Lawyers and the gallery which was full to the brim were held spell bound by the cross fire between Kwame Boafo Akuffo Esq., lead Counsel for Nana Appiah Mensah popularly known as NAM 1, and the Bench presided by the learned Justice Dr. Ernest Owusu-Dapaa siting as an additional High Court Judge.

The vehement disagreement between Mr. Akuffo and the Bench had a precursor. The precursor was when Mr. Akuffo rose to his feet to suggest a safe distance between his client, NAM 1, and the first witness offered by the State who was called to the box and was ready to take his oath. For illustrative purposes, the two were some two chairs apart. Mr. Akuffo was of the view that, owing to the emotions involved in the matter, the two ought not be close.

Justice Owusu-Dapaa citing similar closeness of witnesses and accused persons in the Collins Dauda Saglemi Housing trial in the same court and the arrangement of the Court, the closeness between the witness and the accused ordinarily should not be the case but trial will proceed as always conducted in that particular court as regard proximity of witnesses to the accused.

The witness, an educated man and product of KNUST who is a Civil Engineer and goes by the name Stephen Attipoe was led in his Evidence-in-Chief. Mr. Akuffo objected to portions of his witness statement while the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa was in the middle of her prayer to the court to have the witness statement adopted by the court.

Mr. Akuffo said paragraphs 60 and 61 of his witness statements referred to matters in 2019 which fell outside matters between 2016 - 2018 which cover the period of the charges of his client and thus, his instructions cover only such period. He argued that the accused had no notice to put up a defence for himself for such matters as required under Article 19 of he 1992 constitution. He contended that the statements in the said paragraph of the witness statement serve no purpose and are prejudicial and will serve as an embarrassment for the trial. He prayed the court to strike out such paragraphs. Mr. Akuffo was quizzed for the particular clause of Article 19 he rests his argument on, he failed to supply the very clause but suggested the entire Article supports his argument.

Mrs. Obuabisa rose to argue contrary to Mr. Akuffo's. She said the paragraphs are relevant despite speaking to matters in 2019.

The Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court Judge overruled the objection. He said there is no rule or procedure that states that a witness cannot testify to a matter relating to a particular year so far as the testimony is relevant. The court therefore adopted the witness statement.

Heated Exchange

Exchanges between the Counsel for NAM 1 and the Bench became tensed when the witness attempted an explanation in answer to a question fired at him by Mr. Akuffo. Mr. Akuffo issued instructions to the witness to answer 'yes' or 'no' before he offers any explanation if he had any. Mrs. Obuobisa strongly disagreed with Mr Akuffo and suggested to the court that the witness should be allowed to answer the questions from Counsel.

Justice Owusu-Dapaa stepped in and told Mr. Akuffo that he will control his court and the witness after a question is asked. Mr. Akuffo was insistent on the order for answering questions during cross-examination still to the disagreement of Mrs. Obuobisa.

In a higher pitch, Mr. Akuffo suggested to Justice Owusu-Dapaa that the court could not dictate to him how he was to conduct his cross-examination. Mr. Akuffo kept on speaking and appeared hell bent on having his way as Justice Owusu-Dapaa repeatedly told Counsel to allow him control his court. Justice Owusu-Dapaa moved his head towards the witness indicating his intention to proceed to instruct the witness on how he should approach answers to questions from the Bar. Mr. Akuffo kept on speaking while the Judge addressed him. In a pitch suggesting that he had had enough of the conduct of Mr. Akuffo, Justice Owusu-Dapaa cautioned Mr. Akuffo and indicated that he may report his conduct to the General Legal Council and make orders that his client may reconsider his legal representation in the matter.

Justice Owusu-Dapaa reached out for his copy of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules 2020 LI 2423 and flipped through some pages. While doing so. Mr. Akuffo resumed his seat and muttered that he could not be intimidated. Justice Owusu-Dapaa read out ethical rules on advocacy at the bar and told Mr. Akuffo with a straight face and a firm voice to allow him control his court.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thelawplatform/video/7314948121052597509?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7239416459838375429

The witness was instructed by Justice Owusu-Dapaa to answer a 'yes' or 'no' and offer any other explanation if he so wishes as Mr. Akuffo who was now calm, watched on.

The question "you are firm believer in the rule of law?" from Mr. Akuffo to the witness ignited another round of interesting exchanges. Counsel for the State rose to object but the wind was taken out of her sail when the Judge overruled without the invitation to so do. Justice Owusu-Dapaa said the constitution requires such a belief to the displeasure of Mr. Akuffo. Mrs. Obuobisa indicated to the Court that the ground upon which the question was overruled was the same ground she rose to object to the question. Mr. Akuffo said in his reaction to the order of the court; "My Lord, it is unfair". Mr. Akuffo went on to argue for the Court to allow the witness answer the question.

Justice Owusu-Dapaa's mind remained unchanged and re-emphasized his order and added that Mr. Akuffo could not control his court. This compelled Mr. Akuffo to abandon the line of question and zoomed into questions seeking to suggest to the witness, Mr. Attipoe, that the loss of his monies was an investment risk with NAM 1 and his companies and that he was not defrauded.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thelawplatform/video/7312870023540985093?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7239416459838375429