Lawyers for Ms Eva Lokko, former Director General of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), have protested against 'the forceful opening of her office to conduct a purported inventory on January 11'.
The protest, addressed to the Registrar of the High Court in Accra and copied to the media on Wednesday, contended that the action was taken 'at a date and time unilaterally set by the defendants and not agreed to by the plaintiff'.
According to the legal firm, Bentsi-Enchill, lawyers for Ms Lokko, this is a breach of the terms that the court ordered when it granted her request for the inventory on July 18, 2006.
They argued that they had sent by fax, a letter requesting an adjournment of the inventory taking, and four hours before the breaking in, they had informed Mr Anthony Mathews of Mathew Consult, lawyers for the defendants by phone, their unavailability and said they had a copy of the fax receipt indicating that it had been received.
The lawyers contended that the action was in breach of the November 6, 2006, order which specifically stated that all parties must be present to open the door.
'Accordingly, it was only right that the date should have been fixed at the convenience of both parties and your (Registrar's) good self', they added.
They requested that a date and time convenient for both parties should be set and a proper inventory taken as originally ordered by the court, and without any unauthorised participants, including the media.
On January 12, this year, a team of lawyers from Mathews consult, together with a High Court bailiff, Duncan Williams, forced open the door of Ms Lokko to carry out an inventory of the office in the absence of both Ms Lokko and her legal team.
This followed an application by the defendants in a case involving Ms Lokko (plaintiff) and GBC and the National Media Commission (defendants), in which an Accra High Court on July 18, 2006, ordered Ms Lokko to return the keys to her office to the GBC.
Subsequently, on November 6, 2006, following an application by Ms Lokko, the court further ordered that an inventory be taken of her office, as well as, all other properties which had been under her supervision in the presence of all the parties in the suit.