Private legal practitioner, David Annan, has challenged Lawyer Tony Lithur to write a petition to the Judicial Service and the Chief Justice, Her Lordship Sophia Akuffo, if he was not the one who leaked his suit filed at the Divorce and Matrimonial Court.
The lawyer believes the leakage may have come from the lawyer and the only way to show he was not the one will be to file a complaint before the Judicial Service for an investigation to be conducted.
Social media was awash with leaks of a divorce suit filed against former Gender Minister, Nana Oye Lithur by husband Tony Lithur.
The lawyer among other allegations accused the wife of being abusive and engaging in infidelity.
Nana Oye Lithur came out to deny the allegations and wondered why the petition leaked. She also called on the public to give the family the privacy to deal with their challenges.
Tony Lithur also expressed worry through a statement and wondered why a family matter leaked and admonished the public to give the family the privacy to deal with their challenge.
Lawyer David Annan commenting on the matter described the issue as an unfortunate one. He bemoaned the leakage of documents bothering on sensitive issues and cautioned against it. Making reference to the statement purported to have been written by Kwesi Nyantakyi on the ongoing investigations into his alleged fraud by false pretenses, the lawyer described it as a “criminal contempt.’’
He believes the leakage is an obstruction of justice and could effect an arrest and prosecution of individuals who may have leaked the documents. On the Tony Lithur’s case, he said the leaked copy maybe a doctored copy and when an investigation is conducted and it is established beyond reasonable doubt, then those involved could be charged for criminal contempt.
“The leakage of Nyantakyi’s statement was a serious one because it bothered on criminal matter. It was a serious offence. It is an offence. To sum up everything on both the Nyantakyi and Tony Lithur issues, the person involved could be charged for criminal contempt of court. They would be charged because they have interfered with the administration of justice,’’ he said.