James Gyakye Quayson, a Member of Parliament for Assin North, is being tried for perjury, and his attorney has asked that the hearing be postponed.
Tsatsu Tsikata claims that the request is required by an application that he submitted to the Supreme Court on Monday.
He disclosed that he had petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari in order to overturn a decision made by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh to the court.
On July 13, Justice Ekue Yanzuh rejected a challenge brought by attorney Tsatsu Tsikata.
Gyakye Quayson’s attorney disputed some of Richard Takyi-testimony, Mensah’s claiming that the latter, who is the prosecution’s first witness, has firsthand knowledge of some of the allegations made.
Tsatsu Tsikata urged the court to strike eight paragraphs from the witness statement because she had objections to some parts of it.
The presiding court rejected the objection raised by attorney Tsatsu Tsikata after hearing arguments from both the defense attorney and the prosecution team, which was led by Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mrs. Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa.
The prosecution’s first witness was expected to continue speaking on Wednesday after the case was recalled.
Tsatsu Tsikata objected to the witness’ statement, but he nonetheless informed the court about the move to overturn a prior ruling by the same.
“We have requested for an early hearing for the application and we had hoped to show a copy of the application but we were informed that the registry is waiting for a date to be provided by the Chief Justice for the hearing.
“In view of the application which is significant in respect of not only this particular witness but other witnesses that are scheduled to testify, we would respectfully request that the court await the determination of the Supreme Court on that matter, especially in order to avoid prejudice to the accused person by virtue of inadmissible testimony of a witness prejudicing a fair trial of this case as the constitution requires,” he told the court.
The prosecution voiced dissatisfaction about the defense attorney’s failure to serve them with a copy of the certiorari application or the hearing date, but not objecting to the defense attorney’s request.
In response, Mr. Tsikata claimed that despite his efforts to make the copy available, it is now not possible due to Supreme Court procedures.
Despite our best efforts, we are unable to bring it, he said.
Therefore, the case was postponed to October 18, 2022, with the sitting judge noting, “You have not shown me anything but I will accept your word for it.”