Gyakye Quayson trial: Ask proper questions – Godfred Dame tells Tsatsu Tsikata

James Gyakye Quayson’s Counsel, Tsatsu Tsikata, returned to the High Court for a heated confrontation with Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, merely two hours after the Court of Appeal dismissed his application to stay proceedings on the grounds of it being unmeritorious.

According to The Chronicle report, the clash ensued during the trial of Mr. James Gyakye Quayson, the Member of Parliament for Assin North, and centered around a vigorous cross-examination of the prosecution’s first witness.

During the trial of the Legislator, Gyakye Quayson, Mr. Tsikata and the Government Legal Advisor engaged in a serious argument, particularly during the cross-examination of Richard Takyi Mensah, the prosecution’s first witness (PW1).

The A-G started the legal confrontation by advising Mr. Tsikata, who boasts of 57 years at the Bar, to ask relevant questions. This remark seemingly provoked Mr. Godfred Dame, leading him to reply, “My lady, counsel likes personal attacks… My learned friend goes on the bandwagon and plays to the gallery… 57 years at the Bar? The question, as to who’s telling the truth, makes it subjective. Counsel ask proper questions.”

Tsatsu, undeterred, posed a piercing question to Richard Takyi Mensah, asking, “Between you (PW1) and the A-G who is telling the truth?” This question seemingly aimed to establish conflicting statements and the credibility of the witness. In response, Mr. Dame retorted that; “The witness has made certain statements, and we have to know who is telling the truth,” further countering Tsatsu’s earlier claim that he had never encountered an A-G in his 57 years of experience at the Bar who makes insulting and prejudicial remarks about a person standing trial.

The heated exchange between the two legal giants continued, with Mr. Godfred Dame accusing Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata of resorting to personal attacks and irrelevant references that were unrelated to the trial.

The proceedings took place on Wednesday, July 19, 2023, before Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh at the High Court. The clash highlighted the tense atmosphere surrounding the trial of MP James Gyakye Quayson and underscored the importance of maintaining professionalism in the courtroom.

Meanwhile, the following is the cross-examination conducted by Mr. Tsikata that resulted in the two prominent lawyers to engage in the serious legal tussle.

Q: Where did you get the information?

A: I did my own search and investigations.

Q: Where did you get it?

A: I did the search where I thought I will get the information from.

Q: I put it to you that you’re not being truthful to this court?

A: It is upon the search and investigations that I came across documents.

Q: Do you remember the name of the police officer for which you made the report to?

A: No.

Q: But he is at the CID?

A: Yes.

Q: Before this case, have you been to the CID Headquarters?

A: Yes.

Q: When?

A: That was the day I presented the petition.

Q: Was it the Director General himself who you presented the petition to?

A: I cannot remember; what I know is that I presented it at the CID Headquarters.

Did you present the petition at the compound or in an office? A-G: Is it the case that during cross-examination the sky is the limit so you should ask any question? The questions must be relevant.

Tsikata: It should be apparent that the credibility of a witness is an important element in the cross-examination exercise. The witness states boldly in this case stated that he presented a petition. He cannot remember whether he submitted to an officer or director. That puts into question whether he really presented a petition.

A: I can’t exactly recall the person I presented the petition to. All I know is that I presented it at the CID Headquarters.

Did you present it in the compound or to someone in an office at the CID Headquarters? A: It was in an office that I presented it.

Q: Were you contacted after you presented it?

A: Yes.

Q: Who contacted you?

A: One Latif.

Q: But he wasn’t the one you presented the petition to?

A: As I said, I can’t recall who I presented it to.

Q: Did you get to meet Latif?

A: I met an officer at the CID Headquarters, but I can’t exactly recall if that was Latif.

Q: The one that you met after you were contacted was he the person before whom you made…

A: All that I remember is that upon being contacted, I went to the CID and introduced myself. It was there that an officer attended to me.

Q: Was that officer who attended to you the one who contacted you?

A: I have already said the one I handed the petition to I can’t remember.

Q: So the one you met after you were contacted was the same person whom you made the statement to?

All that I remember was that after I was contacted, I went to the CID; it was there that an officer attended to me. Q: You told this court that you attached documents to your police statement?

A: Yes.

Q: So I must assume that the police statement must…?

A: The real document I have already attached to my petition.

Q: Did you tell the court yesterday that you attached documents to your police statement?

A: I did tell this court yesterday that I did attach the documents that I have, but it could be that there was an omission, and I petitioned CID and when they were done with their investigations, they came out with their own document.

Q: We are not talking about documents. The documents you attached to your witness statement? Speak the truth else perjury will be hanged around your neck.

A-G: Stop harassing the witness with perjury when there is no basis.

Tsikata: Perjury is for the witness to speak the truth.

So you presented your witness statement to the police officer at the CID Headquarters. Is that correct? I said I did attach documents to my statement and they might have done theirs to come out with their own documents. From your answer, there is a police officer who had the attachment? A-G: The question is subjective.

Tsikata: My lady, he is signalling at me.

A-G: My lady, he always attacks me, but I don’t say anything. He tries to personalise… by citing unrelated cases. He is 57 years at the Bar… Ask relevant questions Counsel!

My lady, I had already said I added those documents to my petition, and the petition was presented to CID to conduct investigations. So the CID have conducted their investigations and kept it with other documents.

Can you read the last paragraph of the petition?

“Our copies of the attached documents…” Q: You stated that you have copies of the documents attached to your police statement, which I stated that there is a police officer who you gave your statement to, and its attachments?

I did present the petition and its attachment. According to your police statement, you attached documents to your police statement, right? A: …

Tsikata: My lady, we have not still received any documents attached to the police statement, and that was a subject matter for the application for further disclosure. The prosecution said they have given us what is in their custody. The evidence of this witness indicates that documents were presented to the police officer. It will be unfair to us to complete our cross-examination without these documents. At this point, we need the documents.

A-G: The witness stated that he attached certain documents to his police statement. Those evidence mentioned in Exhibit 1 has been disclosed and furnished to the accused. The document being referred to is a nomination form.

Tsikata: The witness has stated categorically that he attached documents.

You have heard the AG say that there were no documents attached to your statement. Between you and the A-G, who is telling the truth?

A-G: My lady, Counsel likes personal attacks… My learned friend goes on the bandwagon and plays to the gallery… 57 years at the Bar! The question as to who’s telling the truth makes it subjective. Counsel, ask proper questions.

Tsikata: The witness has made certain statements and we have to know who is telling the truth.

A-G: Counsel, junior was at our office to inspect the documents…

Did you tell the court yesterday that you attached it to your petition? Q: There’s nothing to hide. The witness has made certain statements, the AG has made another.

Do you still stand by your evidence regarding the police statement?

A: I don’t think I have said anything different from the A-G’s. I’ve always maintained that the documents that I presented; I did attach all the documents I had to the petition to the CID.

I’m asking you for the second time, do you still stand by your evidence that you attached documents to your police statement? I stated that I attached all the documents in my possession to the petition. Q: What is the date of the petition?

A: The petition is dated 11th January, 2021.

Q: At the time you wrote the petition did you have the statutory declaration?

A: I had seen it.

Adjourned to 26th at 12.30pm.