Latest Update on Bribery leveled against Chief Justice: Alleged $5m Bribe: Kwasi Afrifa To Face General Legal Council On Feb. 16
On February 16, Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, the lawyer at the center of the alleged $5 million bribe involving the Chief Justice, will appear before the General Legal Council’s (GLC) Disciplinary Committee.
This follows a Supreme Court ruling that denied Mr. Kwasi Afrifa’s bid to have the forthcoming disciplinary procedures stayed.
In August of 2021, Mr. Afrifa sued the General Legal Council in the High Court, requesting that the GLC dismiss nine allegations brought against him by the GLC.
Following its initial hearings, the Council determined that Mr Afrifa had committed misconduct in the first instance.
Two GLC meetings, which resulted in the allegations against him, had aroused concerns for the private legal practitioner.
Mr Afrifa claimed he was notified on arrival at the first meeting, which took place on July 15, that the complainant had launched another action against him.
He pleaded with the Council to postpone the hearing since he had not been served.
He claims that his appeal was ignored when he was handed the 8-page document and the hearing began shortly after.
He went on to say that following the hearing, he was told that a prima facie case had been established and that he would have to appear for a hearing on July 29.
The lawyer claims that this is in violation of due process, which is outlined in many Supreme Court cases as the requirement for a fair hearing.
He claims he did not receive a fair hearing because he was unaware of the full of the evidence against him, resulting in his inability to appropriately react to it.
He also says that the GLC did not follow its own guidelines. These claimed violations, he thought, provided a sound foundation for the High Court to utilize its jurisdiction to stay the Council’s proceedings.
Concerning the claims leveled against the Chief Justice, the lawyer replied that he just recounted what his client had said.
This, he maintained, is not irresponsible or affirmation of the charges’ validity or falsity.
Mr Afrifa defended his revelation of this charge by claiming that it was required for him to present his defense to the General Legal Council.
He closed by stating that five of the allegations leveled against him are based on Legislative Instrument 613, which he claims has been abolished by Rule 103 of L.I. 2423.
He maintains that the remaining allegations are either redundant, imprecise, unknown, or fundamentally wrong.
However, the High Court decided in favor of the GLC, dismissing the lawyer’s lawsuit. As a result, he requested the Supreme Court’s intervention.
He went on to say that he couldn’t judge the truth of what he was told because he wasn’t there at the sessions.
He contended that the High Court ruling should not be upheld since it amounted to a mistake that needed to be addressed. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, was not persuaded.
It found that Mr Afrifa had failed to establish his case. It also ruled that it could not prevent the GLC’s committee from carrying out its mission and that such an application should be filed in the High Court.