Lawyer for Dafeamekpor discredits court bailiff’s accounts, says he lied

Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, the lawyer for the South Dayi Member of Parliament (MP) and plaintiff, Rockson-Nelson Etse Dafeamekpor, has discredited the account of a court bailiff who told the Supreme Court that the legal team for Defeamekpor failed to receive a process from the court.

According to TV3’s court correspondent, Joseph Ackah Blay, the court bailiff who assumed the witness box under oath told the justices of the Supreme Court that Mr Samoa Addo had instructed staff at his legal office not to receive the court documents being served on the plaintiff.

However, Samoa Addo, in an interview with Alfred Ocansey on 3FM’s Prime News, said the bailiff lied to the Supreme Court, hence his decision to release CCTV footage from his office detailing how things occurred.

“This bailiff called at exactly 10:50 am yesterday [March 26]. At that time, I was not in the office. so I sent him the number of Mr. Rockson and said, Call Mr. Rockson and serve him with whatever process you have. He received the message at 10:57 am, acknowledged it, and said it was received with thanks,” Samoa Addo explained.

“That was the last I heard from the bailiff,” he said, adding that the bailiff came to his office but was unaware that he was [being] filmed by the CCTV cameras.

“I have released the CCTV recording of his entire period within our office, including the voice audio for you to listen to exactly the interaction between himself and my front desk staff.”

“My front desk people told him that they had seen my name on it and that he should wait for me to come because I was not in the office at that particular time. Then he told them he was making a phone, and then he was going to return. Nobody had signed the process. He left the process there and never came back,” he explained.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court yesterday, March 27, dismissed the injunction application filed by Dafeamekpor against Parliament’s approval of ministerial nominees by President Akufo-Addo.

In a unanimous decision, the apex court said the injunction application was frivolous and abused the court process.