Breaking…President announces Ofori Ata to be in Ghana sooner by Oral law …….

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-12

[00:00:20]criminal cases corruption corruption cases Corruption.

[00:00:34][snorts] Mr. President Five cases, seven court judge.

[00:01:35]cases 2008 president Mr. Criminal case.

[00:02:13]investigations.

[00:02:20]But investigation [music] of powersicice.

[00:02:43]>> [music] >> investigations.

[00:03:04]Another five or six cases prove your innocence before we release you.

[00:03:31]And so democratic government say you are innocent until you are proven guilty.

[00:03:42]Black Square.

[00:03:48]Even [music] char.

[00:04:30]Okay.

[00:04:35]message.

[00:04:56]um investigations with regards to oral PP.

[00:05:09]Um uh case.

[00:05:42]How do they call imprisonment? Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech.

[00:06:05]court. And so Any case by is I don't know how to explain [laughter] hospital.

[00:07:33]Attorney General way back 200 2008 2006 the former president.

[00:08:08]Okay.

[00:08:12]power.

[00:08:18]Yes.

[00:08:29]His former president.

[00:08:53]You see under but is under the normal uh civil procedure if the prosecution closes this case and that maybe the plaintiffs that's what I'm using prosecution in the civil sense but the plaintiffs my lord with the greatest respect let's just stick to what we are familiar with if you say prosecution in the civil >> okay so if the if the plaintiff closes his case and the defendant realizes that the case the plaintiff has has no substance or does not establish the reliefs he is claiming and there will be no need for him to testify. You know he can tell the court that he will not testify and then he will be put to his election whether if the court rules in respect of his application he will still testify or he will not testify. My lord, that that is the procedure.

[00:09:49]>> My lord, with the greatest respect, that is not the procedure under our rules.

[00:09:53]With the greatest respect, that procedure may apply under the English civil procedure rules, but it does not apply under our rules. And with the greatest respect, if if I'm wrong in that, I would stand to be corrected.

[00:10:06]Which rule under our rules has that provision?

[00:10:10]>> It's a settled practice. My lord, we adopt. So are you saying that my lord a party cannot say that I will not testify judge the case according to the evidence you have my lord my lord because you cannot compare anybody to testify >> my lord with the greatest respect my lord my lord my lord my lord my lord with the greatest order in court please >> the greatest respect I wish to take it a step at a time if your lordship is referring to a submission of no case at the end of testimony if that's what your law is adverting to my respectful submission is that one under English common law it is in fact not available in a trial which is not before the jury under common law the authorities are clear that that process that your law just described is not available and I I I am prepared to site some authorities in the common law which make that clear including a well-known case of Alexander and Reason but melo before coming to that I just wish to clarify that the common law position is very clear where there is a jury where there's a jury it is open under the common law where there's a jury it is open for when is a where is a jury it is open for the plaintiff to say indeed that I don't want the matter to go before the jury I'm ending at the point of the trial judge but the common law position that has been clearly stated in the English court of appeal is that where there is only a judge and not a jury that procedure is unacceptable and there's a very clear reason given for it in the authorities which I'll come to but my lord I want to >> I want to understand something are you suggesting that a party can be compelled to to give evidence >> that is not what I'm suggesting I'm just suggesting that order 36 rule three applies in terms of the precondition that is put there. In terms of the precondition, it says where the defendant elects not to aduce evidence, then whether or not the defendant, and I'm saying respectfully that in this case, the first respondent elected to give evidence and notify the court as such. The first defendant elected to give evidence notified the court as such and on that basis the court made an order for a witness statement to be provided.

[00:13:16]>> Mr. Chaser you aware that at case management stage nobody knows the evidence that the other is bring it is after case management orders that the testimonies coming. Is that not it?

[00:13:31]>> Very clear. I mean I mean that's a matter of chronological necessity because I mean that is a chronological necessity case management happens before witnesses are called to testify. So there can't be any doubts about that. I'm referring to the fact that under order 363 which council for the first defendant is seeking to come under and my lord this is also different from the submission of no case under the common law excuse me order uh 36 4 sub rules two and three together he say subject to sub the plaintiff shall begin by opening the plaintiff's case.

[00:14:21]Then two, when the defendant elects not to ad three, when the defendant elects not to abuse evidence, a proses that the plaintiff has finished his case. That is my understanding. understand my lord.

[00:14:35]Respectfully, that cannot respectfully that cannot be because because my lord ordered 36 43 and and respectfully as I said those rules predated CI 87 on case management.

[00:14:59]CI87 introduces case management on the basis of which your lawsuits have proceeded and given orders and respectfully I'm submitting that under the terms of CI47 order 36 rule three where the defendant elects not to produce evidence is a precondition for that. And in this case, the defendant at the case management stage represented that they would aduce evidence and therefore that precondition does not exist.

[00:15:50]And the defendant made those representations to the court and to the yes to the court in a manner which led your lordships to determine Mr. May I may I seek clarification? Yes, my lord.

[00:16:10]The are you suggesting that under the case management regime a defendant who indicates to the court before evidence is taken that I will call one or two witnesses in this matter. Then after the plaintiff has given evidence, the defendant says, "I don't think I need to call any evidence.

[00:16:41]Determine the matter on the basis of what the plaintiff has brought." Cannot do so. Yes, my I'm saying that he cannot do so where the court on the basis of their representation has ordered witness statements to be submitted. Because when he does that, when he does that, he has elected other than what is provided for in order 3643 where the where he makes that election at the case management stage and the court has made an order appropriately order 36 rule four is only regulating order of speeches.

[00:17:25]>> My lord, I didn't call you >> order 36 rule four. Yes, that's regulating only regulating the order of speeches.

[00:17:34]That's all that the the rule is seeking to do. But attract >> Yes. But my lord But how can how can the how can the law state that a party compel a party to give evidence by all means?

[00:17:47]>> No, my lord's my lord's respectfully. My lord's respectfully. If you say that the order of speeches >> Yes.

[00:17:55]>> is all that >> Yes.

[00:17:59]of speeches.

[00:18:00]>> My lord, that's a headnote and your lordship knows very well that the headnotes does not settle the interpretation of the provisions. I mean, Bernard Mona's case is a classic instance where the headnote was shown to be completely