The lawyer at the centre of the alleged $5 million bribes involving the Chief Justice, Kwasi Afrifa, says he did not peddle falsehood against the Chief Justice. insists he was not reckless but rather simply stated what he had been told by his client.
Mr Afrifa is in the High Court seeking to set aside 9 charges levelled against him by the General Legal Council.
JoyNews has secured a copy of legal arguments filed by Mr Afrifa at the High Court in support of his case. He details what, in his view, transpired in two General Legal Council meetings which he alleges was contrary to law.
The Council, following its initial hearings, concluded that a case of misconduct at first instance has been made against Mr Afrifa.
Regarding the first GLC meeting on July 15, Mr Afrifa said he was informed the Chief (his client) had filed another process against him on arrival. He says he urged the Council to adjourn the matter since he had not been served.
This plea, he alleges, was ignored as he was handed the 8-page process, with the hearing taking off shortly after.
He continued that after this hearing, he was informed that a prima facie case had been established and ordered to appear for a hearing on July 29.
The lawyer argues this is contrary to the due process laid out in a plethora of Supreme Court cases about the need for a fair hearing.https://9e8126b91791186533f1f4a4c5d9cc35.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
He insists he did not get a fair hearing since he was not aware of the entirety of the case against him hence his inability to respond to it adequately.
He further claims the GLC did not follow its own rules because of service of processes. These alleged breaches, he believes, makes a strong case for the High Court to exercise its power to quash the proceedings of the Council.
On the allegations against the Chief Justice, the lawyer explains that he simply repeated exactly what his client had stated. This, he argues, is not reckless or confirmation of truth or otherwise of the allegations.
He states further that he could not have assessed the truth of what he was told because he was not part of the said meetings.
Mr Afrifa justifies his disclosure of this allegation by saying it was necessary to enable him to put up his defence at the General Legal Council.
He concludes by pointing out that 5 of the charges against him are based on Legislative Instrument 613, which he argues has been repealed by Rule 103 of L.I. 2423.
He insists the remaining charges are either repetitive, Imprecise, unknown or fundamentally flawed.
“One cannot ignore the undeniable fact that the mission which the complainant claim to have entrusted the applicant is unlawful, illegal and contrary to public policy”, his position on his clients complaint at the GLC seeking to recover outstanding sums said to have been paid for “ways and means”.
He, therefore, wants the High Court to set aside the GLC’s case against him.
