Election Petition: Oppong Nkrumah, Nana B not inciting Supreme Court judges against Mahama’s lawyers – NPP
The governing New Patriotic Party (NPP) has rejected claims that Kojo Oppong Nkrumah and Henry Nana Boakye are inciting Justices of the Supreme Court against lawyers of the Petitioner in the ongoing Election Petition case.
The opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) had accused the aforementioned persons of seeking to get Dominic Ayine, a legal practitioner and one of the spokespersons for the petitioner, John Mahama in the ongoing case, punished by the Supreme Court for allegedly disrespecting the court.
According to the NPP, such claims must be rejected outrightly because they are “plain lies and without a shred of equivocation”.
“It is an affront to the apex court of the land for the NDC to suggest that the venerable, experienced and learned Justices of the Supreme Court (SC) who, over time, have demonstrated to be independent and objective are amenable to “incitement” by spokespersons of the 2nd Respondent,” a statement signed by Yaw Buaben Asamoa, National Communications Director, NPP, noted.
“The claim that Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah Esq. and Henry Nana Boakye Esq. seek to incite the SC against Dr. Dominic Ayine is a blatant falsehood that must be rejected by Ghanaians,” Buaben Asamoa added.
What are the accusations from NDC?
The NDC in a press statement on Wednesday, February 17, 2021, accused Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, and Henry Nana Boakye of turning the Supreme Court Judges against the counsel for the Petitioner.
According to the NDC, the NPP team had used their media briefing after each court proceeding to launch attacks against the counsel for former President John Mahama and further incite the Court against the former Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayine.
“Many NPP legal commentators in the media, appear to take inordinate delight in belittling and heaping insults on Counsel for H.E. John Mahama and the NDC,” the NDC said in the press statement.
The statement added that “These attacks are characterized by constantly offering misleading comments about our lawyers and the case in court.
