Friday, December 18, 2009

Murder suspects refused list of potential jurors

Friday, December 18, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court on December 18, 2009 refused a request by the two soldiers accused of murdering the Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), Alhaji Issa Mobilla, to have access to the full list of the potential jurors who would be selected to decide their fate.
The court was of the view that the accused persons’ request, if granted, had the potential of influencing or intimidating the potential jurors.
It, therefore, reminded the accused persons that they had the right to challenge jurors when they were empanelled and about to be sworn in.
Counsel for Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka had argued that Sections 246 and 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 33 (5) of the 1992 Constitution enjoined the registrar of the court to allow them to have access to the full names and particulars of the potential jurors in the case for scrutiny, but the court held a different view.
Reading the court’s stand, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe, said although he stood to be corrected, he had not come across any statute which allowed accused persons to investigate the backgrounds of potential jurors.
He said the request by the accused persons was “a novelty in our jurisprudence” and further added that in his discretion he would balance the rights and convenience of the accused persons vis-à-vis the jurors to be empanelled.
The court held that much as it agreed with the accused person’s position, the law did not specify that they had the right to check the backgrounds of potential jurors, adding, “On the balance of convenience, I shall refuse the application.”
It adjourned ruling on whether or not to grant the State’s request for jurors in the case to be confined throughout the trial.
The trial judge then asked whether or not the accused persons were still in military custody, to which a lieutenant who had accompanied them to court answered in the affirmative.
A Chief State Attorney, Mr Edward Agyemang-Duodu, then prayed the court to remand the accused persons in prison custody, in view of the fact that the third accused person, Private Seth Gokah, had absconded from military custody.
However, the court held that a similar order had been made by the Tamale High Court and for that reason there was no point for him to make a similar order, especially when he had the same powers as the Tamale High Court judge.
Mr Justice Dzamefe said there was no justifiable reason for the court to make a fresh order, especially when there was no motion to that effect before him.
Hearing continues on January 14, 2009.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Bishop took advantage of my problems • Complainant tells court

Thursday, December 17, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

MS Clova Sutherland, the British woman who was allegedly defrauded to the tune of £120,000 by the General Overseer of the Vineyard Chapel International, Bishop Vagalas Kanco, yesterday stated that Bishop Kanco took advantage of her problems to defraud her.
She said she did not anticipate Bishop Kanco was capable of defrauding her because she parted with the £120,000 cheque in the belief that Bishop Kanco would pray over it and return it to her.
Bishop Kanco is standing trial at the Circuit Court for allegedly defrauding Ms Sutherland to the tune of £120,000.
He was alleged to have lured the complainant into believing that she would die if she did not allow him to pray over a £120,000 cheque she had issued in the name of her former lover who Bishop Kanco had described as evil.
According to the prosecution, Bishop Kanco managed to convince the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name in order for him to pray over it and return it to her on a later date but he has denied any wrongdoing, claiming the money was a gift.
Bishop Kanco, who has pleaded not guilty to one count of defrauding by false pretence, has been granted bail in the sum of GH¢300,000 with three sureties, one to be justified by the court, presided over by Mr D. E. K. Daketsey.
Answering questions under cross-examination from lead counsel for Bishop Kanco, Dr Dominic Ayine, Ms Sutherland explained that she was sometime in 2003 having problems with her former lover and she informed Bishop Kanco of it during a crusade in London, adding that during a counselling session Bishop Kanco advised her not to directly hand over the £120,000 cheque to her former lover unless she had re-issued the cheque in his (Kanko’s) name for him to pray over it and return it to her.
"I had reason to believe that the accused person could honour his word considering the fact that he was a man of God," Ms Sutherland told the court.
She also told the court that she was very spiritual and normally donated between £5 and ¢50 to support church activities but insisted she was not a billionaire to have parted with £120,000 as a gift.
The following transpired between one of the lawyers for Bishop Kanco, Mr Kissi Agyemeng, and Ms Sutherland:
Mr Agyemeng: Did you tell your solicitors the accused person was to pray over your cheque and return it to you?
Ms Sutherland: I did not.
Mr Agyemeng: Why didn't you instruct your solicitors to that effect?
Ms Sutherland: I did not consider it as necessary because I was expecting a return of the cheque.
Mr Agyemeng: Did your solicitors express concern why the cheque was re-issued in another person's name?
Ms Sutherland: They did not.
Ms Sutherland, who has since finished with her evidence, also told the court that she did not report Bishop Kanco's behaviour to the British authorities because he was not a British national and did not also have a permanent address in the United Kingdom.
Hearing continues on January 8, 2009.

Tema cocaine case: Judgement Dec 23

Thursday, December 17, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court will, on December 23, 2009, decide the fate of Augustina Abu, who is accused of importing 71.45 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country.
Augustina has been charged with importing a narcotic drug without lawful authority but she has denied any wrongdoing.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, fixed the date at the court's sitting in Accra yesterday after he had announced that the prosecution and the defence team had submitted their written addresses.
The prosecution called nine witnesses in the trial which lasted a month.
Augustina opened her defence, denied any wrongdoing and stated that she never travelled to Ecuador, the country from where the cocaine was allegedly exported, or any other country from where the vessel containing the alleged cocaine was said to have travelled.
She said she had been an importer for the past 25 years and had, on all occasions, done her business via the Internet.
According to her, she normally ordered goods through the Internet and made payments through money transfers at the bank.
Augustina, who has been in custody since May 2009, produced documents to prove her claims.
The investigator in the case travelled to Ecuador in October 2009 to conduct further investigations and upon his return it became clear that there was not enough evidence to prosecute five persons who had initially been charged with Augustina.
The five, who were discharged a month ago after they had been in custody for six months, 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 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 of officers from the Narcotic 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, December 16, 2009

Court orders Director of BNI to answer contempt charges

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 (Centre Spread)

THE Court of Appeal yesterday ordered the Director of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) and two others to appear before the Human Rights Court and openly answer contempt charges levelled against them by a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng.
The court accordingly dismissed an appeal filed by the Attorney-General’s Department, which prayed the Court of Appeal to dismiss the Human Right Court’s order to the BNI officials.
In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the ruling of the Human Rights Division of the High Court which disagreed with the A-G’s 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.
The court gave its ruling in the matter after a Chief State Attorney, Mrs Helen Kwawukume, and Mr Peter Okudzeto argued for the state and Mr Asamoah-Boateng respectively.
On October 29, 2009, the High Court, presided over by Mr Justice U. P. Dery, declined to grant a request by the A-G’s Department which had prayed it to hear the matter in camera in order to protect the identities of the respondents.
Mr Asamoah-Boateng, Zuleika, Nana Yaw Asamoah-Boateng and Andrew Asamoah-Boateng instituted the contempt action against the three respondents — Yaw Donkor, Josephine Gandawiri and Stephen Abrokwa — and the A-G for preventing them from travelling outside the country on two occasions without recourse to a court order.
The High Court had ruled that it had carefully studied the Securities and Intelligence Act (Act 526), which clearly spells out the rights of the police and the BNI as the same and for that reason “the BNI cannot be given special treatment”.
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision but declined to award costs against the state.
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.
The substantive matter has been adjourned to January 20, 2010.

Court orders release of 5 soldiers

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 (Page 3)

BARELY 12 hours after the Human Rights Court ordered the immediate release of five soldiers who were being held by the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) for allegedly playing a role in the murder of the Deputy Managing Director of the Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB), Mr Rokko Frimpong, one of the soldiers has been picked up by security forces.
Sergeant Michael Arthur, was picked up at his home by the Military Police around 8.00 p.m. on December 15, 2009 and handed over to the BNI.
However, counsel for Sgt. Arthur told the Daily Graphic that the BNI claimed it did not know the whereabouts of Sgt. Arthur.
Mr Joe Aboagye Debrah said the military authorities told Sgt. Arthur's family members that they had handed over Sgt. Arthur to the BNI.
According to counsel, the family of Sgt. Arthur told him (counsel) that they (family members) visited the BNI offices this morning but they were informed Sgt. Arthur was not in the BNI's custody.
Mr Debrah said he would go to court if the BNI did not put Sgt. Arthur before court after 48 hours as was required under the law.
In the substantive case in which Sgt. Arthur and four others were released, defence lawyers had argued before the court that their clients’ continued detention was a flagrant abuse of their human rights, as enshrined under the 1992 Constitution, especially when the BNI failed to give a tangible reason for their continued detention.
On Tuesday, December 15, 2009, the Presiding Judge, Ms Justice Irene Charity Danquah, said it was wrong for the BNI to keep the soldiers at an undisclosed place for more than 48 hours without a court order and without telling the soldiers which offence they were being held for.
The soldiers, Sergeants Arthur, Richard Somuah and Lamptey Haizel and Corporals Charles Ankumah and Emmanuel Antwi, beamed with smiles when the court ordered their immediate release.
The five were picked up between November 12 and 14, 2009 to an undisclosed location, prompting their spouses to file an application for habeas corpus. Habeas corpus, a Latin phrase, is a legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention or that of another person.
The application was expected to be heard on December 2, 2009 but the State secured the remand of the soldiers on December 1, 2009 at the Accra Circuit Court.
But the court disapproved of the action of the BNI and in effect its order renders the remand warrant from the lower court a nugatory.
Citing authorities to buttress the court's decision, the judge held that it was unfortunate for the BNI to claim it did not know it was unlawful to continuously detain the soldiers without a court order.
The court refused to accept the excuse by the BNI that it made an error of assumption that it was all right to keep the soldiers for more than 48 hours without a court order, adding that "no assumption of error should be made where the rights of individuals are concerned".
"It will be a great indictment on the security forces if the court was made to believe that they did not know that the soldiers were kept unlawfully after 48 hours without a court order," the presiding judge pointed out adding that if the allegations against the soldiers were true, the gravity of the offence did not take away their human rights as enshrined in the Constitution.
It further held that there was nothing to show that provisional charges had been preferred against the soldiers at the lower court, adding that the State failed to furnish the High Court with the proceedings at the lower court which led to the remand of the soldiers.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Bishop Vagalas Kanco granted GH¢300,000 bail

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE General Overseer of the Vineyard Chapel International, Bishop Vagalas Kanco, was yesterday granted bail in the sum of GH¢300,000 with three sureties by the Accra Circuit court.
Bishop Kanco is standing trial for allegedly defrauding a British national to the tune of £120,000.
He was alleged to have lured the complainant, Ms Clova Sutherland, into believing that she would die if she did not allow him to pray over a £120,000 cheque she had issued in the name of her former lover.
According to the prosecution, Bishop Kanco managed to convince the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name in order for him to pray over it and return it to her on a later date.
But he has denied any wrongdoing, claiming the money was a gift.
Bishop Kanco, who has pleaded not guilty to one count of defrauding by false pretence, was remanded on his first appearance on December 11, 2009.
The court, presided over by Mr D. E. K. Daketsey, granted bail to the accused person after his lawyer, Mr Dominic Ayine, had prayed it to admit his client to bail.
Counsel had stated that Bishop Kanco was a “very respected and respectable man of God” who had a large congregation and would avail himself for trial.
During and after court proceedings, members of Bishop Kanco’s congregation vented their spleen on the media for giving the accused person bad publicity.
They cursed the media and claimed that Bishop Kanco had received the money as a gift after he had prayed to cure the complainant of a serious ailment.
A Metro TV cameraman was heckled when he attempted to take a shot of Bishop Kanco entering his vehicle. The Bishop was shielded from the cameras but the cameraman went on to perform his job.
Earlier, the complainant in the case, Ms Sutherland, had testified and told the court that she had met Bishop Kanco at a crusade in London in March 2003 where she informed him of her problems with her partner during a counselling session.
“He told me that my former partner was evil and dangerous and that he was going to kill me. He (the Bishop) said he would save my life through persuasive prayers,” she told the court.
She said she had informed the accused person that she was supposed to pay a specified amount to her former partner and that she had issued a cheque for £120,000 in her partner’s name but he had rejected the cheque.
Led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr P. K. Frimpong, in her evidence-in-chief, Ms Sutherland told the court that Bishop Kanco had managed to convince her to re-issue the cheque in his name for “safe-keeping and intensive prayers”, adding that she eventually instructed her solicitors to re-issue the cheque in the name of the accused person on April 28, 2003.
She said after giving out the cheque, Bishop Kanco had informed her that he and his wife had been spiritually attacked by her former lover.
“He gave me an oral undertaken that he would not cash the cheque. He repeatedly re-assured me that he would not cash the cheque and that the sole purpose was to pray over it and return same to me in three months,” the witness told the court.
According to the complainant, her solicitors, Parker Arrenberg and Co, had re-issued the cheque in Bishop Kanco’s name but claimed that the accused person neither showed up for another crusade in London nor returned the cheque as promised.
Ms Sutherland, who is a legal practitioner, said she could not reach the accused person on the telephone number he had provided and a further check to ascertain the status of the cheque revealed that the Bishop had withdrawn the money at the Makola Branch of the Barclays Bank on May 19, 2003.
She further informed the court that she made several attempts, through distinguished pastors, in her bid to reclaim her money but those interventions did not yield any positive results.
“He cashed the cheque without my authority or consent, in breach of the oral undertaken he had previously given me,” the witness stated, and pointed out that after several attempts to reach the accused person had proved futile, she instructed her solicitors to write to him on July 25, 2005.
She said she had to date not received any response from the accused person and, therefore, she decided to follow up to Ghana to pursue justice.
She also told the court that she had since gone for another £120,000 to repay her former partner.
During cross-examination, the following transpired between Mr Ayine and Ms Sutherland:
Mr Ayine: Do you understand a cheque qualifies as a bill of exchange, a promissory note or a negotiable instrument?
Ms Sutherland: I gave the cheque based on his personal undertaking that he won’t cash it.
Hearing continues today.

Bishop Vaglas Kanco Is Hot • Alleged to have duped British national of £120,000

Saturday, December 12, 2009 (Lead Story)

THE General Overseer of the Vineyard Chapel International, Bishop Vagalas Kanco, is in the grips of the law for allegedly defrauding a British national to the tune of £120,000.
He was alleged to have lured the complainant, Clova Sutherland, into believing that she would die if she did not allow him to pray over a £120,000 cheque she had issued in the name of her partner.
According to the prosecution, Bishop Kanco managed to convince the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name in order for him to pray over it and return it to her on a later date.
Bishop Kanco pleaded not guilty to one count of defrauding by false pretence and was remanded by the an Accra circuit court, presided over by Mr D. E. K. Daketsey, to reappear on Monday, December 14, 2009.
Presenting the facts of the case, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr P. K. Frimpong, told the court that the complainant met Bishop Kanco in London during a crusade organised by the Alive Chapel International Church on March 25, 2003.
The accused person was then a guest speaker at the crusade and during his meeting with the complainant she told him the problems she was going through.
She also informed him that she was to pay £120,000 to her partner, whom Bishop Kanco described as an evil person.
The accused person also made her to believe that she would die if she issued the cheque directly to her partner.
According to the prosecution, the complainant subsequently re-issued the cheque in the name of Bishop Kanco, who promised to pray over the cheque and return it between June 16 and July 25, 2003 when he was scheduled to attend another crusade in London.
He, however, failed to return to London for that crusade and also failed to return the cheque as promised.
The prosecution told the court that Bishop Kanco rather went ahead and cashed the cheque at the Makola Branch of the Barclays Bank.
It said the accused person stopped using the telephone number he had given to the complainant, thereby making it impossible for her to reach him.
The complainant arrived in Ghana on December 2, 2009 and reported the matter to the police, who effected Bishop Kanco’s arrest on December 9, 2009.
The prosecution said Bishop Kanco admitted receiving the cheque from the complainant but claimed it was a gift.
Investigations are ongoing.

Accused request full list of jurors

Friday, December 11, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE two soldiers who have been accused of murdering the Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), Alhaji Issa Mobilla, have requested for a full list of the potential jurors who would be selected to decide their fate.
According to counsel for the accused persons, Mr Thaddeus Sory, Sections 246 and 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 33 (5) of the 1992 Constitution enjoined the registrar of the court to allow his clients to have access to the full names and particulars of the potential jurors in the case for scrutiny.
Counsel submitted that his clients had the right to challenge the eligibility or otherwise of a juror, adding that his clients could only do that if they had access to the names and particulars of the potential jurors.
A Chief State Attorney, Mr Edward Agyemang-Duodu, however, vehemently opposed the application and stated that the accused persons had the right to challenge the jurors during empanelling.
He added that jurors could only be disqualified on the basis of their criminal records, potential to be prejudicial, partiality, blindness and inability to understand the English language, among others.
The Chief State Attorney said supplying the names of the jurors to the defence team had the tendency for having the jurors influenced, intimidated as well have their security threatened.
Later, Ms Penelope Mamattah, a Chief State Attorney, moved a motion to have the jury confined throughout the trial on the grounds that the case had received media hype, resulting in generation of controversy and public debate.
She said the state also feared for the safety of the jurors and explained that the case had to be transferred from Tamale to Accra because of tension.
According to her, there was the likelihood that the jury might be prejudiced by media publications and public opinion, if they were not confined until the end of the trial.
She further disagreed with an assertion from defence counsel that the motion was premature and speculative, and added that there was no guarantee that there would not be any eventuality in the course of the trial.
Opposing the application, Mr Sory said the motion had no legal foundation, because the prosecution had failed to quote from which aspects of the Criminal Procedure Code gave room to the confinement of jurors in a murder trial.
He said in any case the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that there was indeed any threat in Accra, especially when the prosecution had earlier indicated that the matter was transferred from Tamale to Accra for security reasons.
Counsel further argued that media publication on the matter had gone on for long and indicated that it was rather the accused persons and not the prosecution who had complained about the actions of some media houses.
Mr Sory stated that the court could order the media to publish only court proceedings on the matter and further described the prosecution’s application as “completely dangerous”.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe, fixed December 17, 2009 for ruling on the two motions.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

BNI complies with court order

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) yesterday complied with a court order and produced the five soldiers who were being held for the alleged murder of a former Deputy Managing Director of the Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB), Mr Rokko Frimpong.
They are also being investigated for allegedly undermining the re-denomination exercise which took place two years ago. According to the state, Mr Frimpong was deeply involved in the re-denomination exercise.
The Human Rights Division of the High Court on December 2, 2009 gave the BNI seven days to state the whereabouts and reasons for the continuous detention of Sergeants Michael Arthur, Richard Somuah and Lamptey Haizel and Corporals Charles Ankumah and Emmanuel Antwi.
At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, the five, who were in civil clothes and had been in custody since November 12, 2009, were brought in by the BNI operatives and armed policemen, in apparent compliance with an order from the Presiding Judge, Ms Irene Charity Danquah, an Appeal Court Judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge.
The acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Gertrude Aikins, who admitted that the security operatives had erred in not sending the soldiers to court for a remand warrant after keeping them in custody for 48 hours, explained that the state had cured that anomaly by seeking a remand warrant from the circuit court.
Ms Aikins said the five were being investigated for the alleged murder of Mr Frimpong as well as for undermining the re-domination exercise which took place two years ago.
She said the matter was very "sensitive and complicated" and it was important that the court sanctioned their detention, while investigations continued.
Ms Aikins said the soldiers were lawfully remanded in custody and further gave an undertaken that the state would produce the soldiers anytime it was asked to do so by the court.
She intimated that the soldiers were being held for murder, a crime whose bail was not provided for under the laws of Ghana.
However, lawyers for the soldiers, Messrs Joe Aboagye Debrah and Mr Kwaku Paintsil disagreed with the prosecution and moved an application for habeas corpus, a legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention or that of another person.
Moving the motion on behalf of four of the soldiers, excluding Cpl. Haizel, Mr Debrah said the Constitution did not sanction the detention of suspects without recourse to the law courts.
He said the state admitted the soldiers were kept unlawfully and sought to cure that illegality by going for a remand warrant a day prior to the hearing of the application for habeas corpus.
Counsel explained that he filed the application for habeas corpus on November 26, 2009 and served the state on the same day and, therefore, the state acted in "extreme bad faith" when it secured the remand of the soldiers on December 1, 2009 in an attempt to disable the higher court "from giving effect to constitutional rights of the applicants."
"The fundamental issue confronting the court this morning is whether a clear constitutional illegality admitted by the state can be cured by a warrant from the circuit court or not. That illegality cannot be cured and has not been cured," Mr Debrah submitted.
He said the soldiers were held for a record 456 hours without a court order and to make matters worse, they were not informed of their rights when they were arrested.
For his part, counsel for Cpl. Haizel, Mr Kwaku Paintsil, associated himself with his colleague's submissions and said the state must not be allowed to flout the constitution on mere suspicion and allegation.
According to counsel, the state was in contempt of court by deciding to seek a remand of the soldiers, a day before the hearing of the motion for habeas corpus.
The Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Mr C. A. Wilson, remanded the soldiers to reappear on December 15, 2009, the day that had also been fixed for ruling on the application for habeas corpus.
When the soldiers were being escorted outside the court, their wives wailed uncontrollably but their husbands consoled them saying everything would be alright.

NIB requested for pre-imbursement • Of moneys paid for rice

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 (Page 31)

THE Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP) yesterday informed the court hearing the trial of a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and a former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), that the NIB requested for re-imbursement of moneys paid for the importation of 300,000 bags of rice.
Mr Mark Anthony Madde told the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court that the February 2009 request letter from the NIB to the ministry also urged the ministry to exempt the bank from paying taxes on the warehousing of the imported rice.
Giving his evidence-in-chief in the case in which Akwasi Osei-Adjei and Daniel Charles Gyimah have been accused of wilfully causing financial loss to the state, Mr Madde told the court that the MoFEP decided to follow up and seek detailed information on the transaction because the ministry was not privy to events that led to the importation of the rice.
Osei-Adjei and 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.
Continuing with his evidence-in-chief, Mr Madde stated that the MoFEP’s checks revealed that events leading to the importation of the rice had received the backing of the previous government.
He said after the checks, the ministry recommended that the rice be sold to prevent any losses and in the event of any liability, the NIB was to bear it.
According to the witness, because the ministry was kept “in the dark” in the transaction and subsequent importation of the rice from India, the ministry recommended a forensic audit into the transactions.
Mr Madde told the court that an inventory of the imported rice was carried out in the presence of the media.
During cross-examination from counsel for Osei-Adjei, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, the witness told the court that the letter requesting for tax exemption on the imported rice was signed by the acting Managing Director of the NIB and the two accused persons.
He said the government was not obliged to pay for any transaction entered into by the NIB and further stated that he did not recall the response when it was enquired at a meeting whether or not the board of NIB approved the transaction.
The witness told the court that he was also aware that former President J. A. Kufuor initiated and approved the rice importation, adding that he was also not aware whether or not public funds were disbursed during the transaction.
Asked whether or not he was aware that it was unlawful for anyone to put taxes on the importation of rice as at the time the NIB applied for tax exemption, Mr Madde said he was not aware. Mr Dame then gave him a copy of Act 758 (2008) and requested him to read out to the court, the portions which gave the tax exemptions.
He also told the court that the NIB was currently taking charge of the sale of the rice.
Counsel for Gyimah, Colonel Alex Johnson (retd) is expected to cross-examine the witness today.
Earlier, the trial judge, Mr Justice Bright Mensah, had overruled an application from Mr Dame praying the court to stay proceedings until a contempt motion filed against the Enquirer newspaper was heard.
Counsel had argued that the newspaper had published stories imputing that the accused persons had influenced prosecution witnesses to testify in their favour.
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, investigations conducted into the importation of the rice revealed that provisions of the Public Procurement Act had been side-stepped, adding that the 2,997 missing bags were short-landed and diverted for sale for huge private profit.
The prosecution said it would lead evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons but their counsel also argued that they would, in the course of the trial, prove the innocence of their clients.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Interdiction of Ampong illegal

Friday, December 4, 2009 (Page 23)

THE Accra Fast High Court has ruled that the interdiction of the Chief Director of the Ministry of Youth and Sports, Mr Albert Anthony Ampong, is illegal.
The court also quashed an order directed at Mr Ampong to refund $20,000.
It also ordered that sanctions must not be applied against Mr Ampong based on the national security report which the court said was "flawed".
According to the court, presided over by Mr Justice S. K. Asiedu, due process was not followed and for that reason it was inappropriate for sanctions to be applied against Mr Ampong, who had neither been investigated nor charged for any offence.
Mr Ampong filed an application for judicial review challenging his interdiction, following investigations into allegations of financial impropriety levelled against Alhaji Muntaka Mohammed Mubarak, the former Minister of Youth and Sports.
In granting the applicant's motion, the court held that the Civil Service Council, and not National Security, had the power to investigate Mr Ampong, adding, "The President was deceived into believing that National Security had powers to investigate the applicant."
Touching on the President's directive to the Head of the Civil Service to interdict the applicant, the court held that the President was not the disciplinary authority and further pointed out that an Act of Parliament had vested that authority in the Head of the Civil Service.
The court held that the applicant had not been charged nor informed of any wrongdoing and due process was not followed before his interdiction and further ruled that "procedure was seriously breached".
It also stated that proceedings leading to the interdiction of Mr Ampong was unlawful and, therefore, violated the mandatory requirements of the law, adding, "Findings made against the applicant cannot hold because he was not given a fair hearing. The applicant was not treated fairly and justly."
It, accordingly, quashed the decision of the Head of the Civil Service to interdict the applicant but declined to grant an order of mandamus to order the Head of the Civil Service to recall the applicant.
The presiding judge said the court would not pre-empt the innocence or guilt of the applicant and further stated that the Civil Service Council could take appropriate action if it felt the applicant had questions to answer.
The court further held that Mr Ampong was only called as a witness at the National Security committee and not as an accused person and his interdiction was, therefore, "a breach of natural justice".
It earlier struck out the name of the Head of the Civil Service from the suit on the grounds that the Attorney-General was the proper body to be sued.
The court did not award costs against the state.
In a related development, the Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Norvisi Aryene, 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.
It 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 Mubarak, the then Minister of Youth and Sports, but he filed for judicial review.
The court held 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 awarded costs of GH¢1,000 against the Attorney-General’s Department.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Govt okays GNPC's position • ON Jubilee oilfields

Thursday, December 3, 2009 (Front Page)

THE government has endorsed the stand of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) to bid for Kosmos Energy's stake in the Jubilee Oilfields and has, accordingly, contracted Morgan Stanley, a US financial firm, to value Kosmos shares.
Kosmos Energy, one of the partners in the oilfields, has valued its 23.9 per cent stake at the Jubilee fields at $4 billion, with plans to sell it to ExxonMobil. But British Petroleum (BP) and GNPC have both expressed interest in the Kosmos shares.
Reacting to media reports on the Kosmos-Exxon deal and plans to conclude it in January, the Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Adjei, said the Government of Ghana was not officially aware of any agreement between Kosmos and Exxon.
In endorsing the GNPC’s bid for the shares, he said the US financial advisory company was currently working in conjunction with the GNPC and other partners in the oil industry to ensure that Ghanaians derived maximum benefit from the oil find.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, Dr Oteng-Adjei explained that it was the responsibility of the government to ensure that everything was done in a fair and transparent manner for the benefit of all parties in the deal.
He said the government would not approve any irregularity, in apparent reference to Kosmos Energy's breach of the country's petroleum laws by engaging ExxonMobil without the government's knowledge.
He said although executives of Exxon Mobil approached him and President J.E.A. Mills in September during an official trip to the US, the government would only negotiate with them if Kosmos regularised its earlier breaches.
He said it was unfortunate that Kosmos Energy disclosed data on the project to more than 17 companies abroad and pointed out that its behaviour clearly violated the petroleum laws of this country.
The minister said until those issues had been resolved and breaches by Kosmos regularised, the government would not hold discussions with any company which would be introduced by Kosmos.
He stressed that no company could push the government into accepting petroleum agreements which breached the country's laws and expressed regret that Kosmos acted the way it did.
The Jubilee Oilfields are jointly owned by Kosmos Energy, Tullow Oil Ghana Limited, Anardarko Petroleum, Sabre Oil, Ireland, the GNPC and the E.O. Group.
Kosmos Energy's stake has become the target of a keen contest between Exxon and BP, following the decision of Kosmos to sell its one-quarter share in the project to Exxon.
But, according to Dr Oteng-Adjei, "the government believes that the GNPC will get the best value for Ghana if it purchases Kosmos's stake in the Jubilee Oilfields".
He confirmed that the GNPC was well resourced to purchase the fields and further stressed that "the government's supreme interest is to ensure that Ghanaians derived maximum benefit from the country's oil find. It is the government's duty to protect the interest of Ghanaians and we assure Ghanaians that their interest will be protected at all times".
He disclosed that other partners, namely, Tullow Ghana Limited and Anardarko, had assured the government that they had the technical and financial expertise to fully develop the oilfields.
The minister gave the assurance that those issues would not in any way affect the commencement of commercial oil production in the last quarter of 2010.
According to Dr Oteng-Adjei, he visited Singapore recently and the manufacture of the Floating, Production, Offloading and Storage (FPSO) was on course.

Court gives BNI 7-day ultimatum • To explain cotinuous detention of 4 soldiers

Thursday, December 3, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Human Rights Division of the High Court has given the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) seven days to state the whereabouts and reasons for the continuous detention of four soldiers who are been held for the alleged murder of a former Deputy Managing Director of the Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB), Mr Rokko Frimpong.
The court, presided over by Ms Justice Irene Danquah, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with additional responsibilities as a High Court judge, gave the order after hearing a motion for habeas corpus filed by counsel for the spouses of the soldiers, Messrs Joe Aboagye Debrah and Vincent Aikins.
Habeas corpus, a Latin phrase, is a legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention or that of another person.
The soldiers, Sergeants Michael Arthur and Richard Somuah and Corporals Charles Ankumah and Emmanuel Antwi, were arraigned before a circuit court, presided over by Mr C. A. Wilson, on Tuesday and were remanded in custody for two weeks.
According to counsel for the soldiers, the four were remanded without their counsel’s notice and at a time when they (the lawyers) had filed a motion on notice for writ of habeas corpus against the Director of the BNI and the Attorney-General at the High Court and especially at a time when a date had been fixed for the hearing of the motion.
The lawyers submitted that the BNI had acted in bad faith and that its action had been aimed at pre-empting the outcome of hearing of the motion for habeas corpus at the Human Rights Court yesterday.
Replying, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) said the soldiers were in lawful detention.
However, the court, after hearing submissions from both the applicants and the prosecution, ordered the BNI to explain the whereabouts of the applicants in writing.
The matter was adjourned to December 8, 2009.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Scramble for Ghana's Oil • GNPC ready to buy out Kosmos Energy's shares

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 (Lead Story)

THE Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) is fully positioned to buy out the Jubilee oilfields, as two giants in the business, ExxonMobil of the USA and British Petroleum (BP), are reported to be embroiled in a struggle over the country’s emerging oil industry.
The Director of Exploration at the GNPC, Mr Thomas Manu, who gave the assurance in an interview with the Daily Graphic, said, “The GNPC is fully funded to acquire the stake in the Jubilee oilfields.”
The oilfields, valued at more than $4 billion and jointly owned by Kosmos Energy, Tullow Oil Ghana Limited, Anardarko Petroleum, Sabre Oil, Ireland, the GNPC and the E.O. Group, have become the target of a keen contest between Exxon and BP following the alleged decision of Kosmos to sell its one-quarter share in the project to Exxon.
In its Monday, November 30, 2009 edition, the Business Times of London reported that as the January deadline for the signing of the contract between Kosmos and Exxon approached, the battle between ExxonMobil and BP was set to intensify.
“Exxon agreed in early October to pay $4 billion (£2.4 billion) for the quarter stake in the Jubilee field.” it said.
“The sale agreement struck with Kosmos Energy, the US firm, was done despite requests from the Ghanaian government to slow down the process,” the paper added.
Mr Manu, however, stated that he was not aware of any agreement between Kosmos Energy and any oil company and pointed out that as a partner in the oilfields, the GNPC was ready to purchase the stake.
“The GNPC is looking at Ghana’s interest first, just like other companies will look at their shareholders’ interest. We are committed to ensuring that Ghanaians derived the maximum benefit from the oil find,” he emphasised.
“If a stake in a hugely prolific field becomes available for sale, the GNPC has the mandate if the acquisition of that stake will lead to an increase for the benefit of the people of Ghana,” he added.
He explained that the GNPC was mandated by law to promote the exploration, development and production of the hydrocarbon resources of the country, adding that “and in so doing the GNPC is mandated to ensure that the country derives the maximum benefit from its hydrocarbon and petroleum resources”.
He further pointed out that the GNPC also had the mandate to ensure that oil companies operated in an environmentally friendly manner, as well as a transparent manner and in accordance with international standards.
Currently, he said, the GNPC and Kosmos Energy were in discussions to resolve differences which arose as a result of Kosmos’ disclosure of data on the project to investors which infringed on the agreement entered between the GNPC and Kosmos.
He indicated that the GNPC and Kosmos Energy “are having a constructive resolution of the data disclosure”.
“The GNPC has the mandate to ensure that the laws of the country are obeyed at all times by all companies, big or small,” Mr Manu said, and gave the assurance that those issues would not in any way hamper the smooth development of the oilfields.
He reiterated that fact that commercial production of oil would begin in the last quarter of 2010.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Court adjourns state's appeal indefinitely

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Court of Appeal yesterday adjourned indefinitely the state’s appeal 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.
The matter was adjourned at the instance of a Chief State Attorney, Mrs Helen Kwawukume, who prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable certain corrections to be effected in processes filed by the state at the court’s registry.
Mr Justice G.M. Quaye is presiding over the matter, with Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau and Mr Justice C.J. Hoenyenugah as members.
Mr Asamoah-Boateng and his wife Zuleika, were in court.
On October 29, 2009, the court declined to grant a request by the Attorney-General’s (A-G’s) Department which had prayed it to hear the matter in camera in order to protect the identity of the respondents.
Mr Asamoah-Boateng, Zuleika, Nana Yaw Asamoah-Boateng and Andrew Asamoah-Boateng instituted the contempt action against the three respondents — Yaw Donkor, Josephine Gandawiri and Stephen Abrokwa — and the A-G for preventing them from travelling outside the country on two occasions without recourse to a court order.
In the court’s ruling on October 29, 2009, Mr Justice Dery disagreed with the A-G’s 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.
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.
The substantive matter was adjourned to January 20, 2010.