Robert Lartey, a staff of the Youth Employment Agency (YEA), wants counsel of plaintiffs against the agency, Sampson Lardi Ayenini to be sanctioned for allegedly misleading the court.

According to him, it was wrong for the name of an employee to be used in securing an interlocutory injunction against his employer without his consent in either writing or verbally.

“How on earth could public servants going about their legitimate duties as required under their terms of employment, wake up one day to news of a suit against their employer with them being listed as plaintiffs.

The ‘right to a lawyer’ is the fundamental and inalienable right of every person.

The obvious questions that beg for answers are; did all the YEA staff listed as plaintiffs to the suit consent to engaging the services of the counsel? Why would a lawyer make a representation for a purported client without his/her consent? Why would a lawyer conveniently mention someone as a plaintiff to fraudulently secure a court injunction without recourse to personal engagement with the purported client? Does this not infringe on the fundamental right of individuals right to “counsel of his/her choice”? Does this not infringe on the code of ethics that lawyers are required to adhere to at all time”, he asked

He claimed pursuant to the above it meant the counsel misrepresented, deceived the court and therefore as a matter of urgency must withdraw from the case.

But the lawyer in response said: “Well, they can continue to bully some of the guys to change their minds about the suit. Fact is, that won’t change the suit. If you change your mind, you move out. Those who are committed to their action will continue. If all change their mind, lawyers don’t force clients, they simply act on instructions of clients. We don’t personalise the cases we do in our firm”