Monday, November 30, 2009

Tema Cocaine case: Court gives ultimatum to prosecutors

Thursday, November 26, 2009 (Page 48/49)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday gave the prosecution in the 71.45 kilogrammes Tema cocaine case a 24-hour ultimatum to start prosecuting the case or have its case closed.
The trial judge issued the ultimatum after the prosecutor in the case had indicated in a letter that he was unable to report in court because he was attending a training programme which began on Tuesday and was expected to end yesterday.
The prosecutor then prayed the court to adjourn the matter to Thursday, December 3, 2009 but the court asked whether the prosecution was trying to dictate to it.
Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau said the prosecutor should have informed the court earlier about his inability to attend court, and further indicated that the court would have no option than to allow the alleged importer of the cocaine, Augustina Abu, to open her defence.
Augustina has been charged with importing narcotic drugs without lawful authority andbut she has denied any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, the court had discharged five persons who were standing trial with Augustina early last week, after they had been in custody for six months.
The court discharged the five after the prosecution had informed it that there was no evidence to warrant their prosecution.
The discharged persons are Yaw Attah Nkansah, a clearing agent; Alfred Amedzi, the Managing Director of Sedco Agency; Kennedy Osei and Simon Bede, both directors of Sedco Agency, and Francis Addo, a driver.
The investigator in the case travelled to Ecuador last month to conduct further investigations and upon his return it became clear that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the five.
The facts of the case are that on May 15, this year, the M/V Maersk Nolanville docked at the Tema Port with containers from Ecuador, Panama and Spain.
The prosecution said among the containers was one with number MSAU0118160 manifested to contain 1,880 cartons of chewing gum imported by Ms Abu of Augustina Abu Enterprise.
The prosecutor said personnel of the Joint Port Control Unit (JPCU), made up officers from the Narcotics Control Board, the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS), the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI), the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) and the Police Service tagged the said container, which meant that it could only be opened by JPCU officers.
About 3:30 p.m. on May 19, the container was scanned and the image disclosed that it contained some other objects in addition to its official cargo.
During a thorough examination, two bags containing 61 slabs of a whitish substance suspected to be cocaine were found among the cartons of chewing gum.
A test of the substance indicated that it was cocaine.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

AG's Dept withdraws motion

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 (Page 31)

THE Attorney-General’s (A-G’s) Department has withdrawn its motion for stay of execution of a High Court ruling which ordered the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) to release the passport of Mr Akwasi Osei-Adjei, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A Deputy A-G, Mr Ebow Barton-Oduro, told the court that the reason for the seizure of Mr Osei-Adjei’s passport had elapsed and for that reason the State was prepared to hand over the passport to him.
He said the State seized Mr Osei-Adjei’s passport to prevent him from impeding investigations into the importation of rice, which had since been completed.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Richard Apaloo, with Mrs Justice Iris May Brown and Mr Justice E. K. Ayebi as members, accordingly upheld the State’s submission.
It, however, awarded GH¢600 costs against the State.
Counsel for Mr Osei-Adjei, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, had prayed the court to award GH¢2,000 costs but Mr Barton-Oduro offered GH¢500.
The A-G’s Department appealed against the refusal of the Human Rights Division of the High Court to stay execution of its earlier order directing the BNI to release Mr Osei-Adjei’s passport.
Mr Osei-Adjei sued the Director of the BNI and the A-G for the seizure of his passport and described the action as “flagrantly unlawful and a palpable violation” of his human rights.
He sought an order directed at the Director of the BNI to release his passport unconditionally, but the A-G’s Department held a different view and said the detention of Mr Osei-Adjei's passport was on the grounds that the BNI was mandated, under the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act (Act 526), to investigate him.
The court had, on Tuesday, August 11, 2009, ruled that the BNI did not have the power to seize the former minister’s passport, adding that the action violated his fundamental human rights because it did not follow the due process of law.
The court, however, struck out the suit against the Director of the BNI, saying that the functions of the BNI made it a State institution whose acts were carried out on behalf of the Republic and, therefore, was not properly sued.
However, the A-G’s Office filed an appeal against the court’s decision and, accordingly, filed another motion praying the court to stay execution of its order pending the outcome of its appeal, but the court, on September 15, 2009, dismissed the application.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice U.P. Dery, described as untenable the argument by the A-G that if the former minister was given his passport there was the likelihood that he would interfere with the investigations.

Vodafone case goes to Supreme Court

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 (Page 31)

THE Commercial Court hearing the litigation involving the sale of Ghana Telecom (GT) (now Vodafone) has referred three issues on the constitutionality or otherwise of the sale of Ghana Telecom to the Supreme Court for determination.
The issues set out by the trial judge, Mr Justice Henry Kwofie, include whether or not aspects of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated July 3, 2008 and executed among the government of Ghana, Vodafone International and Ghana Telecom contravenes the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, renders the agreement void.
Also referred was the issue on whether or not any procedural, substantive errors and defects in the SPA were or can be cured through parliamentary ratification.
The third issue referred for determination by the Supreme Court was whether or not an agreement executed by government and ratified by Parliament could be challenged at the High Court.
The presiding judge, who is currently on leave, will set out other issues for trial in the substantive case when he resumes.
On October 23, 2009, Mr Justice Kwofie decided to refer aspects of the suit which bordered on the constitutionality or otherwise of the sale to the Supreme Court for interpretation, with the explanation that it was the sole preserve of the Supreme Court to interpret issues bordering on the Constitution.
He, accordingly, ordered the Attorney-General and GT to furnish the court with a copy of the SPA on GT.
The plaintiffs in the matter, Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa and five others, sued the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited and the Registrar General over the sale of GT to Vodafone.
The other plaintiffs, who are all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), are Mr Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah and they are calling for a declaration that the sale of GT is inimical to the public interest.
They are, therefore, seeking reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with due process of law and is, therefore, a nullity.
They are also seeking an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect.
The plaintiffs are further praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the government from disposing of its 70 per cent share of GT to Vodafone or any other foreign company without first exploring avenues for funding and better management in Ghana, among others.
They contend that the SPA entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for $900 million was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government.
The plaintiffs said they were opposed to the unlawful establishment of the said Enlarged GT Group, as it undermined the sovereignty of the country and endangered the national security of Ghana.
According to them, the decision of the government to transfer the assets, properties, shares, equipment, among others, to Vodafone was obnoxious, unlawful and inimical to the public interest, particularly when no consideration was required to be paid by Vodafone for the stated assets, among others.

Former employee drags Nestle to court

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE former Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Manager of Nestle Central and West Africa has dragged his employers to the Industrial and Labour Division of the High Court for wrongfully terminating his employment.
Mr Philip Anane is also accusing the Regional/Market Head under the Nestle Performance Evaluation who terminated his appointment of “racism and intolerance” and in “contravention of Nestle’s own Human Resource Policy and Corporate Business Principles”.
He is, therefore, seeking general and special damages for the wrongful and unfair termination of his contract, as well as “consequential losses arising, including injury to reputation, loss of expectation and diminution of future prospects of employment”.
However, Nestle Central and West Africa Limited has denied any wrongdoing, accused the plaintiff of recurrent under- performance and has since filed a counter motion praying the court to order the plaintiff to vacate the company’s rented property, pay accumulated rent on the property, as well as hand over the company’s vehicle.
The court, which was expected to deliver its ruling on whether or not to order the plaintiff to vacate the defendant’s premises today, has deferred ruling to January 20, 2010.
In the substantive suit, Mr Anane is praying the court to order the defendant to pay him lump compensation, remuneration for each year of service, payment in lieu of notice, settlement of all outstanding benefits, bonuses, allowances, leave of vacation, accrued management bonus scheme, among others.
The plaintiff is also praying the court to order the defendant to pay his benefits at the prevailing commercial bank rate, as well as costs and other reliefs the court might deem fit.
A statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons filed on behalf of the plaintiff by his lawyer, Mr Peter Zwennes, stated, among others, that Mr Anane, who is a Swiss/Ghanaian, was employed by the defendant on April 1, 2007 as an expatriate.
It said prior to his employment, Mr Anane had worked with reputable companies in Switzerland and during his tenure with the defendant company, he performed his duties with diligence and dedication, adding that in the first year of service the then Regional/Market Head under the Nestle Performance Evaluation, Mr Friedrich Mahler, assessed Anane’s performance as “Masters”, translating into “very satisfactory performance”.
According to the statement of claim, he never received any query between February 2008, when Mr Etienne Benet took over from Mr Mahler, to March 16, 2009 being the date his contract was terminated.
The plaintiff further stated that the termination of his appointment was wrongful, arbitrary, unfair and without any regard for due process, adding that the allegations of recurrent under-performance were unjustified and without any basis.
“Plaintiff further avers that defendants’ wrongful decision to terminate his contract of employment and the reasons assigned for the said termination have not only damaged and/or reduced his prospects of any future employment but also caused him great embarrassment, mental distress and injury to his reputation,” the statement of claim pointed out.
However, Nestle has denied the plaintiff’s assertion in its statement of defence and pointed that it was untrue that Mr Mahler had assessed Mr Anane’s performance and classified it as “Masters”.
“The defendant avers that in the year 2008, the defendant noticed that the plaintiff's performance was falling below expectation and, as a result, Etienne Benet, the Head of Region of the defendant company, discussed it with the plaintiff,” adding that “the plaintiff’s abysmal performance throughout 2008 is reflected in the Progress and Development Guide of the plaintiff covering the period January to December 2008”.
Nestle further denied the plaintiff’s assertion of racism against Mr Benet, challenged him to prove it and justified the termination of the plaintiff’s contract.
The company further argued that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it and was not entitled to any of the reliefs being sought.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

'Reinstate interdicted Principal Accountant'

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court on Monday, November 23, 2009 ordered the reinstatement of the interdicted Principal Accountant of the Ministry of Youth and Sports, Mr Adim Odoom.
It also ordered the Head of the Civil Service to pay Mr Odoom’s salary arrears from the time of his interdiction to date.
The court also directed that the National Security Report which implicated Mr Odoom should be forwarded to the Civil Service Council for the necessary action.
Mr Odoom was interdicted and ordered to proceed on leave on July 7, 2009 after National Security had investigated his allegations of financial impropriety against Alhaji Muntaka Mubarak, the then Minister of Youth and Sports.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations and his subsequent interdiction, Mr Odoom filed the application for judicial review challenging his interdiction.
Giving the court’s ruling on the application, the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Norvisi Aryene, was of the view that "the President acted unlawfully when he directed the Head of the Civil Service to interdict the applicant. The President’s decision to interdict the applicant is hereby quashed".
The court was of the view that due process had not been followed and, therefore, Mr Odoom’s interdiction was a violation of the relevant laws and disciplinary regulations of the Civil Service of Ghana.
The court awarded costs of GH¢1,000 against the Attorney-General’s Department.
Counsel for the applicant, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, had prayed for GH¢5,000 costs but the court awarded GH¢1,000.
In an affidavit in support of his application for judicial review, Mr Odoom stated that he had only been called as a witness before the committee instituted to investigate Alhaji Mubarak and not as an accused person.
According to the applicant, the respondents acted illegally, unreasonably, capriciously, arbitrarily and in an unfair manner.
The A-G’s Office opposed the application and described it as “premature” and said a five-member panel had been set up since July 10, 2009 to begin hearing the applicant’s case, with the object of determining his guilt or otherwise but the panel had not begun sitting in view of the present court action.
In a related development, the Chief Director of the Ministry of Youth and Sports, Mr Albert Anthony Ampong, is also seeking a declaration that an order directed at him (Mr Ampong) to refund $20,000 and a further order that sanctions must be applied against him are unlawful.
The Accra Fast Track High Court has since heard Mr Ampong's application and has fixed Friday, November 27, 2009 as the day to decide the lawfulness or otherwise of his interdiction.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

State appeals against court ruling

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 (Page 31)

THE state has appealed against the ruling of the Human Rights Division of the High Court which ordered the Director of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) and two others to appear before it and openly answer contempt charges levelled against them by a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng.
A Chief State Attorney, Ms Helen Kwawukume, prayed the court to adjourn the matter sine die because the state had filed a notice of appeal and a stay of execution against the court’s decision.
She also informed the court that the Court of Appeal had fixed November 30, 2009 as the date for hearing of the motion.
On October 29, 2009, the court declined to grant a request by the Attorney-General’s (A-G’s) Department, which prayed it to hear the matter in camera in order to protect the identity of the respondents.
Mr Asamoah-Boateng, his wife, Zuleika Jennifer Lorwia, Nana Yaw Asamoah-Boateng and Andrew Asamoah-Boateng instituted the contempt action against the three respondents, Yaw Donkor, Josephine Gandawiri, Stephen Abrokwa, and the A-G for preventing them from travelling outside the country on two occasions without recourse to a court order.
However, counsel for Mr Asamoah-Boateng, Nene Amegatcher, opposed the Chief State Attorney’s prayer and said the matter was a contempt application and it was, therefore, unfortunate that the respondents had not appeared before the court as directed.
He said the respondents had shown disrespect to the court by refusing to appear before it without any reason and further submitted that the court was not bound to stay proceedings in the matter because it (court) had not received any order to that effect from the higher courts as required under the law.
He further prayed the court to order the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to cause the arrest of the respondents and subsequently grant them bail but the court declined to do so.
Replying, Mrs Kwawukume said what her colleague sought the court to do was exactly what her outfit had appealed against.
She then prayed the court to adjourn the matter to a day after November 30, 2009.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice U. P. Dery, informed the parties that he would be on leave from now till a day in January 2010 and subsequently adjourned the matter to January 20, 2010.
In the court’s ruling on October 29, 2009, Mr Justice Dery disagreed with the A-G Department’s suggestion that it would be inimical to the identities of the respondents to be blown, stating that the BNI and the police enjoyed the same rights and protection.
He said he had carefully studied the Securities and Intelligence Act (Act 526), which clearly spelt out the rights of the police and the BNI as the same and for that reason “the BNI cannot be given special treatment”.
The contempt action was instituted when the four applicants were prevented from travelling outside the country on June 14, 2009 without any court order or warrant, following which they filed an application seeking an injunction to restrain the BNI from further preventing them from travelling without a court order.
While the application was pending, the applicants claimed the BNI again disregarded the action and prevented them from travelling on another date.

Scuffle in court *As 6 cops, others get 20 yrs each

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 (Lead Story)

DRAMA unfolded at the Accra Circuit Court yesterday when a civilian who had been convicted of conspiracy and robbery with six policemen and four other civilians attempted to vent his spleen on one of the police officers.
Immediately the trial judge, who had sentenced the convicts to a total of 200 years, left the courtroom for his chambers, the civilian, Bismark Ampofo, turned to the most senior police officer among the convicts, Deputy Superintendent of Police Patrick Kwapong, and shouted with venom, “This is conspiracy! This is conspiracy! God will punish you!”
It took court warrant officers, other policemen, prosecutors, among others, to restrain Ampofo from hitting DSP Kwapong, who stood and watched in bewilderment.
Ampofo was eventually hurled out of the courtroom in handcuffs without his grey shirt, which had got torn in his bid to attack DSP Kwapong.
In the melee, another policeman among the convicts, Constable Benjamin Blejumah, also attempted to attack a female journalist, accusing her of endeavouring to take pictures of him.
Some family members of the convicts wailed after sentence had been passed and vented their anger on the judge and journalists outside the courtroom.
They openly cursed and rained unprintable insults on the trial judge, who was escorted to his vehicle by court clerks and policemen.
The convicts were whisked out of the courtroom into a waiting police vehicle to begin their sentences.
Some of them covered their faces with their shirts, newspapers and anything they could lay hands on to stave off the cameras.
The court had sentenced the convicts after it found them guilty of attacking and robbing a Switzerland-based Ghanaian businessman at a hotel in Accra on February 2, 2009.
The convicts are DSP Kwapong of the Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) of the Ghana Police Service, Chief Inspector Thomas Adu, Sergeant John Agyapong, Corporal Lawrence Dennis Quansah, Lance Corporal Karimu Muntari and Constable Blejumah.
The rest are Aams Amanor, Kwasi Tawiah, Peter Kwame Gyasi and Bismark Ampofo.
The convicts, with the exception of Kwapong who was charged with conspiracy, were convicted to 20 years each on each count to run concurrently.
Constable Ken Duodu Acheampong and Jeffrey Kwame Atta, alias Kay, who are currently on the run, were tried in absentia.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Mahamadu Iddrisu, who is now a High Court judge, said the prosecution led overwhelming evidence to prove that the convicts conspired and attacked the complainant, Mr Kwaku Duah, and ended up humiliating and blackmailing him of dealing in narcotic drugs.
He said the prosecution, and even some of the convicts, proved that Mr Duah had been robbed of $53,000, 1,000 euros, GH¢2,000 and other valuable items estimated at $4,000.
He described the policemen as “smart, daring and adventurous” who had let the public and the Police Administration down, adding, “This is a clear case of indiscipline where junior officers go on operations at their own free, will with the connivance of their superior officers.”
“As policemen, you are supposed to combat crime and be the beacon of hope for the citizenry. However, you ended up treating the complainant callously, humiliated him, robbed and blackmailed him in the process,” he added, and asked, “What kind of policemen are these?”
It took the judge more than one and half hours to finish reading the voluminous judgement, in the course of which he cited authorities to buttress his decision.
Touching on each of the convicts, the court held that although DSP Kwapong had indicated in his statement that he had sent policemen to arrest Mr Duah on suspicion of dealing in narcotic drugs, he failed to lead evidence to that effect.
It further held that it was abundantly clear from DSP Kwapong's evidence that Mr Duah had not been under arrest and it was also strange for Kwapong to detail Adu, who was not in DSP Kwapong's unit, to effect the arrest of Mr Duah, especially when DSP Kwapong had told the court that he had 396 men under him.
The judge held that it was clear from the prosecution's evidence that the convicts did not enter their activities at the hotel in the police dairy of action because of the illegal nature of the operation.
According to the court, Adu corroborated Mr Duah's evidence, except where he lied about his role in the operation.
He stated, for instance, that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Adu, who was said to have slapped Mr Duah, led men to attack and rob Mr Duah on that fateful day.
Turning to Agyapong, the court held that it was clear that he had driven Adu and Quansah to the hotel where Mr Duah was robbed.
The court said it was also obvious that Quansah posed as a narcotics officer and took pictures of Mr Duah in apparent attempt to blackmail him.
The court held that Muntari and Blejumah provided the missing links in the prosecution's case by stating that there were two groups of policemen, one led by Adu and the other led by Acheampong, on the day of the robbery.
According to the court, it was clear that Muntari and Blejumah acted in consonance with the other convicts to deprive Mr Duah of his money and dignity.
The court described the statements by Aams, Tawiah, Gyasi and Ampofo as “hypocritical” and particularly lashed at Aams for betraying his friend, Mr Duah.
It described Aams’s explanation for locking up Mr Duah in the hotel room on the day of the robbery as “laughable” and indicated that it was unfortunate that Aams could lead people to assault and rob his friend of so many years, only to turn around and hand over his building documents to defray losses incurred by Mr Duah.
The court held that itemised telephone bills proved that there had been communication among the convicts before, during and after the robbery.
The court disagreed with defence counsel's arguments that their clients were obeying lawful command and further indicated that none of the convicts led evidence to prove such a claim, adding that their arguments were “unpersuasive and unconvincing”.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Mobilla's alleged killer absconds

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 (Front Page)

PRIVATE Seth Goka, one of the alleged killers of the late Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), Alhaji Issa Mohammed, alias Issa Mobilla, has absconded from the military guardroom where he was being held on remand.
Private Goka and two others, Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka, had been charged with the killing of Alhaji Mobilla but Goka managed to escape from custody.
When he appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday, a military officer who gave his name as Lt Andoh could not tell the court the exact date Goka escaped from lawful custody but gave the assurance that efforts were underway to apprehend him.
The court had enquired about the whereabouts of Goka from Lt Andoh, who informed it that Goka was away without leave, but one WOI Amoako clarified and informed the court that Goka had absconded from the military guardroom.
WOI Amoako further told the court that a guard master had informed him (WOI Amoako) about Goka’s escape.
Meanwhile, Corporal Appiah and Private Modzaka have been remanded in military custody by the court, presided over by Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe, to reappear on November 26, 2009.
The pleas of the two, who looked calm when they were called into the box, were not taken.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, hinted that due to the sensitive nature of the case, the jury would be confined until the end of the case.
She said she would make an application to that effect and further stated that the prosecution would call nine witnesses.
Mr Justice Dzamefe also hinted that not less than two witnesses would be called in a day.
Alhaji Mobilla was arrested by the police on December 9, 2004 for allegedly supplying the youth in Tamale with guns to foment trouble.
While he was in custody, the police received information that his followers and sympathisers were mobilising to free the deceased.
The deceased was consequently transferred from police cells to the Kamina Military Barracks and handed over to the three accused persons.
According to the prosecution, Alhaji Mobilla died three hours after he had been handed over to the accused persons who were on duty on that day.
Ms Aikins, who read the facts of the case, said the police who escorted the deceased to the Kamina Barracks said the deceased was well and alive when they took him there, while the accused persons had stated that the deceased had screamed for water about 8 p.m. on December 9, 2009 and collapsed soon after drinking the water.
The prosecutor said the chief pathologist’s report revealed that the deceased had been brought to hospital dead and that he had died from multiple wounds.

Alleged police robbery case : Court rules today

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 (Page 3)

THE Accra Circuit Court will today decide the fate of six policemen and six civilians who are alleged to have attacked and robbed a Switzerland-based Ghanaian businessman at a hotel in Accra on February 2, 2009.
The accused persons are Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Patrick Kwapong of the Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) of the Ghana Police Service, Chief Inspector Thomas Adu, Sergeant John Agyapong, Corporal Lawrence Dennis Quansah and Lance Corporal Karimu Muntari.
The others, Constable Ken Duodu Acheampong, Constable Benjamin Blejumah, Aams Amanor, Kwasi Tawiah, Peter Kwame Gyasi, Bismark Ampofo and Jeffrey Kwame Atta (aka Kay), were alleged to have played various roles in the attack.
The accused persons had all pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and robbery and had been refused bail.
Acheampong, Jeffrey and three others whose names have not been provided are on the run.
The trial judge in the matter is Mr Mahamadu Iddrisu, who is currently a High Court judge.
The accused persons were alleged to have robbed Mr Kwaku Duah, who lives in Europe, at a hotel in Accra and taken away $53,000, €1,000 and GH¢2,000.
They were also alleged to have robbed the victim of a black bag containing two compact disc Walkman players, a set of keys, a digital camera, a cheque book and other items, all valued at $4,000.
The accused persons, who were put before two separate courts, were initially charged with stealing and granted bail but the then acting Inspector-General of Police, Mrs Elizabeth Mills-Robertson, ordered their re-arrest and the substitution of the charge from stealing to robbery.
The cases were later consolidated and put before Mr Iddrisu’s court for trial.
Five prosecution witnesses, including Mr Duah, were called during the trial, which lasted four months.
Mr Duah had identified Chief Inspector Adu as the person who, together with a soldier and a policeman, had allegedly assaulted him but said the soldier and the policeman were not in court.
He also narrated the roles some of the accused persons played leading to the loss of his $50,000 and other valuables.
A manager of the hotel where he was attacked also testified and stated that he had witnessed the attack on Mr Duah. Three police officers also testified for the prosecution.
However, the accused persons, in their defence, denied any wrongdoing and insisted that they were innocent of all the charges levelled against them.

Lotto operators worried over govt's silence

Monday, November 16, 2009 (Page 44)

THE Ghana Lotto Operators Association (GLOA) has expressed concern over the government’s silence over the outlawing of private lotto operations in the country.
According to the GLOA, President J. E. A. Mills had, prior to his election to the highest office of the land, assured the association that he would ensure that they were put back in business when he was voted into power.
At a press conference in Accra on Thursday, the General Secretary of GLOA, Mr Seth Amoani, said, “GLOA has observed with regret the failure of the Minister of Finance, Dr Kwabena Duffour, to mention the practical measures being taken by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) government towards the liberalisation of the lottery industry in Ghana with a greater participation of the private sector.”
In apparent reference to media publications which quoted Dr Duffour as urging the National Lottery Authority (NLA) Board to fully implement the National Lotto Act (Act 722) which, in practicality, had banned private lotto in the country, the association said it was saddened by that development.
Mr Amoani reminded Dr Duffour that President Mills had made it categorically clear during his campaign in the Western Region that his government would allow the Ghanaian private sector to participate fully in the lottery business in Ghana.
He said in February 2009, at a meeting with the executives of the association at the Presidency, President Mills had re-affirmed his commitment to private sector participation in the lottery business in Ghana and assured the association that he would do so even if it required an amendment of the National Lotto Act.
“The GLOA is concerned about the current state of affairs where the government has abandoned its promises to private sector operators in the lottery business and is rather adopting a nonchalant attitude to the plight of Ghanaian operators,” Mr Amoani pointed out.
He further reminded Dr Duffour to make it his priority to engage with GLOA to find the “middle way” proposed at a meeting he had with GLOA executives in August 2009 “to ensure that Ghanaian businesses do not lose out completely on the altar of revenue mobilisation, as opposed to job-creation, which has served successive governments well”.
The GLOA, therefore, called for the amendment of the Lotto Act to pave the way for the reintegration of the association’s operations in the lotto industry.
It also called for the establishment of an independent regulator to regulate lottery operations in the country and called on the Ministry of Finance to work with GLOA to streamline its operations to make maximum contributions to revenue generation for the state to create employment at the district level to ease the burden on district assemblies.
The association further urged the government to break the NLA’s monopoly over lottery operations in order to promote private sector participation in the economy for the development of Ghana.
It pleaded with the government to reverse what it termed “injustices” perpetrated against some private Ghanaian businesses by the previous government.
Meanwhile, the GLOA has filed an application at the Supreme Court for a review of the court’s decision to quash a High Court order that empowered private lotto operators to function in the country.
According to the GLOA and six others, namely, Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Limited, Dan Multipurpose Trading Enterprise Limited and From-Home Enterprises, they were most likely to suffer greater hardship when the NLA was given the free hand to take over their equipment when no terms had been agreed upon or adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court, on July 22, 2009, quashed an order by the Accra Fast Track High Court which gave the nod to private lotto operators to operate in the country and maintained that the lower court exceeded its authority by allowing the applicants to operate private lotto business in the country.
According to the applicants, they did not enter into any form of negotiations with the NLA on the surrender of their equipment.
“Where there are no terms, much more terms determined through negotiations between the parties..., any order of this honourable court that allows the NLA to seize the property of the GLOA amounts to a fundamental or basic error on the part of this honourable court, which will occasion a miscarriage of justice,” the application for review pointed out.
According to the application, the ruling of the court amounted to allowing the NLA to carry out its threat against the GLOA.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Court to rule on judge in January

Friday, November 13, 2009 (Page 3)

THE Human Rights Division of the High Court has set January 22, 2010 to determine whether or not Mr D.E.K. Daketse, a Circuit Court judge, can continue sitting on a fraud and forgery case instituted against two lawyers by the state.
The lawyers, Joseph Kwame Owusu Asamani and Ekow Amua-Sekyi, who are facing charges of forgery and fraud, have since sought an interlocutory order restraining the Circuit Court judge from hearing the criminal case until the final determination of the application currently before the Human Rights Court.
Moving a motion for an order of prohibition directed at the Circuit Court judge, counsel for the two lawyers, Mr James Agalga, accused the judge of making bias statements against his clients.
For instance, he said, the judge had on one occasion stated that the two lawyers were practising “animal farm” type of justice and that “the judge’s remarks showed he had preconceived views on the matter before him and if he is allowed to sit on the case, the applicants would not have a fair trial”.
To make matters worse, counsel argued, the judge went ahead to defy a High Court order which prohibited him from hearing the criminal case, which resulted in him being convicted of contempt.
According to counsel, the trial judge had on countless occasions exhibited open hatred for the two lawyers and openly made statements which were highly prejudicial.
Mr Agalga further stated that there was a clear likelihood of bias if Mr Daketsey was given the go-ahead to continue hearing the case against the two lawyers.
He, therefore, prayed the court to prohibit the trial judge from further sitting on the case, otherwise, “the administration of justice will be seriously marred and subjected to mockery and ridicule”.
In the substantive matter at the Circuit Court, Asamani and Amua-Sekyi are jointly charged with conspiracy, forging judicial service writ of summons and deed of assignment documents and uttering forged documents.
They were alleged to have forged the judgement of a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Ofori-Atta, compelling Mr Howard Eric Ewen, Managing Director of Keegan Resources, to issue a cheque for $850,000 to Asamani.
When Asamani received the money, Amua-Sekyi signed as witness.
The two, who have never appeared before the Circuit Court, have, through their counsel, denied any wrongdoing.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Court rules on suit against ICU Nov 24

Thursday, November 12, 2009 (Page 32)

THE Industrial and Labour Court Division of the High Court will on November 24, 2009 decide whether or not to strike out a suit filed against executives of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU).
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K. Asuman-Adu, fixed the date after the parties had argued their cases on a preliminary motion filed by the executives for the writ to be dismissed.
The plaintiffs, Mr Dave Agbenu and Mr George Foster Amanor, sued five executives, namely Oteng Asamoah, Peter Mensah Jimpetey-Djan, Gilbert Awinongya, Solomon Kotei, Theophilus Tenkorang and the Interim Management Committee (IMC) of the ICU, praying the court to allow Mr Napoleon Kpoh and others to stay in office.
They are also praying the court to, among other reliefs, allow Mr A.Y.B. Salifu, Mrs Dorothy Mensah and Madam Christiana Baidoo to continue in office in the positions held prior to the passing of the August 2, 2007 resolution by the IMC, which removed Mr Kpoh and others from office until the Eighth Quadrennial Delegates conference of the ICU was duly held.
However, the defendants filed a counter motion praying the court to dismiss the case of the plaintiffs on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not exhausted the ICU’s internal conflict resolution channels as set out in the ICU Constitution.
He said the plaintiffs were bound to comply with the ICU Constitution and further argued that even the courts supported alternative resolution of conflicts.
Counsel further argued that the interest of justice would further be served if the plaintiffs were asked to go through internal conflict resolution mechanisms, adding that the plaintiffs could come back to court if they were not satisfied at the end of the day.
Opposing the application, counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr Peter Zwennes, said the nature of the dispute bordered on fraud and breach of the ICU Constitution.
He said the ICU Constitution did not give room for issues bordering on fraud to be resolved in-house, adding that in any case, the defendants controlled the ICU’s internal conflict resolution channels and questioned whether justice would prevail.
Citing authorities to buttress his point, counsel said the defendants had arrogated national positions to themselves and further pointed out that the application was incompetent because granted the plaintiffs were amenable to internal procedures, the proper thing for the defendants to have done was to pray the court to stay proceedings.
In the substantive suit, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the formation of the IMC and appointment of Mr Kotei to it on the basis of a resolution dated August 2, 2007 without the mandate of the National Executive Council of the ICU was illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution of the ICU.
Plaintiffs are praying the court to annul and strike out as unlawful the said resolution and the IMC together with all acts and decisions whatsoever taken by or emanating from actions of the defendants.
The plaintiffs are also praying the court to order Messrs Awinongya, Kotei and Tenkorang to render a true and proper account of all their dealings with funds, resources and assets of the ICU which they had wrongfully accessed and appropriated from the date of their unlawful take-over to an appropriate date to be determined by the court, as well as an order of injunction restraining and barring the defendants and their assigns from acting in any position of authority or holding any office in any capacity whatsoever within the ICU pending the final determination of the action.

Railway company in distress - Attivor

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Area Manager of the Ghana Railway Company (GRC), Mr E. Attivor, yesterday informed the Industrial and Labour Division of the High Court that the company was in distress.
According to him, the company was so broke that its workers had not received their salaries since August 2009.
Explaining why the GRC was not in a position to immediately pay the GH¢6,078 costs awarded against it by the court, Mr Attivor said, “We are distressed. We are so broke that we cannot break even.”
Confirming Mr Attivor’s statement, a representative of the Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) told the court that the company’s balance as of November 2009 was GH¢921.86.
The court has since frozen the account of the company until it clearly indicated in a formal letter how it intended to pay the debt in two instalments, as pointed out by the Accra Area Manager.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K. Asuman-Adu, had ordered the GRC to pay GH¢6,078 to Mr Frank Appah, who sued the company for failing to deliver timber it had lifted from Atieku in the Western Region to Dome in Accra.
The court took six months to hear and pass judgement on the matter which had travelled through different courts for 12 years.
Earlier, Mr Attivor had informed the court that the company was not in contention with the plaintiff but stated that it was not in a position to pay its debt immediately.
The judge then intervened and advised Mr Attivor to put everything into writing. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Bamfo Kwame Dwamena, agreed with the court and urged Mr Attivor to formally write and state the company’s terms of settlement.
Mr Justice Asuman-Adu then gave the company 14 days to put its promise into writing and further ordered that the bank must not allow the company to have access to its account until further notice.
The court further stated that if within 14 days the company had not complied, the plaintiff had the right to go into execution to claim money owed him.
During the trial, the company had claimed that the train carrying the timber derailed at Fosu and in the process officials from the Forestry Division seized the goods on the grounds that they suspected them to be illegal chainsaw products.
The court, after carefully studying the argument from both parties, entered judgement against the GRC.
The original amount sought by the plaintiff was GH¢1,280, but inflation, costs and other factors had increased the debt to GH¢6,078.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Court issues warrant for arrest of Nana Bandoh

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 (Page 31)

THE Accra Circuit Court has issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the Ashanti Community Chief in Toronto, Canada, who is standing trial for allegedly defrauding a businesswoman to the tune of GH¢37,000.
Nana Bandoh, who has on several occasions refused to appear before the court to answer fraud charges, is said to be on the run.
As a result of his failure to appear before the court, the person who stood as surety for Bandoh is being processed for court.
The surety is expected to tell the court the whereabouts of the accused person or risk facing prosecution.
Bandoh and another accused person, Bentil Opoku, were alleged to have asked the complainant, Ms Edna Osei, to pay $37,000 to enable them to ship a Toyota Camry saloon car and Infinity FX 35 from Canada to Ghana.
The complainant paid $33,000 for the cars, as well as $4,000 as cost of shipping, but became shocked when she went to the port to clear the cars.
She realised that the accused persons had shipped an empty container, although they had handed over the bill of lading and keys to the cars to her.
Bandoh, who is also a personal injury consultant, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and defrauding by false pretence.
Assistant Superintendent of Police George Abavelim told the court that Bandoh and Opoku met the complainant, who had then travelled to Canada in December 2006, and held a meeting with her.
During the meeting, the two accused persons allegedly asked the complainant to pay $33,000 to enable them to get her the vehicles she had requested for.
The complainant paid the amount for the cars and later paid $4,000 for shipment.
According to the prosecution, a freight and forwarding agent by name Bismark Opoku was contacted to provide the ‘container’ and the necessary documents for the shipment of the cars.
The complainant gave the documents to her agent and when the agent went to the Tema
Port to clear the cars, he was surprised to find the containers empty.
The complainant lodged a complaint with the police leading to the arrest of Bandoh on June 6, 2009 at Kumasi after he had arrived in the country on May 17, 2009.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Odoom's suit: Preliminary ruling Nov 11

Friday, November 6, 2009 (Page 3)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court will on Wednesday, November 11, 2009, decide whether or not to detach the name of the Head of Civil Service from a suit instituted by the interdicted Principal Accountant of the Ministry of Youth and Sports.
The plaintiff, Mr Adim Odoom, filed an application for Judicial Review against the Attorney-General and the Head of the Civil Service on the grounds that he had been unfairly treated after he had exposed Alhaji Muntaka Mubarak, then Minister of Youth and Sports of financial impropriety.
However, a State Attorney, Mr Elikpim Agbemava, moved a motion at the court’s sitting in Accra today praying the court to strike out the name of the Head of Civil Service on the grounds that the attachment of the name of the Head of Civil Service to the motion contravened Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
According to counsel, it was unnecessary harassment of the Head of Civil Service because the constitution stipulated that the Attorney-General was the rightful body to be sued on behalf of state institutions.
Opposing the application, counsel for Mr Odoom, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the contention was misconceived and borne out of narrow interpretation of the Constitution.
He said the Constitution and other Supreme Court authorities did not exempt state institutions from suits adding that if the State’s motion was anything to go by, it would then be wrong to sue the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the Chief Justice, the Commissioner of Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) among other public office holders.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Norvisi Aryene, fixed November 11, 2009 as the date for ruling on the motion.
Earlier, the court awarded GH¢500 cost against the Attorney-General’s Department for failing to seek leave of the court before filing an amended statement of case.
It, however, admitted the statement of case before awarding the cost against the respondent.
In the substantive matter, following Mr Odoom’s claims of financial impropriety against Alhaji Mubarak, the National Security instituted investigations into the allegations and it was recommended that Mr Odoom and the Chief Director of the ministry be interdicted.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations and his subsequent interdiction, Mr Odoom, who describes himself as a whistleblower, who had been unfairly treated filed the application for judicial review challenging his interdiction.
He was interdicted alongside the Chief Director of the Ministry of Youth and Sports, Mr Albert Anthony Ampong, who is also seeking a declaration that an order directed at him (Mr Ampong) to refund $20,000 and a further order that sanctions must be applied against him are unlawful.
The Accra Fast High Court has since heard Mr Ampong's application and has fixed Friday, November 27, 2009 as the day to decide the lawfulness or otherwise of his interdiction.
Like Mr Ampong, Mr Odoom is seeking a declaration that the decision of the Head of the Civil Service to implement directives from the President was unlawful.
The applicant is further praying the court to quash the decision to interdict him on the grounds that due process had not been followed and, therefore, it was a violation of the relevant laws and disciplinary regulations of the Civil Service of Ghana.
He is additionally seeking an order prohibiting the respondents from imposing any disciplinary sanctions against him on the basis of the National Security report on investigations into allegations against Alhaji Mubarak, as well as praying the court to grant an order of mandamus to compel the Head of the Civil Service to allow him to resume his normal duties as the Chief Director of the ministry, among any other orders the court might deem fit.
According to the applicant, the respondents acted illegally, unreasonably, capriciously, arbitrarily and in an unfair manner.
An affidavit in support of his application stated that he had only been called as a witness before the committee instituted to investigate Alhaji Mubarak and not as an accused person.
Mr Odoom and Mr Ampong were ordered to proceed on leave on July 7, 2009.
The A-G’s office opposed the applicants’ application and said a five-member panel had been set up since July 10, 2009 to begin hearing the applicants’ case with the object of determining their guilt or otherwise but the panel had not begun sitting in view of the present court action.

$850,000 Fraud case takes another turn

Friday, November 6, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE $850,000 fraud case involving two lawyers took another turn yesterday when the trial judge who had been authorised by the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General to hear the matter told parties in the case that he had been restrained from further hearing the matter by a High Court judge.
The trial judge, Mr D. E. K. Daketsey, told the prosecution and the defence teams that he had been served with an order of injunction restraining him from hearing the case until the final determination of a suit brought against him by the two lawyers.
According to the judge, the lawyers, Joseph Kwame Owusu Asamani and Ekow Amua-Sekyi, who are facing charges of forgery and fraud, sought the order from the Human Rights Court, presided over by Mr Justice U. P. Dery, last Friday.
According to counsel for the two lawyers, Mr James Agalga, November 12, 2009 had been fixed for hearing the motion for an order of prohibition directed at the judge whom his clients had accused of making bias statements against them.
The prosecution had stated that the two allegedly prepared a Deed of Assignment, unknown to the complainant, Gordon Etroo, scanned his signature on it, registered it at the Lands Registry and presented it to Howard Eric Ewen, the Managing Director of Keegan Resources, who also signed.
On March 18, 2007, the two allegedly forged a judgement titled ‘Axex Company Limited Versus four other defendants’ and inserted an order by a High Court judge for the recovery of a mine known as Bonte Esaase Gold Mine.
According to the prosecution, the two lawyers, without the knowledge of Samuel Etroo and Mr Kwame Opoku, initiated a civil suit number BL35/07, as 'Kwame Opoku versus Sametro Company Limited'.
However, the two have not appeared before the court to answer the charges.
The trial judge, Mr Daketsey, who did not disclose the grounds of the injunction, said he had since been served with a writ of prohibition by the two lawyers.
The lawyers were said to have sought the order on the grounds that the judge was likely to show bias if he went ahead to hear the case against them.
The judge told prosecutors and defence lawyers that he had instructed his solicitors to contest the case because he had no personal interest or whatsoever in the case.
He also told the parties in his chambers that he felt aggrieved because the two lawyers had, on a countless number of occasions, refused to appear in his court to answer charges levelled against them.
Obviously aggrieved at the turn of events, Nana Ato Dadzie, who is counsel for the complainant in the case, told journalists that the common practice was for the lawyers to be in court to state why they were absent.
He said the case had had a chequered history because it took more than two years for the lawyers to be put before court.
He said the Attorney-General called for the docket for study and on October 22, 2008 she formally wrote to the court authorising it to proceed with the case, adding that the Chief Justice had also authorised the judge to hear the case.
Nana Ato Dadzie said although the two lawyers were at liberty to go for a prohibition order, he was of the view that such antics were calculated to frustrate the court process.
He also indicated that his client was an interested party and he, therefore, intended to join the suit at the Human Rights Court.
He further indicated that the interest of justice would be served if all parties had their day in court.
No definite date has been fixed for the hearing of the criminal matter due to the latest twist.

Nii Obour, others convicted • Of contempt of court

Friday, November 6, 2009 (Front Page)

THE acting President of the Ga Traditional Council (GTC), Nii Adotey Obour II, and a claimant to the Nungua Stool, Odehe Kpakpa King Odaifio Welentse III, were yesterday convicted of contempt by the Accra High Court for flouting a court order which prohibited the council from allowing Nii Welentse to sit in.
Also convicted was the GTC as an entity.
They were, accordingly, ordered to pay a total fine of GH¢11,000 within 24 hours or in default face six months’ imprisonment.
Nii Obour and the GTC were ordered to pay GH¢3,000 fine and GH¢2,500 costs, while Nii Welentse was ordered to pay GH¢3,000 fine and GH¢2,500 costs.
The court, however, acquitted and discharged Nii Kojo Ababio V, Ngleshie Alata Mantse; Nii Adjetey Kraku III, Tema Mantse; Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru, La Mantse; Nii Nortey Owuo III, Osu Mantse, and Nii Ayikai, Akumadzen Mantse.
Counsel for the contemnors prayed the court to temper justice with mercy after the court had read out its ruling.
The court had held that all evidence pointed to the fact that the GTC and Nii Obour had flagrantly disregarded a 2006 court order which prohibited them from allowing Nii Welentse to sit as a member of the GTC.
A suit brought against the contemnors by Nii Ayiku IV, the Nungua Mantse, said unless the court cited the contemnors for contempt, their disrespectful conduct would be emulated by other chiefs and persons against whom similar restraining orders would be made by the court and the result was likely to be chaos and disorder in the country.
The court said the contemnors’ violation of the court order had brought the judicial system and the administration of justice into disrepute, ridicule and contempt, and for that matter their action must not go unpunished.
Following the writ issued against the contemnors by Nii Ayiku, the court, on June 22, 2006, quashed the proceedings of the GTC which inducted Nii Welentse as member of the council.
It also restrained Nii Welentse from holding himself as the Nungua Mantse and granted an order of mandamus to allow Nii Ayiku to occupy his rightful place in the GTC.
According to Nii Ayiku, in spite of the court’s restraining order, Nii Welentse continued to hold himself as the Nungua Mantse, with the express permission of Nii Obour.
The applicant further stated that despite hoards of warnings to Nii Welentse, he continued to hold himself and perform functions as Nungua Mantse, adding that numerous newspaper publications attested to that.
The applicant argued that the defiant acts of Nii Welentse and the other contemnors held the court to ridicule and contempt, adding that the acts of the contemnors were deliberate acts of disrespect for the orders and authority of the court, as well as acts carried out with a view to bringing the judicial system and the administration of justice into disrepute, ridicule and contempt.
Citing authorities, the court upheld the applicant’s prayer and, accordingly, convicted the contemnors.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Prosecutioin fails to turn up

Thursday, November 5, 2009 (Page 3)

THE prosecution on Wednesday, November 4,2009 failed to turn up at the trial of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Akwasi Osei-Ajdei, and the former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Daniel Charles Gyimah, without any official reason.
The Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court adjourned the matter, in which the two have been accused of wilfully causing financial loss to the state, to November 19 and 20, 2009, after it had stood down the case for almost an hour in anticipation that the prosecution would show up.
Osei-Adjei and Daniel Charles Gyimah were alleged to have acted together to steal 2,997 bags of rice, valued at US$1,408,590, but lawyers for the accused persons have argued that diplomatic efforts embarked upon by the accused persons to solve the food shortage in the country had been “criminalised”.
The two have been charged with eight counts of conspiracy, contravention of provisions of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663), using public office for profit, stealing and wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
They pleaded not guilty to the charges and were each admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000 with two sureties each to be justified.
As of 9:00 a.m. at the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the accused persons, defence lawyers, families, friends, sympathisers and journalists had turned up to witness the trial of the accused persons.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Bright Mensah, took his seat at exactly 9:20 a.m. to pave way for the matter to be called. However, it emerged that all the parties but the prosecution had not arrived.
Consequently, the judge stood the case down to attend to other cases.
At exactly 10:26 a.m., the trial judge beckoned the court clerk to call the matter again but it emerged that the prosecution had not arrived.
The investigator in the case was, however, present in court.
Counsel for Osei-Adjei, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, then enquired from the court whether or not the court had received an official letter explaining the absence of the prosecution to which the judge answered in the negative.
Mr Dame, who did not take kindly to the prosecution’s behaviour, said it was unfortunate that the prosecution had failed to make any attempt to speedily prosecute the case.
According to him the accused persons had been subjects of abuse and disparaging remarks as a result of being accused of causing financial loss to the state.
He said it was strange the prosecution had not made any attempt to prosecute the matter almost after 10 months of investigations.
Mr Dame said he would in future urge the court to discharge the accused persons if the prosecution did not act.
Counsel also urged the court to vary its bail condition which ordered Osei-Adjei to report once a week to the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) on the grounds that his client currently resided in Kumasi and it was, therefore, Herculean for him (Osei-Adjei) to report to the BNI in Accra every week.
For his part, counsel for Gyimah, Colonel Alex Johnson (retd), had expressed his disappointment over the prosecution’s failure to turn up.
In response, Mr Justice Mensah reminded counsel that yesterday was the second time that the matter had been put before him.
The judge also indicated that the court would consider varying the bail conditions when the circumstance warranted.
The facts of the case were that some time in February 2008 a former Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr Joe Baidoo-Ansah, initiated the importation of rice from India and in a letter dated February 13, 2008 the said minister requested the Government of India, through the High Commission of India in Ghana, to buy 100,000 metric tonnes of (25 - 35 per cent) broken rice.
According to the prosecution, the rice was to arrive in Ghana by May 2008 to help curb the severe increases in the prices of staples in Ghana, while the Ghana National Procurement Agency (GNPA) was the designated consignee.

Court remands fake doctor in custody

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

A fake medical doctor was yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly performing abortion on women at Kasoa.
Samuel Kwame Kennedy, alias Annan, who is alleged to hold four fake certificates, is said to charge between GH¢30 and GH¢60 to perform an abortion, while he charges an additional GH¢5 as consultation fee.
The accused person, whose clients scream to the hearing of passers-by anytime he is performing an operation, was alleged to have informed investigators that he had once practised at the Cape Coast General Hospital and later got transferred to the Islamic Community and Ekumfi Islamic clinics, all in the Central Region.
Kennedy was charged with two counts of practising medicine without authority and possessing forged documents.
His plea was not taken and he will reappear on November 16, 2009.
The facts of the case were that there had been public outcry at the activities of the accused person, who was said to be illegally terminating pregnancies at Kasoa.
About 7.30 a.m. on October 28, 2009, officials of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) traced Kennedy to his house at Kasoa.
Prosecuting, Assistant Superintendent of Police A. Annor told the court that the accused person had been practising from his house and a search conducted there revealed quantities of assorted drugs, bottles, unsterilised and rusty needles, rusty drip stands and fake medical certificates.
The alleged fake medical certificates included a certificate of Medical Competence as a Junior Officer which he obtained in February 1987, a certificate of Registration as Qualified Registered Nurse in 1993, a Bachelor of Arts in English certificate from the Ashes University in China which was awarded to him on July 12, 1989, as well as a certificate in Business English.
According to the prosecution, although the accused person claimed his certificates were genuine, he could not produce a licence for practice.
Investigations are ongoing.

BNI ordered to answer contempt charges

October 30, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Human Rights Division of the High Court yesterday ordered the Director of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) and two others to appear before it and openly answer contempt charges levelled against them by a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng.
The court, accordingly, declined to grant a request by the Attorney-General’s (A-G’s) Department which prayed it to hear the matter in camera in order to protect the identity of the respondents.
Mr Asamoah-Boateng, his wife, Zuleika, Jennifer Lorwiah, Nana Yaw Asamoah-Boateng and Andrew Asamoah-Boateng instituted the contempt action against the three respondents, Yaw Donkor, Josephine Gandawiri, Stephen Abrokwa, and the A-G for preventing them from travelling outside the country on two occasions without recourse to a court order.
Citing authorities to buttress the court’s decision in Accra, the presiding judge, Mr Justice U. P. Dery, disagreed with the A-G Department’s suggestion that it would be inimical for the identities of the respondents to be blown, stating that the BNI and the police enjoyed the same rights and protection.
According to the court, he had carefully studied the Securities and Intelligence Act (Act 526) which clearly spelt out the rights of the police and the BNI as the same and for that matter “the BNI cannot be given special treatment”.
The court submitted that the police always availed themselves in court whenever they were needed to give evidence and it would, therefore, not be out of place to order the respondents to appear in open court to answer contempt charges.
The matter was adjourned to Thursday, November 12, 2009 for hearing.
Earlier, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Helen Kwawukume, had told the court that the operations of the respondents would be hampered if their identities were blown.
She said the respondents were involved in intelligence work for the state and for that matter it would be most appropriate if the court heard the matter in camera.
Opposing the application, counsel for the applicants, Nene Amegatcher, said the court could only sit in camera if it appeared a case in question would jeopardise national security and interest.
In this instance, counsel submitted, the case would not jeopardise national security or interest if it was heard in open court.
He further argued that the respondents should have passed information they gathered during their under-cover operations to the police, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), among others, for action, as stipulated under the Security Agencies and Intelligence Act.
According to counsel, the respondents in this case arrogated to themselves the “powers of arrest and statement taking”, adding that BNI officials wore tags and arrested people in public.
Nene Amegatcher told the court that BNI officials had gone on board the flight which had more than 200 passengers to effect the arrest of Mr Asamoah-Boateng and his family.
The contempt action was instituted when the four applicants were prevented from travelling outside the country on June 14, 2009 without any court order or warrant, following which they filed an application seeking an injunction to restrain the BNI from further preventing them from travelling without a court order.
While the application was pending, they claimed the BNI again disregarded the action and prevented them from travelling again at a later date.
The matter had been embroiled in some confusion when, on August 18, 2009, there was controversy over direct proof of service of the contempt summons on the Director of the BNI and the two other officials of the bureau.
While the records of the court and applicants’ lawyer indicated that the three respondents had been served with the contempt summons, the A-G’s Department said otherwise.
Similarly, the records of proof of service of the court and that of applicants’ lawyer did not tally, as the two records indicated names of different bailiffs, with different dates of serving the contemnors.