History of tony lithur

This also covers certain personalities who although not known party members have done considerable work for individuals within the party. Lithur served as the lead counsel for John Mahama during the election petition case, where his masterful courtroom strategy helped secure victory for the NDC. Appiah-Oppong has been a vocal advocate for legal reforms and accountability, earning her the respect of both the NDC and the legal community.

Dominic Ayine, a legal academic and former Deputy Attorney-General, combines scholarly expertise with practical legal experience. A law lecturer at the University of Ghana, Dr. His youthful energy and strategic thinking make him a compelling choice for the position. Thaddeus Sory, a seasoned legal practitioner, has been at the forefront of defending the NDC in numerous court cases.

Quarshie-Idun when he said he did not think a C. When it was the turn of Tony Lithur, counsel for President John Mahama, Justice Atuguba wanted to find out why he Lithur wrote in his address that failure to go through BVD did not go with any dire consequences. He explained that the BVD was a process of capturing biometric data which involved a person's picture and the purpose was also to identify if a person was eligible and that once the process of registration was done, then his right to vote is activated.

Lithur described as false the petitioners' assertion that since people's finger prints were not verified, then it meant people voted without the BVD. Asked to explain retroactive application of the law and invalidation of the results which was sub-mitted in his address, Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the NDC, contended that Article 49 of the constitution should not in any stretch of imagination lead to the annulment of votes.

He said it was the duty for party agents and presiding officers to sign the pink sheets and if in the discharge of public duty they both fail to per-form their duties it did not mean votes must be annulled. Tsikata submitted that there must be a frown on penalizing people retroactively, since presiding officers could not be penalized without a specific law mandating them to sign pink sheets and that the voter who had no role to play in the presiding officers' failure to uphold the law.

During interventions by some members of the bench about Mr. Tsikata's assertion, James Quarshie-Idun rose to draw the court's attention to regulations in C. When Mr. Quarshie-Idun drew the court's attention that a cancelled pink sheet found its way into the petitioners address, Justice Dotse questioned why he did not use his turn during the oral address to point out the anormaly, he could not answer but blamed it on the duties of a presiding officer at a polling station.

Probing further if there was any entry for the presiding officer to sign before declaration, Mr Quarshie-Idun said they signed only after declaration of the results. Tsikata disagreed with Justice Atuguba when he Atuguba referred him to an assertion by Mr. Addison that there were no mix up in the petitioner's exhibits and insisted that the confusion had not been addressed.

He said in polling stations. Judgment has been slated for August 29, The historic case led to a legal brainstorm for the past seven months. These were severally printed, broadcast and published across the World Wide Web, newspapers, broadcast channels, social media and by bloggers. It also portrayed her as a person, who though holding herself out as a human rights lawyer, was violating the rights of her household members with acts in direct contradiction to her profession, she stated.

History of tony lithur

Nana Oye said due to the false averments and publications of the acquisition of investment property in South Africa by Mr Lithur, the OSP instituted investigations into corruption and corruption-related offences, money laundering and illegal acquisition of property in South Africa against her. She was, subsequently, admitted to bail, while a pending case was published against her by the OSP, making her engage legal services to defend herself.

Nana Oye denied committing any of the acts alleged by Mr Lithur, saying he published the defamatory words knowing very well that they were untrue. The sole intention was to cause considerable damage to her and to disparage her reputation, she noted. The former Gender Minister said because of these false statements and publications by the defendant, she had been seriously injured in her reputation and had been shunned and brought to public ridicule, hatred, scandal, odium, and contempt.