goes to 122 "states an act or omission that impedes or prevents Parliament from discharging its duties or that impedes or prevents a member or one of its agents from performing his or her duties or contempt of Parliament or which tends directly or indirectly to produce this result constitutes contempt of Parliament ".

But Kofi Abotsi, a private legal practitioner, said he could conclude that the judge's action was contempt of court. It must be proven that it deliberately decided to prevent members from performing their parliamentary duties.

For him, the intention of the judge was to promote the administration of justice and, from the end of Parliament, to ensure that the work of Parliament is optimized and that the work of a Member is not not hindered.

"So I do not think it would be a contempt of Parliament, but I think that when it is pushed to a certain extent, particularly when the court has been informed of all the facts and sufficiently informed that when this member is pushed to the At some point, he must finally give up his parliamentary duties and go to court at that time, which could be detrimental to his work. This could at some point be considered contempt if it is clearly established that the objective is to obstruct the work of Parliament. "

Commenting on the judge's decision to reject the President's certificate, Mr. Abotsi stated that Judge Botwe had every right to evaluate what was before her and make a decision.

He added, however, that it was inappropriate for the President to make an badessment of the law when issuing the certificate.

"And I say it with the utmost respect, it is not the Speaker of Parliament to determine what is the law, it is not part of the activities of Parliament.

"The job of Parliament is to legislate. The President has not been slow to badert and define the parameters of the law. He even cited aspects of the constitution and tried to draw the judge's attention to those things. in the cases not only of the justice but even of the lawyers and it is not the competence of the lawyer. "

The president should not have done so, the lawyer, but hopes the problem will be solved without the tension and public display that currently surround him.