Former Anas’ lawyer on Maxwell Opoku Agyeman’s view on judgment
Sammy Darko, a former lawyer for Anas has responded to Maxwell Opoku Agyeman’s view on the judgment, Anas vs. Ken Agyapong.
Thank you Counsel for your submission on this judgment.
I notice you refer to Plaintiff Attorney as a surrogate and you refer to a witness called by plaintiff too as a surrogate.
That right there Senior are your immediate flaws though you have read the judgment.
In civil cases, plaintiff can grant power of attorney to a person to represent him.
You also say judge was confused or did not know the identity of plaintiff and therefore hard to say he has been defamed.
Why was plaintiff represented? If you read the judgment well, you did also know that the judge was selective in facts.
I advice you to get copies of the entire proceedings.
You will notice that admissibility of all the exhibits of the defendants were vehemently objected to on grounds of originality and authenticity and that the defendant not being the author cannot speaks to its production or others.
The fact that plaintiff did not appeal the decision to accept the exhibits is not an estoppel. Did plaintiff not successfully through cross-examination show that the defendant could not speak to it and therefore, cannot be considered as a piece of evidence.
Again, during cross-examination, did plaintiff attorney not dispute that plaintiff couldn’t or be in the said video?
What evidence did defendant lead to show that the said exhibits contained plaintiff- did defendant bring any other material to corroborate that plaintiff is the one in the exhibits.
Did plaintiff not prove that even the said tape is doctored by show and getting defendant to admit it is cut and paste, several different scenes pieces together and he doesn’t have the original.
Did the judge not say it is rather plaintiff who ought to have produced the original- what logic is that? Did plaintiff not produce correspondence from AG and the Court to show why the case was dismissed in court. What did the judge say about it?
During cross-examination of defendant did he not say he is not even aware that an investigation piece done by plaintiff that was key component of the case was rejected by Justice Quist on grounds that it breaches their privacy and plaintiff was not called to testify? What else did you expect from plaintiff after proving all that?
How can exhibits of defendant be justification for the over one hundred defamatory comments the judge decided not hold the defendant liable?
What did he hold on to the publication of the plaintiff being a murderer? Evading tax? Etc. Is there any piece of evidence in the exhibits that justify these?
I notice you struggle to admit that is a bad decision and wish for appeal. Allow people to comment.
After all, a judgment is meant to be criticized. As the judge noted this case is mammoth because of its implication for the defendant’s Presidential ambitions and the plaintiff’s reputation.
But why hold criminal findings when he has not conducted same? Can we hear a proper legal argument on same? You treat it as mere pronouncements. You have not noticed the fodder it has provided critics of the plaintiff?