Row over National ConferenceGBA FILES DEFENCE TO AVOID DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) yesterday, managed to outwit a default judgment being sought against it before an Accra Fast Track Court (FTC) by a member of the association, who has challenged the constitutionality of the election of its national officers, at the November 15, 2008 Conference, held at Kumasi in the Ashanti Region.

Not able to file its defence before the plaintiff, Mr. Joe Aboagye Debrah, could get a default judgment against it, the Bar Association, on January 21, this year, filed its defence, which eventually dislodged the application.

The court, presided over by Justice Ofori-Atta, awarded no costs, but directed that the legal challenge against the elections of the association's national officers, should take its normal course.

Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the issue, as plaintiff is yet to file his statement of case, which would propel the court to set down the issues for determination.

The plaintiff is claiming an order of the court, restraining the Bar Association from permitting, allowing, condoning or parading the said elected officials in any manner whatsoever, and/or holding them out as elected national officers of the defendant for the 2008/2009 legal year, or acting as such, pending the final determination of the suit.

Additionally, Mr. Debrah is seeking a declaration of the court that the election of national officers of the Bar Association on November 15, last year, flouted the spirit of Article 26(3) of the association's 1994 Constitution, and was therefore null and void, and of no legal effect.

Plaintiff is further demanding that the court annuls the election, of all national officers of the Bar Association, during the November 15, 2008 Conference.

According to plaintiff, the scheduled date for the conference to be held, in accordance with the association's Constitution, being September 29, 2008 to October 2, 2008, was cancelled as members of the Bar were informed at the conference, that the Association did not comply with the period for the opening of nominations for national executive office, thereby nullifying all pending nominations for national positions of the Bar Association.

Plaintiff noted that the defendant duly received all relevant documentation from prospective candidates well before the conference date, but did not at any stage of the conference communicate the alleged non-compliance with the Constitution, until the third day of the conference, when the matter was due for discussion.

The exposure of the association's non-compliance, plaintiff asserted was an announcement in the wake of a controversy at the conference, following the resignation of the then President, the only candidate for the position of National President then.

The error, plaintiff claimed, surprised some of the candidates, as they had met all the requirements for the elections, a situation which compelled the defendant to admit openly at the conference.

It was further the view of the plaintiff, that the defendant subsequently announced the opening of nominations scheduled after the conference, calling on all eligible members to file and contest for executive positions, before the elections on November 15, 2008, and the conference adjourned accordingly.

The plaintiff held that on November 15, last year, he raised the unconstitutionality of the proposed elections at the conference, but was defeated in a motion, and the conference voted to proceed with the elections as scheduled, where the positions of national officers were duly announced and filled, through the said election, except that of the National President.

To plaintiff, the elections for national officers, held on November 15, 2008, flies in the face of clear unambiguous provisions in Article 26(3) of the Association's Constitution, and therefore invalid.

In its defence, defendant noted that contrary to the association's constitution, nominations were not formally opened, and the list of nominated candidates was not sent to the regional branches for publication, but the issues brought to the attention of the conference on November 1, 2008.

Defendant held that consequently, the conference exercised its residual powers, under its constitution, to address the developments, by resolving to revoke all nominations filed, and re-open nominations, as well as fix a date for elections to be conducted.

According to the Bar Association, the then President of the association was no longer a candidate for the position of National President as at November 1, 2008, following his resignation as National President, and the subsequent withdrawal of his nomination at a meeting of the General Council on September 28, 2008.

Defendant asserted that there was evidence of the acceptance of the actions of the immediate past National President, which was unanimously accepted by the General Council of the association.

The Association was of the view that the officers were duly and properly elected, and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any restraining orders from the court, stressing that it had complied with the tenets of the association's Constitution, noting that the defendant was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.