Lawyer Sosu, is praying the court to stop the IGP from any attempt to infringe on his rights.
While asking the court to enforce his rights, and order for the enforcement of his right to free movement, protest, demonstration, and personal liberty among others under Article 14(1), 21(1), and 33 of the 1992 constitution,” he is also asking for an interlocutory injunction against the IGP and his officers from attempting to arrest, investigate and maliciously prosecuting him.
In court on Monday, December 20, Lawyer Sosu prayed the court to grant him leave to amend his motion for interlocutory injunction, due to inadvertent mistakes on the motion paper.
Clarence Kuwornu, Chief State Attorney, representing the IGP raised preliminary objection against Lawyer Sosu’s motion for interlocutory injunction.
He said the crux of the preliminary objection is that the motion is for the enforcement of fundamental human rights but looking at the motion, it is praying that the respondent (IGP), his officers, assigns workers to be restrained from trespassing on the applicant’s land.
According to him, in as much as the applicant’s motion is for fundamental human rights, he cannot impose on the respondent (IGP) to be restrained including his assigns, workers officers from investigating and trespassing on land of the applicant.
He argued that, the IGP says the motion for interlocutory injection is incompetent since it relates to the issues of lands.
Responding to the Preliminary objection, lawyer Sosu who represented himself told the court that, the “objection is appropriate to the extent that the wording of the motion paper is incomplete and does not wholly reflect the remedies prayed in the substantive action” before the court.
He said the motion paper should have read, “motion on notice praying for an order of interlocutory injection to restrain the respondent, his assigns” from unlawfully arresting, investigating, and malicious prosecuting of applicant pending the determination of the suit
On the issue of the IGP and his men not trespassing on his land, he said it was inadvertently put in the motion because men from the respondent attempted to arrest the applicant at his church and home.
To this end, he, therefore, sought leave to amend the motion paper to reflect in the substantive matter.
This he said, will afford the respondent, the opportunity to appropriately respond.
The Chief State Attorney replying on the point of law, said he should withdraw the application for interlocutory injunction so “we can move the substantive application.”
The Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court presided over by Justice Barbara Tetteh- Charway granted the application.
The court said, it is clear on the face of the documents that the facts of the statement of case and affidavit in support of the case do not support the motion for interlocutory injunction.
The court explained that, anybody that reads it will know that there was a mistake.
The court subsequently granted the prayer and ordered the applicant to file his amendment by December 23.
EIB Network’s Court Correspondent Murtala Inusah reports that, the respondent has been directed to file his answer to the substantive matter on January 14, 2022.
The case has been adjourned to February 1, 2022, for the substantive matter to be moved.