Canadian based legal advisor Kwame Abrefah says Tsatsu Tsikata is excessively enthusiastic and should realize when to move away from daze reliability and step in as wise guide
“A legal counselor of Mr. Tsikata’s height should realize when to move away from daze reliability and step in as wise guide. Besides, he should realize that the Court expects him to create proof to demonstrate his case.”
The Supreme Court of Ghana opened the 2020 political decision request hearing in emotional design. Fully expecting the show going to unfurl, I considered how Tsatsu Tsikata would deal with the spotlight and whether the court would have the option to dial down the showy behaviors.
Like all watchers, I was dazzled at how the attorneys conquered their dread to fanatically advocate for their particular customers. I watched with serious interest the various strategies every legal counselor utilized during interrogation: their voice projection and word pressure, their non-verbal communication, center, control, and non-verbal correspondence.
I was focused on Mr. Tsikata’s non-verbal signs since they uncovered a great deal about his mentality towards the Court and contradicting counsel. I was entertained to watch him exchange pokes with the Justices of the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding, since legal advisors are officials of the court, they should act with trustworthiness and polished skill towards both their customers and the Court.
Further, attorneys owe the Court an obligation of authenticity. This implies legal counselors should be considerate and aware of the Court and act with genuineness, great confidence, and truthfulness. In this manner, as opposed to prevalent thinking, legal advisors are not regularly untrustworthy, pranksters, and guileful.
It’s engaging to watch legal counselors exchange punches with one another, yet should Mr. Tsikata speak condescendingly to the Justices of the most elevated Court of the land? To be honest, I winced each time he tended to the Court since he appeared to be so angry and contemptuous.
I was astonished when Mr. Tsikata occupied with warmed trades with Justice Appau, Justice Amegatcher, and the rest. During one trade with the seat, Justice Appau told Mr. Tsikata that he “was qualified for his assessment, which underscored the pressure among him and the Court. While Mr. Tsikata is splendid and articulate, he has an awful case that his asserted “sorcery” can’t change, which may represent why he was extending his disappointment on the Court.
As I would like to think, Mr. Tsikata is excessively genuinely put resources into the case. It is one thing to actually put resources into your customer’s position, their case, their story. It is another thing to be sincerely enmeshed for individual reasons. Maybe, during the long stretch of planning and standard discussions with Mr. Mahama, Mr. Tsikata had created compassion for his motivation and had started to relate to him as a casualty.
All things considered, a legal advisor of Mr. Tsikata’s height should realize when to move away from daze unwaveringness and step in as wise advisor. Besides, he should realize that the Court expects him to deliver proof to demonstrate his case. No measure of hustling and banting with the Justices can make up for absence of proof as arranged pink sheets to validate the charge that President Akufo-Addo didn’t get the half + 1 vote limit to be announced the victor.
Talking about passionate contribution, I filtered the web to see whether there was at any point animosity between Mr. Tsikata and any of the players engaged with the case. To be sure, there was. Mr. Tsikata’s abhorring for the President, Nana Akufo-Addo, returns many years. This may clarify why he appeared to be hateful, deigning, and pretentious about any contention that appeared to help President Akufo-Addo’s position, and took inquiries from the Bench so by and by.
While legal advisors might be very common, Mr. Tsikata is a praised legal advisor in Ghana, renowned for safeguarding prominent customers. It likely could be that his enthusiastic interest for the situation is inconsequential to his hating for the President. He may just need to solidify his picture as a legitimate illuminator and take advantage of his doubters.
Assuming this is the case, Mr. Tsikata might have raised his remaining by dodging rancorous trades with the seat and showing more control. Given his status in the lawful calling, one may have anticipated a more serious level of regard, quietude, and credibility from him.
To be perfectly honest, Mr. Tsikata’s court tricks helped me to remember Andy Griffith’s part in the Matlock TV show. From Matlock’s sensational court talks to his whimsy and petulant disposition, he made the show. Like Matlock, Mr. Tsikata had become the principle character in the progressing dramatization at the Supreme Court: seemingly, to the point that his jokes were pulling center from the real lawful issues under the steady gaze of the Court.
In my view, regard comes on the whole structures – readiness and scrupulousness are one angle. It is thusly humiliating and impolite that President Mahama’s request, which had acquired both public and global consideration, would contain such countless mistakes. To be honest, such an absence of due determination brings the legitimate calling into offensiveness.
Agreeing with the standards of expert lead is another part of showing admiration to the Court. For instance, an attorney ought not seek after a meritless activity. To do so establishes a maltreatment of the court interaction. Thusly, I was flabbergasted at the quantity of uses that Mr. Tsikata recorded, which were collectively dismissed by the Court. Most likely, an attorney of Mr. Tsikata’s height ought to have realized that these applications were “dead on appearance.” I can just envision that Mr. Tsikata recorded these applications to delay the meeting and advance the complaint driven account of his customer.