THE REPUBLIC vs. KWABENA DUFFUOR AND 8 OTHERS

It has always been said interpretation hounds in pairs. Thus, any rational lawyers on both sides of a case may perfectly and reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same sets of facts without forfeiting their positions to be regarded as reasonable. However, the reality is that the court has to agree with one conclusion and reject the other, regrettably. What has attracted the above comments is due largely to the passion with which the lawyers for the accused persons argued their case and the dexterous skills by which the Director of Public Prosecutions (D.P.P) responded to the arguments of the defence legal team. Arguments of Counsel for the Accused persons: Premising his arguments on S. 122(8) of the Banks & Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930), learned Counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Accused persons, whose submissions were ably supported by the other lawyers in the defence team, had argued that the witness for the Prosecution (PW1) was no...