The Ho High Court was marked by the absence of the Electoral Commission’s (EC) counsel on Tuesday, June 18, highlighting issues of accountability and professionalism in legal representation.
Presiding Judge Justice Owoahene Acheampong expressed frustration over this recurrent no-show, reflecting a broader problem within the legal process.
Justice Acheampong’s patience was tested by the continual absence of the EC’s lawyer, which disrupted the court’s workflow and raised questions about the commitment to a fair hearing. This pattern of no-shows, including the previous disappearance of another counselor, underscored challenges to the integrity of the legal proceedings.
The absence of the EC’s legal team hindered the judicial process, affecting not only the day’s agenda but also the progress and fairness of the proceedings. The court faced complications in addressing applications from the petitioners due to this silence, which tilted the procedural balance.
Amidst these absences, the participation of a sole legal representative stood out, emphasizing the contrasting attitudes towards court responsibilities and the impact of these absences on the case’s dynamics. Despite the EC’s counsel’s absence, the court proceeded, granting the petitioners’ application and scheduling further hearings. This decision moved the case forward, demonstrating the court’s commitment to progress despite challenges.
Interestingly, the EC complied with a court order by silently submitting a required voter list, showing adherence to the court’s directives despite the absence of oral defense.
The events of June 18 at the Ho High Court shed light on the judiciary’s struggle with professional accountability. The ongoing absence of the EC’s counsel raises important questions about justice and fair representation, with a hopeful outlook toward future engagements.
About The Author
