Supreme Court defers judgement in Tsatsu's case

Thursday, May 14, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 deferred ruling on the issue of whether or not Mr Tsatsu Tsikata can introduce fresh evidence in his allegation that the Executive and the Judiciary colluded to imprison him on June 18, 2008.
Rather, the court gave Mr Tsikata, a former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), three weeks to file his address on the effect of the pardon which was granted him by former President J.A. Kufuor after his conviction on June 18, 2008.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, said it would then fix a date for ruling on the effect of the pardon on Mr Tsatsu.
Other members of the panel were 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.
In effect, the outcome of the decision of the court on the issue of pardon granted Mr Tsikata would eventually determine whether or not the court would allow him to introduce fresh evidence to the effect that the trial judge, Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, had interacted with the Executive before convicting him.
According to Mr Tsikata, he had evidence to prove that there had been Executive interference in his trial and subsequent conviction.
The Supreme Court had, on the last adjourned date, dismissed an application moved by counsel for Mr Tsikata, Prof E.V.O. Dankwa, asking the court to set aside its own earlier order that submissions be filed by the parties on the effect of the presidential pardon.
Mr Tsikata, who had maintained that he was innocent since 2002 when the trial started, was convicted 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 “hypocritical” and has since been granted bail by the Accra Fast Track High Court pending the outcome of an appeal he filed against his conviction.
The court will, at its next sitting, also decide on an application by Prof Dankwa for extension of time to file additional legal submissions in support of an application for a review of the decision of the Supreme Court in October 2008 dismissing Mr Tsikata’s application to quash certain decisions of Mrs Justice Abban leading to 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 had 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.
The Attorney-General, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, has indicated that she has reviewed cases being handled by her office, with a view to ensuring that principled positions consistent with the Constitution and the laws of Ghana are taken by her department.
In that regard, she had observed that at an earlier stage in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, a statement of case had been filed by her department raising the issue of the pardon granted by the former President to Mr Tsikata.
According to the Attorney-General, she would like to take permission from the court to withdraw the issue of the effect of the pardon on Mr Tsikata and subsequent issues that were filed by the Chief State Attorney because “the said submissions were filed without any reference to me and without my authority”.
Citing both local and foreign authorities to buttress her point, she noted that “a presidential pardon does not wipe out guilt”.
She said that was the position of the English Common Law, as shown by a statement in a case decided in England involving an accused, R.V. Foster (1985) Q. B. 115, which stated that: “A complete pardon is used to remove the ‘pains, penalties and punishments’ which flow from a conviction for a criminal offence but does not eliminate the conviction itself.”
The Attorney-General went on to refer to a case in Ghana involving Mr Kwame Pianim in which the Supreme Court decided that a pardon did not remove all disabilities.
That decision, according to the Attorney-General, was “binding” and she saw no reason why the court departed from “that authoritative pronouncement”, adding that the “issue of the pardon, therefore, has no relevance to the issues which are pending before this court”.
She was referring to a position by the Supreme Court which ordered parties in the matter to file addresses on the effect of the pardon to enable the court to rule on it.
“I am also unable, in good conscience, to oppose the application by counsel for Mr Tsikata to call further evidence to establish the issues which he seeks to bring before the court … If, indeed, there is evidence to this effect, it would be in the interest of justice that such evidence be heard,” the Attorney-General noted, especially having regard to the deposition by Mr Tsikata that “the evidence he now seeks to call was not available to him earlier because of the circumstances he found himself in”.
The Supreme Court then granted Mr Amponsah leave to withdraw the Statement of Case he had earlier filed.