‘Eligibility of Mrs Kusi not challenged’
The embattled National Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Paul Afoko, did not challenge the eligibility of Mrs Eugenia Gifty Kusi as a member of the party’s disciplinary committee that approved his suspension.
Advertisement
The only time counsel for the suspended national chairman of the party, Mr Martin Kpebu, raised objections to the eligibility of the Tarkwa Nsuaem Member of Parliament (MP) as member of the committee was when he appealed to the National Council of Elders (NCE) against the decision of the National Executive Committee (NEC) to suspend Mr Afoko.
The counsel for the NPP, Mr Godfrey Dame, pointed these out during the cross-examination of Mr Kpebu in the case in which Mr Afoko was challenging his suspension.
It is the case of Mr Afoko that his suspension was unconstitutional and that Mrs Kusi was not properly appointed to the disciplinary committee that recommended his suspension.
But Mr Dame, who sought to discredit the testimony of Mr Kpebu who represented Mr Afoko at all the committee’s meetings on October 6, 2015, October 12, 2015 and October 21, 2015, asked whether during all sittings of the committee, Mrs Kusi’s eligibility was ever challenged.
“On the day the petitioners were heard on their complaints against the plaintiff, Madam Kusi sat on the committee. Is that correct?”
No objection
But Mr Kpebu admitted he did not object to the inclusion of Mrs Kusi as a member of the committee, and said it was because he was waiting for the committee to rule on preliminary objections he had raised, including the eligibility of one Alhaji Short, which were not determined by the disciplinary committee.
On the appeal to the NCE he said it became necessary because “It was the first opportunity we had to raise that objection, since earlier objections were not determined to pave the way for more. It was the purported suspension of the plaintiff that indicated to us that we would not get the rulings we have been waiting for all this while.”
During the banter that lasted for almost two hours, Mr Dame said the claim that Mrs Kusi was not properly appointed to the disciplinary committee was speculative.
Mr Kpebu admitted he did not find out if other members of the committee were appointed when asked whether he found out if other members of the committee were appointed.
“Since you did not find out if any of the disciplinary committee members were appointed, I believe you didn’t see the appointment letter of Madam Kusi,” Mr Dame said.
Appointment letter
Mr Kpebu replied in the affirmative but said he saw an appointment letter later.
Mr Dame subsequently pulled out a letter dated October 1, 2015 which he said was the appointment letter and asked Mr Kpebu if it was not issued before the committee’s sitting.
After scrutinising the letter, Mr Kpebu said the letter did not constitute a legal appointment, since it had not gone through due process required by the NPP.
When she was asked to show where in the NPP constitution that members of the disciplinary committee needed to be appointed by the national council, he said, “When a person is nominated or appointed by the persons who have power to appoint per the constitution of the NPP, the person’s appointment is subject to approval by the national council and also sworn in by the national chairman.”
He, however, said documents Mr Afoko showed him did not have Mrs Kusi on the list. Additionally, he said Mr Afoko also confirmed that he did not convene any national council meeting to approve Mrs Kusi as a member of the disciplinary committee or swear her in.
Asked about the provisions of the NPP which he was relying on, Mr Kpebu flipped through a copy of the NPP constitution, handed to him and said it was “the practice of the NPP and once it is accepted by them, it is constitutional”.
Mr Dame pointed out that Mr Kpebu’s position was not based on an express provision of the constitution of the NPP to which the witness said while it was not in the constitution, it was a practice of the party.
“You speak to the practices of the NPP even though you are not a member. You will agree with me that there has not been a violation of any specific article of the defendant’s constitution,” Mr Dame said.
But Mr Kpebu disagreed, saying: “I know because the plaintiff showed me minutes of the national council meetings which approved members of the disciplinary committee. The practices constitute the understanding of the NPP irrespective of Article 4(1)(c) of the party’s constitution.”