Thursday, February 26, 2009

Tsatsu's case before Supreme Court

Thursday, February 26, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

FORMER President Kufuor’s pardon to Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), who was convicted of causing financial loss to the state and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, is now an issue before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has expressed interest in looking into the issue and would subsequently decide whether or not the pardon granted to Mr Tsikata by Mr John Agyekum Kufuor has any effect on an application for review filed by Mr Tsikata.
Mr Tsikata, who has maintained his innocence, was convicted on June 18, 2008, for causing financial loss to the state and has since been granted an absolute and unconditional pardon by former President Kufuor.
He has, however, rejected the pardon, describing the former President’s gesture as “hypocrisy”, and has since been granted bail by the Accra Fast Track High Court, pending the outcome of an appeal he filed against his conviction.
After rejecting the pardon, Mr Tsikata filed an application praying the Supreme Court to review its decision which said the trial judge who sentenced him had not been biased.
He filed a subsequent application for extension of time to enable him to introduce fresh evidence into his application for a review.
According to the applicant, the trial judge, Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, had interacted with the Executive before convicting him and therefore there had been an Executive interference in his trial.
The Supreme Court was expected to rule on the application for extension of time yesterday but at the court’s sitting in Accra, it emerged that the Attorney-General’s office had in its reply to Mr Tsikata, raised the issue of pardon.
Although the Attorney-General’s office filed a subsequent affidavit withdrawing the aspect of the pardon, the court expressed its desire to look into the issue.
Consequently, the court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse and Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, ordered parties to file the necessary papers on the issue of pardon to Mr Tsikata.
It also cited some authorities and encouraged the parties in the matter to look at them while they prepared their addresses.
It accordingly ordered the Attorney-General to file a copy of the former President’s pardon within a week, as well as file other necessary documents on the matter on or before March 13, 2009.
It also ordered Mr Tsikata to reply to the filed papers on or before March 24, 2009.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to April 8, 2009 for hearing.
The court’s decision on the issue of pardon to Mr Tsikata would then determine whether or not it would be necessary for Mr Tsikata to pursue his application for review.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the counsel for Mr Tsikata, Professor E. V. O. Dankwa, informed the court that his client had not received a copy of the pardon and therefore did not know the terms of the pardon.
The court then ordered the Attorney-General’s office to file a copy of the pardon, as well as furnish the applicant with a copy.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Asutifi South case : Court rules April 8

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Supreme Court will, on April 8, 2009, decide whether or not to quash the ruling of the Sunyani High Court which upheld a petition that sought to restrain the declaration of the winner of the Asutifi South parliamentary election held on December 7, 2008.
The High Court had, on January 6, 2009, ruled that an application for injunction filed by the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP’s) parliamentary candidate for Asutifi South in the election, Mr Yiadom Boakye-Boateng, seeking to restrain the Electoral Commission (EC) from declaring the winner of the Asutifi South election had been properly laid before it.
Mr Collins Dauda, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary candidate and the EC had filed a motion praying the High Court to dismiss the petition, since it had not been properly laid before it on the grounds that it should have been filed 21 days after and not before the declaration of the winner of the election.
Following the court’s decision to dismiss Mr Dauda’s opposition to the petition, he filed an application for an order of certiorari praying the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the High Court to hear the petition which sought to restrain the EC from embarking on its constitutional mandate.
At its sitting in Accra yesterday, the court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, fixed April 8, 2009 as the date for ruling on the matter, after the parties had argued their cases.
Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice Date-Bah, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu and Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie.
Mr Samuel Codjoe, counsel for Mr Dauda, who is now the Minister of Lands, Forestry and Mines, argued that the High Court judge erred and exceeded his jurisdiction when, on his own, he amended Section 18 (2) of PNDC Law 284 by ruling that the payment of a deposit was not necessary for a petition to be heard.
Section 18 (2) of PNDC Law 284 states that “the presentation of an election petition under subsection (1) shall not be valid unless, within the time specified in subsection (1), the petitioner gives ¢20,000 as security for costs”.
Section 18 (1) of the law states that “an election petition shall be presented within twenty-one days after the date of the publication in the Gazette of the result of the election to which it relates, except that a petition questioning an election on an allegation of corrupt practices and specifically alleging a payment of money or to have been made by the person whose election is questioned or to have been made on his behalf to his knowledge, may be presented within twenty-one days after the date of the alleged payment”.
According to counsel for Mr Dauda, the ruling by the court was improper and ought to be quashed by the highest court of the land.
Mr Codjoe said Mr Boakye-Boateng should have waited for the election results to be published in the Gazette before commencing the action at the court, as contained in Section 18 (1) of PNDC Law 284.
Opposing the application, counsel for the respondent, Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey (retd), told the court that the law allowed his counsel to be heard before the 21-day period, especially when there was an allegation of corrupt practice.
According to him, the NPP’s polling agent was the first to sign the results but that paper disappeared.
The court queried him as to whether the petition had been properly laid in conformity with Section 18 (1) of PNDC Law 284 which said a person must be elected before a petition could be filed.
Captain Effah-Dartey argued that it had been properly laid, but one of the panel members, Mrs Justice Owusu, asked him whether or not he was interpreting the law to suit his client’s interests.
Counsel stood his grounds.
Replying, counsel for the EC, Mr James Quarshie-Idun, told the court that the EC filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the High Court’s ruling, as well as an application for stay of proceedings at the High Court.
He said the position of the EC was that it should be allowed to complete its work before petitions were filed.
According to him, the Court of Appeal had since adjourned the case sine die awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court.
A Principal State-Attorney, Ms Sylvia Edusu, who represented the Attorney-General on behalf of the EC, said the Attorney-General was not opposed to the application for an order of certiorari to quash the lower court’s ruling.

Unemployed on kidnap charge

Friday, February 20, 2009 (Page 14)

A 20-year-old unemployed is in the grips of the law for kidnapping a teenager for a $2,000 ransom before her release.
Erick Launcelot Kugblenu, is alleged to have threatened to kill his captive if her parents did not pay the ransom.
In December, 2008 he succeeded in colleting GH¢300 from his captive's parents before releasing her.
Not satisfied with his earlier action, he again kidnapped the victim on January 15, 2009 and called the girl's father on January 19, 2009 demanding $2,000 before he released her.
The victim's father reported the matter to the police leading to the subsequent arrest of Kugblenu.
Kugblenu was put before an Accra circuit court on Wednesday, charged with one count of kidnapping.
He pleaded not guilty and the court, presided over by Mrs Ivy Heward-Mills remanded him to reappear on March 4, 2009.
Prosecuting, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr George Abavelim, told the court that the accused person and the victim had attended the same secondary school and completed in 2006 and 2007 respectively.
According to the prosecution, the two had an affair that resulted in the girl getting pregnant.
The accused person, however, refused to accept responsibility for the pregnancy.
On December 12, 2008 the accused person lured the girl to his house and unlawfully detained her.
He later called the girl's father to inform him that the girl had been kidnapped and would only be released if he paid the GH¢300 to which the victim's father obliged.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

NIB boss granted bail at last

Thursday, February 19, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Daniel Charles Gyimah, who is standing trial at an Accra circuit court for wilfully causing financial loss of US$60 million to the state, was yesterday released from the cells of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
Gyimah was granted a GH¢500,000 bail on Friday, February 13, 2009 but had to spend five nights in the BNI cells because the valuation of the property which was used as justification had not been completed.
According to Mr Bright Okyere-Agyekum, one of the lawyers for the accused person, Gyimah was released around 2.00 p.m. after officials had valued the property which is situated in Sunyani and expressed their satisfaction.
Lawyers of the accused person had, through the media, expressed their disappointment at the reluctance of the BNI to release their client, who they claimed had provided the needed documents to guarantee his release from custody.
According to the lawyers, the accused person’s sureties were ready on Friday, but for reasons only known to the BNI, the bail bond was not executed.
Gyimah allegedly committed the offence in May 2007 when he unilaterally used the bank as a guarantor for Eland International (Ghana) Limited, a private company, by signing 30 promissory notes, all valued at US$60 million.
He had pleaded not guilty to one count of wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
The facts of the case are that Eland, for its part, contracted US$45 million from Iroko Security Company Limited, after the accused person had signed the promissory notes.
Iroko Security was expected to deduct the US$45 million from the US$60 million on January 1, 2009 but that did not materialise because Eland’s accounts had not been credited with the US$60 million.
The company, therefore, enquired from the NIB to confirm whether or not Eland’s accounts had been credited.
According to the prosecution, Gyimah allegedly ordered the International Banking Section of the NIB to confirm payment, which was done.
It further stated that most of the major documents covering the transaction between the NIB and Eland could not be traced.
According to the prosecution, the accused person admitted in his statement that he had embarked on the transaction without contacting the board of directors of the bank.
Gyimah is expected to reappear on Friday, February 27, 2009.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Ataa Ayi hurled before court again • For allegedly robbing 78-yr-old of GH¢1,500

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

Aryee Aryeetey, alias Ataa Ayi ,was yesterday hurled before the Accra circuit court alongside two others for allegedly robbing a 78-year-old man of GH¢1,500.
Ataa Ayi, who is currently serving a 70-year jail term and another 20-year term for robbery, was alleged to have committed the offence on July 24, 2004.
Ataa Ayi, who appeared to have grown lean, wore a white T-shirt to the court and looked indifferent when a prosecution witness was called to testify in the case.
He was charged with two counts of conspiracy and robbery, along with Michael Tagoe and Mohammed Musah Azangbe.
They all pleaded not guilty to the offence but were refused bail by the court.
A fourth accused person, Prince Isaac Arthur, is said to be deceased.
The accused persons were alleged to have committed the offence with a Honda Civic car, with registration number AS 3078 R.
The first prosecution witness, Mr Sam M. Darko, said he had been sent by his employers to cash the GH¢1,500 at the Osu Branch of Barclays Bank.
According to him, he was attacked and robbed of the money at gunpoint immediately he left the banking hall.
Giving his evidence in chief, Mr Darko identified Tagoe as the one who had pushed him, making him fall in the process, while the others took the money away from him.
He, however, could not identify the other accused persons, with the explanation that he could not tell whether or not they were part of the robbery.
During cross-examination, Tagoe suggested to the witness that the evidence led by him was not true but the witness disagreed with him.
The Accra Circuit Court, in September 2008, sentenced Ataa Ayi and three others to a total of 80 years’ imprisonment with hard labour for robbery.
Ataa Ayi and the three, namely, Sarfo Sarpong, Michael Tagoe and Nana Osei, aka Razak, were found guilty of raiding the Christ Apostolic Church (CAC) at gunpoint on May 19, 2004.
They were each sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for conspiracy and 20 years’ imprisonment for robbery. Their sentences are to run concurrently.
Ataa Ayi, who is already serving a 70-year sentence imposed on him in 2006, is currently facing trial in different courts on a string of cases involving him and other accomplices.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

NIB boss struggling to have bail executed

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Daniel Charles Gyimah, who is standing trial at an Accra circuit court for wilfully causing financial loss of US$60 million to the state, is still struggling to have his bail executed.
He was granted a GH¢500,000 bail with four sureties, one to be justified, on Friday, February 13, 2009 but he spent the weekend in the cells of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
According to his lawyers, the accused person’s sureties were ready on Friday but for reasons only known to the BNI, the bail bond was not executed.
Gyimah allegedly committed the offence in May 2007 when he unilaterally used the bank as a guarantor for Eland International (Ghana) Limited, a private company, by signing 30 promissory notes, all valued at US$60 million.
A promissory note is a signed document containing a promise to pay a stated amount of money before a particular date.
Gyimah has pleaded not guilty to one count of wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
At 8.30 a.m. yesterday, Gyimah was accompanied by a host of lawyers and family members to the premises of the Cocoa Affairs Court in Accra, ostensibly to complete processes to enable him to enjoy some freedom while the trial goes on.
The accused person, who wore an off-brown linen shirt and a pair of khaki trousers, was accompanied by lawyers, family members and BNI operatives in plain clothes.
He was taken to the court’s registry to assist in executing the bail bond while the BNI made some checks on the sureties.
The lawyers told the Daily Graphic that the BNI refused to accept Gyimah’s property as justification, for which reason another relative intervened.
As of 3.30 p.m. when the Daily Graphic left the court premises, the accused person was spotted sitting on a bench facing the cells reserved for accused persons.
He sat quietly, while his lawyers, BNI operatives, family members and friends stood and observed the surroundings.
They were apparently waiting for word from BNI operatives who were making enquiries on the property which was said to be situated in Sunyani.
Gyimah was expected to spend the night in his residence if the BNI okayed the property which had been used as justification for the bail.
Information gathered later by the Daily Graphic indicated that as of 5.40 p.m. Gyimah, his team of lawyers and BNI operatives were still at the court premises awaiting word from officials who had gone to value the property in Sunyani.
The facts of the case are that Eland, for its part, contracted US$45 million from Iroko Security Company Limited after the accused person had signed the promissory notes.
Iroko Security was expected to deduct the US$45 million from the US$60 million on January 1, 2009 but that did not materialise because Eland’s accounts had not been credited with the US$60 million.
The company, therefore, enquired from the NIB to confirm whether or not Eland’s accounts had been credited.
According to the prosecution, Gyimah allegedly ordered the International Banking Section of the NIB to confirm payment, which was done.
It further stated that most of the major documents covering the transaction between the NIB and Eland could not be traced.
According to the prosecution, the accused person admitted in his statement that he had embarked on the transaction without contacting the board of directors of the bank.
Gyimah is expected to reappear on February 27, 2009.

Monday, February 16, 2009

3 Govt officials sued over sale of property

Saturday, February 14, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

TWO members of the Committee for Joint Action (CJA), a pressure group, have dragged three government functionaries to the Supreme Court for selling a government bungalow to Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, a former Minister of State.
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Dr Edward Kofi Omane Boamah, both members of the CJA, have sued the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands at the Lands Title Registry for allocating the property to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey.
In the writ invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the applicants are praying the court to declare that by virtue of articles 20(5), 23, 257, 258,265, 284, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing in the previous government did not have the power to direct the sale, disposal or transfer of any government or public land to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey or any other person or body under any circumstances whatsoever.
They are also praying the court to order that any such direction for the disposal, sale or outright transfer of the said property in dispute or any other public land to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey was illegal and unconstitutional.
The applicants are seeking a declaration that by virtue of articles 20(5), 23, 257, 258,265, 284, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, the government was obliged to retain and continue to use, in the public interest, the property in dispute.
They are also seeking a further declaration that the purported sale of the said government bungalow, located at St Mungo Street, Ridge, Accra, by the previous government to the Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey was in utter contravention of articles 20(5), 23, 257, 258,265, 284, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
According to the applicants, the Supreme Court should order that the purported direction by the then Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing for the disposal, sale or outright transfer of the said property in dispute to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey smacked of cronyism, was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and a gross abuse of the discretionary power vested in a public officer under the 1992 Constitution.
The applicants are praying the court to declare that a publication by the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands which announced that the said property had been allocated to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey was unconstitutional, void and must be struck out as such, since it was in contravention of articles 20(5), 23, 257, 258,265, 284, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.
Additionally, the applicants are praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands and their agents “from perfecting the registration of a parcel of land designated as Parcel No 29, Block 12, Section 019, in extent 1.04 acres more or less, as delineated on Registry Map No 003/019/1998, on which is situated Republic of Ghana Bungalow No 2, located at St Mungo Street, Ridge, Accra, in the name of Hon Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey”.
A statement of case accompanying the writ said Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey allocated onto himself the government bungalow in dispute as his duty post and resided at the said duty post at a huge cost to the state from 2001 to 2008, although he resigned from his public office some time in 2007 to pursue his presidential ambition.
It said in 2001, when Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey was the Chief of Staff at the Presidency, the head office of the Public Works Department carried out, at his behest, renovation to the tune of GH¢17,254 “through Brockwell Construction & Engineering Limited, not to mention further additional refurbishment carried out at his instance to his taste at extraordinary expense to that state”.
According to the statement of case, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey subsequently applied to the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands for a land title certificate to effectuate what it termed “the illegal and unconstitutional transaction”.
It said the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands took the above steps to regularise the grant to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey a land certificate in relation to the said property to effectuate the purported sale of the said government bungalow and plot to him.
According to the statement of case, the applicants wrote to the then Attorney-General, protesting the sale of the said bungalow, but the Attorney-General replied and pointed out that the matter was a constitutional issue.
They further argued that the then Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing did not have the power to “direct the sale, disposal or transfer of any government or public land to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey or any person or body under such circumstances and that any such direction for the disposal, sale or outright transfer of the said property in dispute or any other public land to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey is illegal and unconstitutional”.

NIB BOSS on $60 m CHARGE • For wilfully causing financial loss

Saturday, February 14, 2009 (Lead Story)

THE Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Mr Daniel Charles Gyimah, was yesterday arraigned before an Accra circuit court, charged with wilfully causing financial loss of US$60 million to the state.
Mr Gyimah allegedly committed the offence in May, 2007 when he unilaterally used the bank as a guarantor for Eland International (Ghana) Limited, a private company, by signing 30 promissory notes, all valued at US$60 million.
A promissory note is a signed document containing a promise to pay a stated amount of money before a particular date.
Mr Gyimah pleaded not guilty to one count of wilfully causing financial loss to the state and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢500,000 with four sureties, one to be justified.
The accused person, who was accompanied by a host of lawyers, is expected to reappear on February 27, 2009.
Prosecuting, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr P. K. Frimpong, told the court that after the accused person had signed the promissory notes, Eland, for its part, contracted US$45 million from Iroko Security Company Limited.
Iroko Security was expected to deduct the US$45 million from the US$60 million on January 1, 2009 but that did not materialise because Eland’s accounts had not been credited with the US$60 million.
The company, therefore, enquired from the NIB to confirm whether or not Eland’s accounts had been credited.
According to the prosecution, Mr Gyimah allegedly ordered the International Banking Section of the NIB to confirm payment, which was done.
The prosecution further stated that most of the major documents covering the transaction between the NIB and Eland could not be traced.
According to Mr Frimpong, the accused person admitted in his statement that he had embarked on the transaction without contacting the board of directors of the bank.
Mr Frimpong prayed the court to remand the accused person on the grounds that investigations were ongoing.
His submission received a sharp disagreement from Mr Ken Brookman-Amissah, the lead counsel for the accused person, who claimed that the bank had not paid the said amount to any company and for that matter his client could not be held liable.
Counsel informed the court that his client had a health problem and had even been denied his medications while he was in custody.
Mr Brookman-Amissah further stated that his client’s service passport had been confiscated by officials of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) and, therefore, prayed the court to grant Mr Gyimah bail, since he would co-operate with the police and the court during the trial.
The court took into account the fact that no money had been paid by the bank with regard to the case and accordingly granted the accused person bail.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Court strikes out petition filed by Kojo Smith

Thursday, February 12, 2009 (Page 48)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court today struck out the a petition filed by the NPP Parliamentary candidate for the Ablekuma South Constituency in the December 2008 polls, Mr Francis Kojo Sackey-Smith which prayed the court to restrain Mr Fritz Baffour from holding himself as MP of the constituency.
Mr Sackey-Smith had also prayed the court to declare the results announced by the EC which gave Mr Fritz Baffour victory in the election as null and void.
Other respondents in the petition were the Electoral Commission and the returning officer referred to as Atiso.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner did not pay security for cost.
Security for cost is an amount deposited in court as guarantee in the event cost is awarded in favour of the defendant (Mr Baffour).
At the court’s sitting in Accra today, counsel for the respondent, Mr Samuel Cudjoe, told the court that although, the petitioner filed the petition within the 21-day permitted period after the gazette of the election results, he did not pay for the security cost.
However, counsel for the petitioner said the court did not determine the amount to be paid by Mr Sackey-Smith.
Replying, counsel for the Electoral Commission, Mr James Idun, said Mr Sackey-Smith should have applied to the court for the amount to be determined but he failed to do so.
The court acordingly struck out the petition but declined to award cost against Mr Sackey-Smith.
Other reliefs being sought by the aggrieved parliamentary candidate in the petition included a recount of ballot and a declaration that he was the true winner of the election.
Mr Sackey-Smith had earlier filed a writ at the court but later withdrew it as a result of procedural flaws.
In the new petition filed on Tuesday, January 6, 2009, Mr Sackey-Smith catalogued a series of irregularities which he said gave credence to his challenge of the results.

CEPS can't form of organised labour

Thursday, February 12,2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Supreme Court has quashed the dismissal of an application for stay of execution of the outlaw of private lotto.
The Ghana Lotto Operators Association (GLOA) filed an application for stay of execution of the Fast Track High Court’s ruling which outlawed private lotto, pending the outcome of an appeal, but the court, on November 4, 2008, dismissed it with the reason that “the applicants did not assert their rights to free market activity”.
Not satisfied with the processes which led to the court’s decision, the applicants, namely, the GLOA, consisting of Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprises Limited, Dan Multipurpose Trading Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Limited, Star Lotto Limited and From-Home Enterprises, filed the application to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to quash the Fast Track High Court’s decision.
It, accordingly, ordered that the application should be put before another judge for urgent consideration.
In a unanimous decision, the court held that the trial judge, Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, overstepped his boundaries when he heard the application for injunction at a time when there had been no order of transfer from the Chief Justice.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, Mr Justice Date Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira and Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, accordingly ordered that the application for injunction should be put before Mr Justice Edward Asante for hearing.
It awarded GH¢1,000 costs against the National Lottery Authority (NLA), the interested party in the case.
The matter was before Mr Justice Asante but it was withdrawn on October 22, 2008 and put before Mr Justice Ofori-Atta who, the court ruled, had not been ordered by the Chief Justice to hear the matter as stipulated under the High Court Rules.
The court further held that the registrar of the Fast Track High Court exercised a jurisdiction he did not have by transferring the matter from Mr Justice Asante’s court to Mr Justice Ofori-Atta’s.
According to the GLOA, the learned trial judge lacked the jurisdiction to hear the application for injunction pending appeal following the outlawing of private lotto with the passage of the National Lottery Authority (NLA) Act 2006, Act 722.
In its ruling, the court said the matter should be put before Mr Justice Asante for urgent consideration, considering the fact that the matter bordered on revenue generation for the state.
Counsel for the GLOA, Mr Aurelius Awuku, prayed the court to award GH¢5,000 costs against the NLA, but counsel for the NLA, Mr Kizito Beyuo, objected, with the reason that the NLA was at that instant only an interested party.
The court, however, used its discretion and awarded GH¢1,000 costs against the NLA.
The GLOA has, in the past year, lost four different motions it filed challenging the eligibility of the Lotto Act right from the Fast Track High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
It had sued the NLA and maintained that its rights to free market activity had been impinged upon by the NLA, following the passage of the National Lottery Authority (NLA) Act 2006, Act 722, but the Fast Track High Court dismissed the application, prompting the GLOA to appeal.
After filing the appeal, the GLOA filed another application praying the court to stay execution of its judgement, pending the outcome of the appeal which it (GLOA) said had a good chance of success.
However, on November 4, 2008, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Ofori-Atta, said the appellants were not able to assert their right to the law of equity.
The grounds of the motion to the Supreme Court were that the matter challenging the constitutionality or otherwise of the Lotto Act had been put before Mr Justice Asante, after it had been transferred from Mr Justice Anthony Abada’s court by the Chief Justice.
In its statement of case, the applicant stated that Mr Justice Asante adjourned hearing of the case to October 22, 2008 but on the next adjourned date it emerged that Mr Justice Asante was on leave and for that matter a court clerk adjourned it to November 6, 2008.
“On the same day of October 22, 2008, the case was called at the High Court Fast Track 2, presided over by Mr Justice Ofori-Atta, who heard submissions in the absence of the applicant and its counsel. The learned trial judge then adjourned the pending application for ruling on November 4, 2008,” it stated.
It further argued that on November 4, 2008, counsel for the applicant appeared before the court and objected to the delivery of the ruling on the grounds that the judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the application and deliver a ruling.
According to the applicant, “since the case was transferred to Justice Asante by an order from the Chief Justice, it is only another order from the Chief Justice that can put the case before him (Justice Ofori-Atta) to determine”.
The applicant argued that “in the absence of an order of transfer and any evidence confirming its existence, Justice Ofori-Atta overruled our objection and proceeded to dismiss the application for injunction pending appeal”.
Citing authorities to support its argument, the applicant held that it was evident that the registrar of the Fast Track High Court, and not the Chief Justice, had transferred the case to Justice Ofori-Atta’s court.
“The registrar sought to arrogate to himself the powers of the Chief Justice, which he did not have, and had no authority of the Chief Justice to act in that regard,” the GLOA stated.
The Fast Track High Court’s judgement banning private lotto followed an application by the NLA, which prayed the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit on the premise that the Supreme Court had declared the Lotto Act constitutional and, for that reason, there was no basis for the substantive suit to continue at the lower court.

Tsikata prays court to review decision

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, has filed an application praying the Supreme Court to review its decision which stated that the judge who sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment with hard labour had not been biased.
Mr Tsikata, who was convicted on June 18, 2008 for causing financial loss to the state, has since been granted an absolute and unconditional pardon by former President J. A. Kufuor.
He has, however, rejected the pardon, describing the former President’s gesture as “hypocrisy”, and has since been granted bail by the Accra Fast Track High Court pending the outcome of an appeal he filed against his conviction.
At the Supreme Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Mr Tsikata, Professor E. V. O. Dankwa, prayed for an extension of time to introduce fresh evidence into his client’s application for a review.
According to the applicant, the trial judge, Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, had interacted with the executive before convicting him and for that matter there had been an executive interference in his trial.
He said the trial judge’s utterances on the day of judgement pre-supposed that she had interacted with the executive before passing judgement.
The applicant explained that he could not complete his application for review because he was in prison at the time and, therefore, needed an extension of time.
A Chief State Attorney, Mr Matthew Amponsah, did not object to the application for extension of time but opposed Mr Tsikata’s motion to introduce fresh evidence into the case.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, fixed February 25, 2009 as the date for ruling on the application to introduce fresh evidence.
Other members of the panel are Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse and Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie.
On October 27, 2008, the Supreme Court held that the trial judge exercised her discretion properly and lawfully when she refused to adjourn proceedings on the date Tsikata was imprisoned.
“From the record, the applicant was treated equally by the judge without any discrimination. It also follows that the trial judge performed her duty in the application before her with fairness and the requisite degree of candour. In our view, she exercised her discretion in the matter judicially and in compliance with Article 296,” the court declared.
Dissatisfied with the court’s decision, Mr Tsikata filed the application for review.
Before his conviction on June 18, 2008, Tsikata had prayed the Accra Fast Track High Court to adjourn proceedings, since his counsel was not present to move an application to lead fresh evidence in the matter in which he had been accused of causing financial loss to the state.
However, the trial judge declined to adjourn proceedings and, accordingly, directed Tsikata to move his application but he refused.
Mrs Justice Abban then dismissed the application for want of prosecution and went ahead to deliver judgement, which was to have been delivered in December 2006 but had been on hold awaiting the outcome of interlocutory appeals filed by Tsikata.
Tsikata then filed an application at the Supreme Court praying the court to quash the processes which led to his conviction, as well as arrest its judgement on whether or not to order the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to testify in his case.
The court, on October 16, 2008, dismissed both applications and described them as without merit and informed parties in the matter that the court would file its reasons on Friday, October 24, 2008.
Tsikata was found guilty on June 18, 2008 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.
He was charged in 2002 with the offence for guaranteeing a loan for Valley Farms, a private cocoa producing company, on behalf of the GNPC and another count of misapplying GH¢2,000 of 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.
He, however, denied any wrongdoing.