Abraham Amaliba, one of the lawyers of Assin North Member of Parliament James Gyakye Quayson has questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s first witness in the criminal trail of Mr Quayson.
“He swore an oath that his statement was written in English [but] it turned out that when he was shown his own statement he spoke in Twi and it was recorded, that goes to the credibility of the witness, that goes to his mindset.
“So clearly, you notice that the prosecution witness was not helpful to the prosecution at all,” he told journalists after the court hearing on Tuesday, July 18.
NDC Head of Legal Affairs, Abraham Amaliba has described the witness statement of the prosecution's first witness as unhelpful after cross examination by lawyers for James Gyakye Quayson.#TV3NewDay pic.twitter.com/Wj2ZnWKpQy
— #TV3GH (@tv3_ghana) July 19, 2023
The court had dismissed an application to stay proceedings filed by lawyers of Quayson to stop his criminal trial until the outcome of the appeal at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Last week, Deputy Attorney-General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah told lawyers of Gyakye Quayson that their applications at the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal do not automatically stay proceedings relative to his criminal trial.
This was after Lawyers of Gyakye Quayson filed an application at the Supreme Court to stop the High Court from hearing his trial until the determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Speaking to journalists after the earlier court hearing on Friday, July 14, one of Mr Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers Abraham Amaliba said “Lawyers for Gyakye Quayson indicated that because disclosures were not fully made in accordance with the Republic vrs Baffoe Bonney case, there is a need to stay proceedings and so this argument was forcefully made and the judge adjourned to the 18th for a determination whether or not he will stay proceedings or to go ahead with the trial.
“On Wednesday Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers filed an application for a stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal, they followed with another application for certiorari [ a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a case tried in a lower court] at the Supreme Court and so today was the day that the court allowed the two lawyers from both sides to address on the implications of those two applications.
“It turned out that from the side of the NDC, Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers, we were putting out the argument that we could not proceed with the trial once these applications are pending before higher courts than the High Court, particularly the application for certiorari which is before the Supreme Court.
“In that application, we are seeking some relief which are; because the Attorney-General failed to fully make disclosures to the lawyers of Gyakye Quasyon there was the need for the Supreme Court to determine that matter because the disclosures were not fully made
“The rules are that you must fully disclose but in this case, the AG did some half disclosures.”
Also speaking in an interview with the media, Mr Alfred Tuah-Yeboah said “We came to court this morning only to be told that the accused person and his counsel have filed an application at the Court of Appeal seeking a stay of proceedings and then an application at the Supreme Court seeking to quash and prohibit the judge from hearing the matter.
“Per practice, filing an application does not automatically stay proceedings so we made the point that notwithstanding the fact that these applications had been filed the judge has the right to proceed to hear the case by asking that cross-examination be done. The judge will be giving her ruling on that on Tuesday.”
He added “There is an attempt to delay proceedings through the legal process, which we say is fine, it is within their right to use the legal procedure to fight their course but that doesn’t mean that when they file such applications the court must wait for them for those applications to move from the Appellate court or the Supreme Court, so we are concerned about that but we are ready.
“I told you last week that we come to court to speak law, this morning we have spoken law in court, and on Tuesday we will know what the judge will say whether the judge will agree with us or disagree with us.”