Lawyer Kwame Agyapong, lead counsel for Member of Parliament for Assin Central, Kennedy Agyapong, has expressed his displeasure at what he described as unfair reportage on the p[art of journalist in the ongoing case between his client and investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas.
In an interview with Kwame Tutu on Rainbow Radio 87.5Fm, the lawyer said, Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ suit was fraught with errors and as counsel for the legislator, he drew the attention of the court on the matter because the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter on the need for plaintiffs to provide proper address when they sue someone.
He indicated that they had to go to court through a motion to set aside the suit brought before their client due to the errors on the face of the suit.
He indicated the counsel for Anas opposed their motion to asked the court to set aside the motion.
At Thursday's sitting, the court directed Anas to furnish Mr Agyapong with a more detailed address in 10 days as the current address provided is not sufficient.
The Court noted that Anas uses North Labone Crescent while Kweku Baako, who also lives there, describes it as North Labone Estates in a writ he filed in the Supreme Court.
The private legal practitioner further explained that, made a request before the court for him to be allowed to know the person who had sued him.
He said, my client told the court wearing of a mask and the concealment of Anas's identity breached his constitutional rights under article 33 of the Constitution.
But the judge responded by indicating that he would not touch on the matter because if does, he would be delving into the substantive matter.
He further revealed after the court ordered the plaintiff to make corrections on the address, the judge wanted to award a cost to his client but he declined.
According to him, the reports that came out were untrue and did not represent what the court said and were orchestrated by persons who dislike his client.
He admonished journalists to be accurate.
He also stated that the writ by Anas is technically not in existence due to the directive from to court.