Justice Asante to hear Nana Konadu’s case

July 10, 2008 (Page 55)

A new judge has been assigned to hear the case in which Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and four others are standing trial at the Accra Fast Track High Court for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
The judge, Mr Justice Edward Asante, took over from Mr Justice K. Acquaye, who has been promoted to the Court of Appeal.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, Mr Justice Asante informed the prosecution and the defence that yesterday was his first time on the case and for that matter he needed time to study the docket before trial could commence.
The matter was, accordingly, adjourned to Friday, July 18, 2008.
Nana Konadu is standing trial with Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of the Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL), the CDCL as an entity, Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), Thomas Benson Owusu, a former accountant of the DIC, and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
All the accused persons, except Owusu, were present in court yesterday.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses to public property in 1995 running into billions of cedis following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery acquired by CDCL, which is owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
Nana Konadu, Sherry and CDCL as an entity filed an application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the DIC and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of GIHOC.
However, on December 18, 2007, the court dismissed the application for stay of proceedings filed by the defendants to enable them to pursue the civil aspect of the matter.
According to the court, where there were both civil and criminal proceedings pending over an issue, the criminal action outweighed the civil one and, therefore, refused the application.
Counsel for Nana Konadu, Mr Tony Lithur, prayed the court on November 15, 2007 to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit between CDCL and the Attorney-General over the ownership of the company, which was pending at the High Court, or, in the interim, dismiss the case.
He argued that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
The court ruled that the civil suit and the instant case were not related, neither did they merge, because the latter involved a declaration of ownership and abrogation of contract, while the ingredients required to prove them were different.
It said although it was not for counsel to speculate the probable findings, the court was bound to protect itself from abuse.
Regarding an assertion by counsel that the Attorney-General, as a public officer and member of the Executive, was exercising arbitrary power to abuse the court process, the court ruled that the Constitution mandated the Attorney-General, as a duty, to initiate and conduct all criminal proceedings in the country.
The court admitted that while the A-G was bound to do that, he must not be arbitrary or capricious and stated that the trial in both cases had not commenced.
It said although the arguments put up by the counsel were ingenuous, they did not impress the court because once and until it was progressing, the Attorney-General was entitled to substitute the charges and those rights of the A-G could not be taken away from him.
Counsel had argued that the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.