Supreme Court defers judgement • At Tsatsu's request

June 26, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Supreme Court yesterday suspended judgement on whether or not the International Finance Corporation (IFC) should be ordered to testify in the case in which Tsatsu Tsikata was accused of causing financial loss to the state.
This followed a request by Tsikata, who has been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the Accra Fast Track High Court, to the court to “arrest” its judgement and invoke its supervisory jurisdiction by quashing his conviction by the lower court.
According to the convict, while waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter, “the trial judge at the Fast Track High Court has embarked on a number of steps in danger of undermining the authority of the Supreme Court”.
Tsikata, who represented himself at the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, said, “I filed the motion this morning which will enable you to ensure that the administration of justice is not brought into disrepute by the desecration of justice that occurred on June 18, 2008.”
Following his application, the court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, in consultation with other panel members, adjourned the case indefinitely to enable the court, as well as the Attorney-General, to be served with the motion paper.
Other members of the panel were Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira and Mr Justice S. K. Asiamah.
Before his conviction, Tsikata had prayed the Supreme Court to compel IFC to testify in the case.
His earlier applications at the Fast Track High Court and the Court of Appeal regarding the evidence of the IFC were dismissed on the grounds that the IFC was immune from judicial processes.
According to Tsikata, the then Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had, during his (Tsikata’s) trial, brought a similar motion to arrest a decision that one of the panel members, Mr Justice Ansah, was about to deliver.
Tsikata stated that Mr Justice Ansah, who was then an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, obliged and later proceeded with the ruling after the necessary steps had been taken by the DPP.
Mr Justice Asiamah then moved in and informed the applicant that the court did not have a copy of the motion which the applicant said he had filed in the morning.
Mr Justice Atuguba also said he found it difficult to see how the reading of the court’s judgement would prejudice Tsikata’s application.
Tsikata responded by stating that there was a close and intricate relationship between what the court was about to do (that is, the reading of the Supreme Court judgement) and what happened on June 18, 2008 (referring to his incarceration).
Responding to the application, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, said he had also not been served with the motion.
He said the issues raised by Tsikata were very serious and for that matter he needed to be served in order to respond appropriately.
Mr Ghartey, however, stated that he did not witness any desecration of justice on the day Tsikata was imprisoned by Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, an Appeal Court judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge.
In the substantive motion to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Tsikata stated that the trial judge acted without jurisdiction in reaching her decision in infringement of his constitutional rights to be represented by himself or by counsel of his own choice.
He said the trial judge acted without jurisdiction in not treating him equally before the law when she compelled him to proceed with application for further evidence, in the absence of his counsel.
According to him, the trial judge exercised her discretionary power arbitrarily, capriciously and biased through resentment, prejudice and personal dislike.
“The decision of the trial judge to strike out the application for further evidence was taken contrary to her duty to be fair and candid, under Article 296 of the Constitution, and was an error on the face of the record,” the motion, which was handwritten, stated.
He further argued that the trial judge had predetermined the outcome of the application because she had her judgement in hand, while his application was still pending.
Tsikata was found guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public property and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
Tsikata had gone to the court without his lawyer who, he said, was outside the jurisdiction on the day of his incarceration, and had sought to take a date for the hearing of a fresh motion on notice to take further evidence that he had filed at the court.
The motion sought an order granting leave for the defence to call further evidence in the case and, upon the evidence being heard, for counsel for the parties to be heard in respect of the legal effect of the further evidence adduced.
The former chief executive of the GNPC had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms, a private cocoa producing company, and another count of misapplying GH¢2,000 in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted a self-recognisance bail.
He has since appealed against his conviction, as well as petitioned the Chief Justice Chief Justice, alleging bias and unjudicial conduct against the judge.