Wednesday, June 30, 2010

DNA test case - Woman, daughter granted GH¢100,000 bail

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE woman at the centre of the controversial DNA test and her daughter were yesterday granted total bail of GH¢100,000, with six sureties, by the Accra Circuit Court.
Celestine Owusu, who has been charged with conspiracy and child stealing, was also ordered to deposit her passport with the police as a bail condition.
Her 21-year-old daughter, Portia, who claimed to have witnessed the delivery of her supposed younger brother, has also been charged with conspiracy.
They pleaded not guilty to the charges and Celestine, 42, and her daughter, Portia Owusu Annor, were each granted GH¢50,000 bail with three sureties each.
The court, presided over by Mrs Patience Mills-Tetteh, granted them bail after a three-man defence team, led by Mr Kwabena Adjei-Lartey, had prayed the court to grant the accused persons bail.
The lawyers had argued that the accused persons had fixed places of abode and would avail themselves for trial when granted bail.
Earlier, the Administrator of the La General Hospital, Mr Adam Hardi, in his evidence-in-chief, had told the court that there was no record at the hospital to indicate that Celestine had attended ante-natal clinic at the facility.
He explained that Celestine, on December 17, 2009, had reported at the hospital indicating she was nine months’ pregnant and also complained of abdominal pains.
Mr Hardi, who was led by an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ms Mary Agbozo, to give his evidence-in-chief, told the court that the medical assistant who attended to Celestine gave her paracetamol and antacid and referred her to a gynaecologist at the hospital but she did not report to the gynaecologist.
He tendered Celestine’s medical folder in evidence, without objection from the defence team.
During cross-examination, the witness told the court that he had conference with the medical assistant who had treated Celestine before coming to testify.
He conceded that Celestine’s blood pressure and temperature had not been taken, as was required, and indicated that the hospital could not have altered the records to reflect Celestine’s temperature and blood pressure level.
The facts of the case are that about three years ago the complainant, Mr Ernest Opoku, 43, a Ghanaian resident in Switzerland, rented out one of his shops at Sakumono to Celestine, a businesswoman.
According to the prosecution, Celestine later told the complainant that she had been ejected from her rented apartment and wanted to lodge in the shop with her 20-year-old daughter but he decided to offer her a room in his six-bedroom apartment on humanitarian grounds and thereafter the relationship later developed into a romantic one.
After a while, however, the relationship turned sour and the man decided to eject Celestine from his apartment but she refused to move, claiming that she was his legitimate wife and was pregnant with his baby.
The prosecution said the complainant, however, discounted the claim, since, according to him, the relationship had been broken more than two years earlier and proceeded to report the matter to the police for investigations.
It said Celestine also took the case to the District and Juvenile Court in Accra where the presiding judge, Mrs Cynthia Wiredu, ordered the two to undergo a DNA test to help establish the parentage of the baby, as the complainant had insisted that Celestine had faked the pregnancy to blackmail him.
According to her, when specimen from the complainant and the accused, as well as that of the child, were taken for tests at the Fairfax Laboratory in South Africa, the result showed that neither the woman nor the man she accused of neglect was biologically linked to the child.
Following the DNA results, the Department of Social Welfare later ordered the arrest of the accused and took custody of the baby, who is currently being cared for at the Osu Children’s Home in Accra.
The department has also tasked the Human Trafficking Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service to launch full-scale investigations to find the baby’s biological parents.

Warrant for Mobilla's alleged murderer

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 (Front Page)

PRIVATE Seth Goka, one of the soldiers alleged to be involved in the murder of the former Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), Alhaji Issa Mobilla, has been sighted in Cameroon.
Consequently, the Accra Fast Track High Court has issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Goka, who has been on the run for the past one year.
Goka, who is being tried in absentia, was alleged to have conspired with Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka to commit the offence on December 9, 2004.
They have each been charged with two counts of conspiracy and murder. Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to the charges and are currently on remand.
At its sitting yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Penelope Marmattah, informed the court, presided over by Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe, that the Cameroonian authorities were currently assisting the Ghanaian authorities to bring Goka down.
She, therefore, prayed the court to issue the bench warrant to enable the authorities to bring him down to face trial.
Counsel for Appiah and Modzaka, Mr Thaddeus Sory, wondered whether the application for the issuance of the bench warrant was of any relevance, especially when parties in the matter had been made to understand that Goka would be tried in absentia.
The hearing of the case could not continue because the foreman of the seven-member jury was indisposed and had been given four weeks’ excuse from duty from June 15 to July 15, 2010.
The matter was adjourned to July 16, 2010 for continuation.
The facts of the case are that 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 him.
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 that day.

Former DCE, 5 others to stand trial • Over Ya-Na's murder

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Adjabeng District Magistrate Court yesterday committed the former District Chief Executive for Yendi (DCE), Mohammed Habib Tijani, and five others for trial at the High Court for their alleged role in the murder of the late King of Dagbon, Ya-Na Yakubu Andani II, and 30 others.
Tijani was subsequently remanded with Alhaji Baba Abdulai Iddrisu, alias Zohe; Kwame Alhassan, aka Achiri; Mohamadu Abdulai, alias Samasama; Sayibu Mohammed and Alhassan Braimah.
Two others, Iddrisu Iddi, alias Mbadugu, and Zakaria Yakubu, alias Zakaria Forest, are on the run.
The court, presided over by Ms Patricia Quansah, committed the accused persons for trial after a Chief State Attorney, Ms Gertrude Aikins, had informed it that the bill of indictment and summary of evidence on the case were ready.
However, Mr John Ndebugre, who represented the former DCE, and Mr Philip Addison, counsel for the other accused persons, said there was nothing incriminating the accused persons because all the matters raised by the prosecution had been delved into by the Wuaku Commission.
Three others, Baba Ibrahim, Alhassan Mohammed and Mustapha Mohammed, who were picked up last week in connection with the murder have been remanded in custody to reappear on July 7, 2010.
The prosecution is yet to prepare the bill of indictment and summary of evidence on them.
Presenting the facts of the case, Ms Aikins said succession to the Ya-Na Skin and the two royal gates to it, the Andanis and the Abudus, had been on a rotational basis.
However, the system was disrupted in 1969, bringing about a protracted litigation between the two gates and leading to the deskinment of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai IV and the enskinment of the late Ya-Na Yakubu Andani II.
In February 2002, the celebration of the Eid ul Adha Festival brought about disturbances in Yendi and intelligence reports collected by the security agencies indicated that firearms had been smuggled into Yendi by both gates.
To avert any clash, Ms Aikins said, the District Security Committee (DISEC) convened a meeting to impose a curfew and place a ban on the celebration of the Bugum (Fire) Festival. Approval of the imposition of the curfew was given by the Regional Security Council (REGSEC) on March 23, 2002 and both parties were duly informed about the development. But while the Abudu Gate embraced the decision, the Ya-Na saw it as an affront to his position.
On March 25, 2002, Ya-Na Andani decided to invite his elders to the Gbewaa Palace and, therefore, sent one Ziblim Abdulai to call the Mbadugu Dugu-Lana.
However, while Ziblim was returning with the Mbadugu Dugu-Lana, the latter was attacked and assaulted by some Abudu youths.
According to the prosecution, Zakaria Yakubu alias Zakaria Forest, the seventh accused person (now at large), were seen by witnesses in the case decapitating Ya-Na Andani near a kraal, after he had been dragged there by Mahamadu Abdulai alias Samasama, the fourth accused person and one other now at large. Tijani, the then DCE, was said to be deeply involved in the conspiracy.
The prosecution said evidence would also be led to show that after Zakaria Yakubu and Zakaria Forest had decapitated the Ya-Na, others now at large poured petrol on the king’s body, after putting used car tyres on it, and set fire to it.
It said evidence would be led to prove that Iddrisu Iddi, Mbadugu, Alhaji Baba Abdulai Iddrisu, Zohe, Kwame Alhassan, Mohamadu Abdulai, Sayibu Mohammed and Zakaria Yakubu, Zakaria Forest and others at large took active part in the planning and execution of the events that took place from March 24 to 27, 2002.

Strike out criminal proceedings - Wereko-Brobbey

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 (Page 19)

THE former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana@50 Secretariat, Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, is praying the Accra Fast Track High Court to strike out criminal proceedings instituted against him and the former Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, to enable him to pursue an appeal against the adverse findings made against him by the Ghana@50 Commission of Enquiry.
His lawyer, Mr Alex Quainoo, stated that under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution, his client was entitled to an appeal at the Court of Appeal because the Commission of Inquiry had the powers of the High Court.
Moving his motion to pray the court to strike out the criminal proceedings brought against his client and the former Chief of Staff and Chairman of the National Planning Committee (NPC) of the Ghana@50 celebrations, counsel held that the rights of the accused persons would be trampled upon if the court did not stay proceedings, as stipulated by law.
He argued that the Attorney-General had the power to prosecute but that prosecution must follow due process.
The accused persons have pleaded not guilty to four counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the State and have each been admitted to a GH¢35 million self-recognisance bail.
The two were charged following the release of the government’s White Paper on the report of the Commission of Inquiry, which recommended the prosecution of the two, but counsel for the two have argued that the charges against their clients raised very fundamental legal objections which they would lead evidence to prove at the appropriate time.
Mr Quainoo stated that the prosecution was using the “back-door” approach to take away the rights of the accused persons by instituting criminal action against them, in contravention of Article 280 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
That article states, “Where a Commission of Inquiry makes an adverse finding against any person, the report of the commission of inquiry shall, for the purpose of this Constitution, be deemed to be the judgement of the High Court; and accordingly an appeal shall lie as of right from the finding of the commission to the Court of Appeal.”
Section 6 of Article 280 further states, “The right of appeal conferred by Clause (2) of this article on a person against whom a finding has been made shall be exercisable within three months after the occurrence of either of the events described in Clause (5) of this article or such other time as the High Court or the Court of Appeal may, by special leave and on such conditions as it may consider just, allow.”
Mr Quainoo further argued that Section (5a) of Article 280 also indicated that the finding of a commission of inquiry shall not have the effect of a judgement of a High Court unless six months had passed after the finding was made and announced to the public.
Arguing the case for his client, counsel stated that the Constitution had made room for the accused persons to appeal against the commission of inquiry after the elapse of the six month grace period and it was, therefore, inappropriate for the prosecution to “jump the gun” by instituting criminal action against the accused persons.
He prayed the court to either stay proceedings or strike out the case because it was clear the prosecution had not followed due process, as stipulated under the Constitution.
He further informed the court that the issue before it did not require constitutional interpretation, adding, “The law is clear with regard to Article 280.”
He, therefore, prayed the court to uphold due process in order to ensure fairness and further pointed out that his client would not abscond when the matter was stayed to enable him to go on appeal.
The matter was adjourned to July 16, 2010 to enable counsel for Mpiani, Mr Yonny Kulendi, to make similar submissions which would pray the court to allow the accused persons to exhaust their right to appeal against the findings of the Ghana@50 Commission of Enquiry.
On May 26, 2010, the High Court judge designated by the Chief Justice to hear the case involving the two accused persons declined jurisdiction over the case.
Mr Justice Charles Quist explained that his spouse, who is a lawyer by profession, had once worked under Dr Wereko-Brobby when he was the Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority (VALCO).
The Chief Justice has, accordingly, appointed an Appeal Court judge, Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, to sit on the case as an additional High Court judge.
The two were first put before Mr Justice Marful-Sau on April 22, 2010 before Mr Justice Quist was appointed.
The facts of the case are that Parliament had approved $31.80 million, equivalent to GH¢29.31 million, for the celebration of Ghana@50 from January to December 2007 and the holding of the African Union Summit.
According to the prosecution, the amount was made up of a first tranche of GH¢18.29 million, which was approved by Parliament on July 20, 2006, and a second tranche, which was a loan of $11.80 million, equivalent to GH¢11.02 million, contracted from the Fidelity Bank and approved by Parliament.
It said aside from those sums approved by Parliament, “huge sums of money appeared to have been spent on the celebrations”, adding that more than a year after the celebrations, many projects remained uncompleted and the government was saddled with huge debts.
The prosecution further stated that it was against that background that the Commission of Inquiry was set up by President John Evans Atta Mills to inquire into the activities of the Ghana@50 Secretariat and the entire celebration.
The commission found out that although Parliament had approved GH¢29.31 million for the celebration, GH¢97,776,338.44 had been spent on it, out of which GH¢75,569,563.34 had directly been spent by the secretariat and the NPC.
“The secretariat and the NPC, therefore, spent an amount of GH¢46,999,563 in excess of the amount of money approved by Parliament for the celebration,” the prosecution said.
It further stated that the commission also found that contrary to articles 176 and 178 of the 1992 Constitution, the NPC and the secretariat used all the internally generated funds, totalling GH¢19,352,498.00, without any approval from Parliament.

Court restrains UG over C'wealth Hall

June 26, 2010 (Page 3)

HUNDREDS of current and past members of the Commonwealth Hall of the University of Ghana (UG) jubilated when the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday restrained the authorities of the UG from converting the all-male residence into a mixed gender graduate hall.
The excited students hailed and cheered their lawyers, Nana Ato Dadzie and Mr Egbert Faibille Jnr, singing victory songs and making telephone calls to friends to announce their victory.
According to the court, the students would suffer irreparable loss if the hall was converted into a mixed-gender graduate hall because the UG was yet to prove whether or not students from the hall were among an unruly mob of students who gathered in front of the Central Cafeteria on March 13, 2010 and blocked the official procession of the University Council and Senior Members which was yet to begin and physically prevented it from moving towards the ceremony grounds.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, held that in any case, a committee which was set up to investigate the incident was yet to present its report and it would, therefore, be unfair to assume that the plaintiffs were responsible for the incident.
The students of the hall filed the motion for interlocutory injunction against the UG, the Executive Committee of the UG and Prof. Kwesi Yankah, the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the UG.
However, the court struck out Prof. Yankah’s name from the suit on grounds that it was unnecessary for the plaintiffs to attach his name to it.
Citing authorities to buttress its decision, the court held that the statute establishing the UG, gave the university the mandate to set up halls of residence but the question the court posed was “what informs the present decision of the defendants?”
According to the court, all exhibits submitted by the defendants clearly indicated that the university’s decision to convert the hall into a mixed-gender graduate hall was informed by the March 13, 2010 event, adding that evidence clearly showed that the committee assigned to investigate the incident had not concluded its assignment.
That according to the court, meant that those culpable for the incident were yet to be identified and for that reason, “it seems to me that the individuals or students are yet to be identified. It has not been established that all students from Commonwealth Hall took part in the unfortunate incident.”
The court said it was unfair for the UG to make such decision and further pointed out that the plaintiffs’ action against the defendants was not frivolous or vexatious.
It said the students would lose their hall of residence while the defendants would lose nothing if the defendants’ action was not stopped, adding that, “I will weigh the balance of convenience in favour of the students.”
It, however, directed that its order would elapse at the end of the 2010/2011 academic year.
The court declined to award cost against the defendants.
In the motion for interlocutory injunction, the plaintiffs had stated that unless urgently restrained by the court, the defendants would proceed with their unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional intentions and actions to frustrate and deprive them of their legal and constitutional rights but the defendants denied any wrongdoing and described the action as misconceived and premature.
A new date is to be fixed for the hearing of the substantive application which is praying the court to permanently restrain the defendants from converting the hall as well as an application for contempt filed against the defendants by the plaintiffs.
In the application for contempt, the plaintiffs are contending that the defendants began issuing admission letters to new applicants 10 days after the issue of their writ but counsel for the defendants, Mr Ace Ankomah, has denied any wrongdoing on the part of his clients.

2 IRS officials jailed for fraud

June 25, 2010 (Front Page)

TWO officials of the Large Taxpayer Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) who demanded GH¢50,000 from the management of TV3 to reduce the company’s tax obligation from GH¢1.2 million to GH¢430,000 were yesterday sentenced to five years’ imprisonment each with hard labour.
Joseph Adjei and Joseph Teye Bilson, who are officials from the IRS and the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS), respectively, were seconded to the Large Taxpayer Unit to conduct tax audit.
The Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court found them guilty on each count of conspiracy, corruption and attempting to cause financial loss to the state.
Their accomplice, Eric Duncan, a tax examiner from P.O. Andah and Associates, was also sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for attempting to cause financial loss to the state and attempting to influence a public officer.
The sentences of the three, who are in their early 50s, are to run concurrently.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, also ordered that GH¢8,000 which was retrieved from the convicts, being part payment of the GH¢50,000 they had demanded, should be returned to TV3 Network Limited.
The trial judge held that the prosecution had led ample evidence to prove the guilt of the convicts beyond reasonable doubt.
According to Mr Justice Mensah, it was untenable for Adjei and Bilson to state that they received GH¢4,000 each from Duncan as “handshake” from the TV3 management for performing their work creditably.
The court further held that it was most unreasonable for Adjei to state that he was unamused when Duncan gave him the GH¢4,000 but he decided to deposit it in his account to take future action against the complainant.
It said it was also “mind boggling” for Adjei to deem it necessary to inform a policeman who was on duty at the bank on the day he deposited the said amount into his personal account and not his superiors and the appropriate authorities.
The court said the prosecution led ample evidence to prove that Duncan took an additional GH¢20,000 from TV3 Network Limited to be given to Adjei and Bilson but he was arrested by the police on the premises of the company.
It stated that the prosecution led enough evidence to prove that the three had made calls to one another which resulted in Duncan leading the police to Zongo Junction where Adjei and Bilson were waiting for him to collect the GH¢20,000.
According to the court, the prosecution proved that Adjei and Bilson allowed themselves to be influenced, adding that Duncan’s voluntary confession statement clearly showed that he had been sent to influence Adjei and Bilson.
Touching on the charge of attempting to cause financial loss to the state, the court held that the state would have lost huge sums of money if TV3 Network Limited had not reported the conduct of the convicts to the police.
The court further added that the state benefited from an additional GH¢200,000 after another team had been dispatched to conduct further audit of the books of TV3 Network Limited.
It held that it was unfortunate for officers who had been mandated to collect money on behalf of the state to resort to such lowly acts which deprived the state of millions of cedis which could be used for development projects.
It also expressed disappointment at the failure of the lawyers of the convicts to file their addresses and also show up in court yesterday.
A friend of the court’s, Mr Kwaku Adjei-Lartey, prayed the court to show mercy towards the convicts who were first-time offenders and had also shown remorse.
The facts of the case were that Adjei and Bilson, in August 2005, were tasked to audit the tax accounts of TV3 Network Limited from 1997 to 2003, in the process of which they discovered that the company owed the state GH¢1.2 million.
The company challenged the figure and contacted P.O. Andah and Associates, who in turn tasked Duncan to offer the necessary assistance to TV3 Network Limited.
In the process, Adjei and Bilson demanded GH¢50,000 to reduce TV3’s tax obligation substantially, as a result of which Duncan was roped in to make the necessary payments to them.
The management of TV3 Network reported Adjei and Bilson’s conduct to its board, which advised the management to feign interest and report the convicts to the police.

GIA case adjourned to July 16

June 21, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Financial Division of the Accra Fast Track High Court will on July 16, 2010 decide whether or not to refer to the Supreme Court for interpretation, a request for relevant documents on the case involving five persons who are accused of causing financial loss to the state regarding the sale of Ghana Airways and the operations of Ghana International Airline (GIA).
The court fixed the date after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, had argued the state's case against the request by the defence team for materials pertaining to the case.
The accused persons are Dr Richard Anane, a former Minister of Transport; Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, a former Chief of Staff and Minister for Presidential Affairs; Dr Anthony Akoto Osei, a former Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; Mr Sammy Crabbe, a former Greater Accra Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and Prof. George Gyan-Baffour.
They variously face 22 counts of causing financial loss to the state, defrauding by false pretences, conspiracy to deceive public officers, deceit of public officer, misappropriation of public funds, opening an offshore account without authorisation from the Bank of Ghana (BoG), conspiracy to commit stealing and stealing.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, has granted them self-recognisance bail.
All the accused persons except Professor Gyan-Baffour were present. Professor Gyan-Baffour has been granted permission to seek medical treatment abroad.
As usual, the family members and sympathisers of the accused persons defied the wet weather and thronged the court premises to lend their moral support to them.
Counsel for the accused persons have filed applications requesting for relevant documents to aid their defence, under Article 19 (2e) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “a person charged with criminal offence shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”.
But the State has opposed the application on the grounds that sections 163 and 181 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 (Act 30) do not allow accused persons who are standing trial summarily to have access to such documents before they are tendered in evidence as exhibits.
Following the State's opposition, lawyers for the accused prayed the court to refer their request for an order directed at the Attorney-General to furnish them with all documents and exhibits the prosecution intends to rely on during the trial to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
According to the lawyers, Act 30, which the State relied on, clearly contravened Article 19 (2e) of the 1992 Constitution, which they described as being "supreme to all laws of the land".
According to the accused persons, all documents, including letters, technical evaluations and reports, business plans, press releases, Cabinet memos, memoranda of understanding (MoU), shareholders’ agreement, tenancy agreements, among a host of others, were what the prosecution intended to rely on during the trial and it was important that they had access to those documents in order to have a fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution.
The lawyers have argued that the Constitution compelled the Attorney-General to provide the accused persons with appropriate documents to facilitate their defence and further argued that the apparent conflict between the prosecution and the defence needed to be handled by the Supreme Court.
Issues intended to be referred to the Supreme Court are whether or not within the plain, natural and practical meaning of Article 19 (1) and (2e) of the Constitution, an accused person in a criminal trial, whether charged summarily or by indictment, is entitled to a disclosure of copies of statements made to police by persons who will and may be called to testify as prosecution witnesses and copies of documents and exhibits which are to be offered in evidence by the prosecution before trial, among others.
However, arguing the case for the State in Accra yesterday, Ms Aikins described the defence team's application as misconceived based on the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code gave accused persons the opportunity to have access to documents tendered in evidence, cross-examine witnesses, ask for longer dates to prepare their defence, have access to a lawyer of their choice, as well as the have the right to remain silent among a host of other rights.
She said the burden of proof of guilt of an accused person solely lay on the prosecution and for that reason it could not be said that the prosecution had an unfair advantage over the accused persons, adding that "ambush or anachronistic litigation does not occur in this matter at all".
According to her, the accused persons were facing a summary trial and not trial by indictment and under the circumstance, the Criminal Procedure Code had clearly spelt out rules which guaranteed the interest of accused persons.
She, therefore, argued that it was out of place for the defence team to request for materials which had not been tendered in evidence and, worse of all, argue that a simple statutory matter which could be handled by the court should be referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
According to Ms Aikins, there was no need to invoke the referral jurisdiction of the lower court because the court was not bound to refer all matters to the Supreme Court upon request, especially when issues raised did not border on the Constitution.
She described the defence team's submissions as frivolous and an attempt to delay proceedings and eventually stall the trial and further prayed the court to dismiss the application in its entirety.
Ms Aikins reminded the defence team that they had the right to go on appeal should the court refuse to grant their request.

The Ya-Na murder - Court declines bail for ex-DCE

June 17, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Adjabeng District Magistrate Court on June 16, 2010 declined to grant bail to the former District Chief Executive (DCE) of Yendi, Mohammed Habib Tijani, who has been accused of playing a role resulting in the murder of the King of Dagbon, Ya-Na Yakubu Andani II and a number of his elders.
The court was of the view that it was premature for defence counsel, Mr John Ndebugre, to plead for bail for the accused person.
Counsel had argued that the former DCE was being held illegally by the prosecution because he had not been formally charged with any offence.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), prayed the court to give the prosecution two weeks to prepare a fresh bill of indictment and summary of evidence which would include the DCE.
The court accordingly remanded the DCE and six others to reappear on June 28, 2010.
The other accused persons are Iddrisu Iddi alias Mbadugu, 76, Alhaji Baba Abdulai Iddrisu, 56, Mohammed Abdulai alias Samasama, 57, Sayibu Mohammed, 34 and Alhassan Braimah, 40.
A seventh accused person, Yidani Sugri, 42, has also been granted bail in the sum of Gh¢10,000 with one surety by the Human Rights Court which indicated that the prosecution had failed to give details why it was holding Sugri who had been charged with one count of illegally organising military training.
Meanwhile, the prosecution on Monday dropped charges against Yakubu Mohammed Alhassan, 42, who was also accused of playing a role in the murder of the Ya-Na.
The DPP also announced that the prosecution had stepped down charges against two other namely Mohammed Kojo and Abubakar Yakubu.
The two were accordingly granted bail in the sum of GH¢10,000 each with two sureties each and ordered to report to the police once a month until otherwise directed by the court.

Cocaine: Kantanka jailed 10 yrs

June 17, 2010 (Page 3)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court on June 16, 2010 sentenced a music producer to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour for attempting to export 1.162 kilogrammes of cocaine to the United Kingdom.
Samuel Sarfo Kantanka, 56, was convicted on his own plea after he had confessed to swallowing 96 pellets of cocaine.
The Presiding Judge, Mr Justice Quist, also ordered the police to destroy the cocaine in the presence of officials from the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB), the Ghana Standards Board (GSB), the prosecution and the registrar of the court.
Kantanka was convicted on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs without licence.
Before his conviction, Kantanka aka Manga pleaded guilty to the two counts and stated that he did not want to waste the court’s time and for that reason he should be convicted.
The convict then prayed the court to tamper justice with mercy after the prosecutor in the case, Mr Asiamah Sampong, a Principal State Attorney, told the court that results from the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) revealed that the substances Kantanka swallowed tested positive for cocaine.
The court convicted him on his own plea and directed that Kantanka’s sentence should begin from the day of his arrest.
Kantanka looked indifferent after he was sentenced. He chatted happily with other inmates while being escorted into a waiting vehicle to serve his term in prison.
The convict was on Tuesday, April 30, 2010 arrested by officials of NACOB at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) while undergoing departure formalities.
He was taken through a body scanner which revealed that there were foreign materials in his stomach.
Urine test confirmed that the convict had ingested narcotic substances.
Kantanka told interrogators that a man named Stone gave him the drugs at a guest house at Ashongman to be given to a Ghanaian only identified as Obroni.
He, however, led NACOB officials on a wild goose chase to locate the said Stone’s house afte r he had told officials he knew the house.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Former Yendi DCE dragged to court • Over Ya-Na's murder

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE former District Chief Executive for Yendi, Mohammed Habib Tijani, was yesterday arraigned before the Adjabeng District Magistrate Court, charged with abetment of riot and the murder of the late King of Dagbon, Ya-Na Yakubu Andani II and a number of his elders.
Tijani was remanded to reappear on Wednesday, June 15, 2010 by the court, presided over by Ms Patricia Quansah.
At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, family members and sympathisers expressed joy when the prosecution announced that it had dropped charges against Yakubu Mohammed Alhassan, 42, one of the nine persons accused of murdering the Ya-Na.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Gertrude Aikins, announced that the prosecution had stepped down charges against two others, Mohammed Kojo, 45, and Abubakar Yakubu.
The two were, accordingly, granted bail in the sum of GH¢10,000 with two sureties each.
They were also ordered to report themselves once a month to the Criminal Investigations Department of the Ghana Police Service until otherwise directed by the court.
In effect, Mohammed and Yakubu are not expected to stand trial until the prosecution directs otherwise.
The other accused persons expected to stand trial are Iddrisu Iddi, alias Mbadugu, 76; Alhaji Baba Abdulai Iddrisu, 56; Mohammed Abdulai, alias Samasama, 57; Sayibu Mohammed, 34, and Alhassan Braimah, 40.
A ninth accused person, Yidana Sugri, 42, has also been granted bail in the sum of GH¢10,000 with one surety by the Human Rights Court which indicated that the prosecution had failed to give details on why it was holding Sugri, who has been charged with one count of illegally organising military training.
The substantive matter has been adjourned to June 15, 2010 to enable counsel for the accused persons, who was said to be indisposed, to make a representation on the next adjourned date.
Security personnel detailed to restore law and order thoroughly searched persons who entered the court premises to ensure that they did not carry weapons and other unauthorised materials into the courtroom.

Court stops CHRAJ • From probing M & J scandal

Saturday, June 12, 2010 (Front Page)

THE Human Rights High Court yesterday prohibited the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) from conducting further investigation into the Mabey and Johnson (M&J) bribery scandal involving six personalities.
It also restrained CHRAJ from further hearing the case on the grounds that it was improper for the Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Francis Emile Short, to have expressed his opinion on the case on Metro TV, a private TV station.
Granting an application for judicial review filed by counsel for the six persons, the court, presided over by Mr Justice U. P. Dery, held that it was not proper for Mr Short to have stated, among others, that the Supreme Court would dismiss an objection raised by Alhaji Baba Kamara, one of the applicants, on whether or not CHRAJ had the powers to investigate a private person.
Alhaji Kamara and the other applicants, namely, Mr Kwame Peprah, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor and Dr Ato Quarshie, accused Mr Short of extensively discussing the case pending before the commission on a Metro TV programme and making very prejudicial statements on the matter.
In an application for judicial review, the six argued that Mr Short was quoted on “Good Evening Ghana”, a current affairs programme on Metro TV, as stating that the preliminary objection raised as to the jurisdiction of CHRAJ to investigate private individuals was incompetent and would be dismissed by the Supreme Court.
According to the court, it was prejudicial for Mr Short to have discussed a matter which was pending before him on air, adding that “he had demonstrated by the interview that CHRAJ was incapable of undertaking a fair and impartial hearing into the case”.
The court further held that the commissioner was the head of CHRAJ and for that reason it could not be argued that he did not grant the interview in his personal capacity.
It further held that it was contradictory for CHRAJ to state that the commissioner was educating the public and in another breath state that he acted in his personal capacity.
Citing authorities, the court stated that Mr Short acted for and on behalf of CHRAJ when he ostensibly discussed the M&J matter on air.
On whether or not CHRAJ was a quasi-judicial body, the court held that the law described CHRAJ as an investigative body and not as quasi-judicial body.
It, therefore, granted the reliefs being sought by the applicants and dismissed the defence put up by CHRAJ.
It, however, declined to award costs against CHRAJ, on the grounds that the matter was of public interest, when counsel for the applicants, Mr Samuel Cudjoe, prayed it to award GH¢10,000 costs against the commission.
The court chastised lawyers for the applicants for not following due processes as set out by the High Court rules, indicating that it decided to look into the matter on its merit, particularly when the public had an interest in it.
In the application for judicial review, the six argued that Mr Short was quoted on “Good Evening Ghana” as stating that the preliminary objection raised as to the jurisdiction of CHRAJ to investigate private individuals was incompetent and would be dismissed by the Supreme Court.
An affidavit in support of the motion for judicial review which was sworn on behalf of the applicants by Mr Peprah, stated that it was wrong for the commissioner to have stated that there was no basis for Alhaji Kamara to raise preliminary objections on the grounds that he (Alhaji Kamara) was not a public official at the time the alleged offence was committed but he (Mr Short) would all the same refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
It further stated that counsel for the applicants raised an objection to the effect that CHRAJ’s mandate, as provided under Article 218(e), related to only current public officers and not former public officers.
It said CHRAJ, accordingly, adjourned ruling on the issue of whether or not it had jurisdiction to investigate ex-public officers to March 29, 2010, adding that a day after the hearing, specifically on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, Mr Short, the Head of the CHRAJ panel hearing the case, granted an extensive interview on Metro TV, which lasted an hour, and stated, among other things, that documents he had received from the UK indicated that the moneys paid to the applicants were bribes.
That assertion by Mr Short, according to the applicants, was unfortunate, as he had, by his statement, already predetermined the case and come to the conclusion that the applicants had received bribes.
According to the applicants, prohibiting CHRAJ “from investigating us will give meaning to the fact that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be manifestly being done”.
In an affidavit in opposition, the CHRAJ had argued that there was a clear difference between CHRAJ as an entity and its commissioner.
It said although Mr Short might have granted the said interview, his views were not those of CHRAJ, adding that even if he was disqualified from further investigating the matter, other commissioners would hear the matter in a fair manner. But the court held otherwise.
In a related development, the court, on May 20, 2010, dismissed an application for judicial review filed by a former Minister of Health, Dr George Sipa-Adjah Yankey, praying the court to compel CHRAJ to hear him in the M&J bribery case.
According to the court, it would be prejudicial for it to order CHRAJ to hear Dr Yankey because six other persons affected in the matter had also filed an application praying the court to prohibit CHRAJ from hearing the bribery case in its entirety.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Cocaine in bellies, underwear • 2 Women grabbed at KIA

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

TWO female Dutch nationals have been arrested by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) for allegedly swallowing a total of 157 pellets of cocaine.
The two, Ernestina Adasa, 50, and Millicent Atieku, 48, who are acquaintances, were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) around 8 p.m. last Saturday.
The two, who are of Ghanaian origin, hid a total of 78 pellets of cocaine in their underwear.
Ernestina, who swallowed 65 pellets, has so far expelled 62, while Millicent has expelled 89 out of the 92 pellets she swallowed.
A field test of the pellets retrieved from them tested positive for cocaine.
Ernestina was said to have told interrogators that she bought the drugs on credit for $22,000 and that she was expected to pay back the owner after selling it, while Millicent bought hers for $25,000.
In an interaction with executives of Journalists Against Drugs and AIDS (JADA), a non-governmental organisation (NGO), in Accra yesterday, the Deputy Executive Secretary of NACOB, Mr Mark Ewuntomah, said the two were arrested while they were going through departure formalities at the KIA en route to The Netherlands on June 5, 2010.
He said that was the first time in the history of NACOB that women had been found to have swallowed pellets of cocaine.
According to him, Ernestina was arrested by officials on suspicion of having ingested narcotic drugs and a search conducted on her revealed that she had concealed 45 pellets of a whitish substance suspected to be cocaine in her panties.
She was also taken through a body scanner and that also revealed that she had foreign materials in her stomach.
According to Mr Ewuntomah, Ernestina told interrogators that someone by name Joyce had given her the drugs on credit for $22,000 and she was expected to sell it and make payment later.
She, however, could not assist NACOB officials to locate the said Joyce, whom she had claimed had sent a gentleman by name Chris to bring the drugs to her at a guest house at Kwashieman, Accra.
Millicent was arrested at the same time Ernestina was arrested and she was found to have concealed 33 pellets of cocaine in her underwear.
A body scan on her also revealed that she had ingested foreign materials. She was later sent to the offices of NACOB where she, just like Ernestina, is currently expelling cocaine she had swallowed.
She told interrogators that she had 125 pellets on her, out of which she swallowed 92 pellets.
According to the Deputy Executive Secretary of NACOB, the two women would be put before court immediately they finished expelling the pellets.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Fight corruption at all levels - US envoy

Monday, June 7, 2010 (Page13)

THE United States Ambassador to Ghana, Mr Donald Teitelbaum, has urged Ghanaians to make a conscious effort to fight corruption at all levels.
“Ghana is the finest democracy on the continent today. It is, therefore, important that we make it a duty as individuals to wash our hands off corruption,” the US envoy stated.
Mr Teitelbaum made the remarks at the opening ceremony of this year’s US-government sponsored Les Aspin anti-corruption and good governance programme in Accra.
Sixteen participants from Ghana, Nigeria and Mali are participating in the programme which begins from May 30 to July 6 2010.
The five-week training programme will be conducted in two phases. They are the introductory seminars and orientation in Ghana from May 30 to June 6, 2010.
The second phase where the participants will learn how traditions of accountability function effectively and how leadership and professional responsibility compliance and enforcement standards will be held in Washington DC from June 7 to July 5, 2010.
Mr Teitelbaum stated “we are all vulnerable to corruption. We take corruption for granted sometimes because we do not notice it. It is crucial we refuse to participate in it or condone it.”
He further stated that corruption was an evil that existed around mankind as such it would be a mistake if one accepted it, adding that institutions of state would strive if corruption was wiped out or reduced to the barest minimum.
Mr Teitelbaum advised the participants to make good use of the opportunity offered them by working tirelessly to nib corruption in the bud.
For her part, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood, said corruption posed a threat to political stability, rule of law, social justice and development.
She, therefore, underscored the need to secure judicial integrity before other national attributes could be achieved.
For that reason, a number of reforms aimed at increasing productivity, speeding justice delivery to the satisfaction of all parties as well as increasing public trust in the judiciary are currently ongoing.
Mrs Justice Wood further stated that an effective and reliable judiciary was critical and for that reason a monitoring, training and sanctions mechanisms had been put in place to ensure that justice was ofered to all irrespective of their political and social affiliations.
Mrs Justice Wood stated that the Supreme Court had played a commendable role to uphold the rule of law and good governance in the country.
The Chief Justice also highlighted the introduction of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms which had been instituted to facilitate the disposal of minor disputes among other initiatives.

The M&J bribery scandal case - Court decides on CHRAJ June 11

Saturday, June 5, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Human Rights Court will, on June 11, 2010, decide whether or not to prohibit the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) from further investigating six persons who are alleged to have been cited in the Mabey & Johnson (M&J) bribery scandal.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice U. P. Dery, fixed the date at the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday after it emerged that parties in the case had filed the necessary papers, paving the way for the court to fix a date for its ruling.
The applicants are praying the court to issue an order of prohibition to prevent the CHRAJ from conducting any further hearing into the allegation of corruption in the M&J investigations.
Mr Kwame Peprah, Alhaji Baba Kamara, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor and Dr Ato Quarshie accused the Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Francis Emile Short, of discussing the case pending before the commission extensively on a Metro TV programme and making very prejudicial statements on the matter but CHRAJ has denied any wrongdoing and maintained that irrespective of the alleged interview, it will be fair to the six applicants.
In an application for judicial review, the six argued that Mr Short was quoted on “Good Evening Ghana”, a current affairs programme on Metro TV, as stating that the preliminary objection raised as to the jurisdiction of CHRAJ to investigate private individuals was incompetent and would be dismissed by the Supreme Court.
An affidavit in support of the motion for judicial review, which was sworn on behalf of the applicants by Mr Peprah, stated that it was wrong for the commissioner to state that there was no basis for Alhaji Kamara to raise preliminary objections on the grounds that he (Alhaji Kamara) was not a public official at the time the alleged offence was committed but he (Mr Short) would all the same refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
It further stated that counsel for the applicants raised an objection to the effect that CHRAJ’s mandate, as provided under Article 218(e), related to only current public officers and not former public officers.
It said CHRAJ, accordingly, adjourned ruling on the issue of whether or not it had jurisdiction to investigate ex-public officers to March 29, 2010, adding that a day after the hearing, specifically on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, Mr Short, the Head of the CHRAJ panel hearing the case, granted an extensive interview on Metro TV, which lasted an hour, and stated, among other things, that documents he had received from the UK indicated that moneys paid to the applicants were bribes.
That assertion by Mr Short, according to the applicants, was unfortunate, as he had, by his statement, already predetermined the case and come to the conclusion that the applicants had received bribes.
“That Commissioner Short, in answer to a question from the interviewer, inferred that our preliminary objection raised as to whether CHRAJ had the power to investigate ex-public officials was without any basis whatsoever. This was when he stated that ‘the Baba Kamara case is slightly different’.
According to the applicants, Mr Short further stated that although he had referred the issue of whether or not CHRAJ could investigate a private person for interpretation to the Supreme Court, the court would dismiss the said preliminary objection, which he himself would have done if he had the mandate to do so. That statement, according to the applicants, was most unfortunate.
They further argued that it was most unprofessional for a judicial or quasi-judicial official, such as Commissioner Short, to discuss the views of the panel in a pending case before it with a third party and on national television and that the conduct of Commissioner Short, who stated that he was speaking for and on behalf of the commission, was such that they could not be guaranteed a fair hearing before CHRAJ.
According to the applicants, prohibiting CHRAJ “from investigating us will give meaning to the fact that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be manifestly being done”.
In an affidavit in opposition, CHRAJ argued that there was a clear difference between CHRAJ as an entity and its commissioner.
It said although Mr Short might have granted the said interview, his views were not that of CHRAJ, adding that even if he was disqualified from further investigating the matter, other commissioners would hear the matter in a fair manner.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Issa Mobilla's case adjourned

Friday, June 4, 2010 (Page 3)

THE trial involving three soldiers who have been accused of murdering the former Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), Alhaji Issa Mobilla, was yesterday adjourned because the foreman of the jurors was indisposed.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe, explained that the court had received a letter which indicated that the foreman of the seven-member jury was ill and had been given two weeks’ excuse duty by his medical doctor to recuperate.
Mr Justice Dzamefe said the accused persons were facing trial by indictment, which could not go on in the absence of a juror or jurors.
He, accordingly, adjourned hearing to June 28, 2010.
The accused — Corporal Yaw Appiah, Private Eric Modzaka and Private Seth Goka — are facing two counts of conspiracy and murder.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is on the run and is being tried in absentia.
The facts of the case are that 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 him. 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 that day.

GSB officials ordered to appear before court

Friday, June 4, 2010 (Page 3)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday directed that the official of the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) who conducted tests on 4.9 kilograms of cocaine found on the Chief Executive of the Exopa Modelling Agency, Ibrahim Sima, should appear before it and answer questions on the tests conducted.
The court’s order stemmed from the inability of a prosecution witness to answer certain questions pertaining to tests which were conducted on substances found on Sima on September 7, 2009.
An investigator at the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB), Mr Samuel Anabah, had on May 26, 2010 tendered in evidence a report from the GSB, which conducted an analysis on the substance found in three tubers of yam concealed in Sima’s luggage, but could not give outright answers on the report when he was cross-examined on it by counsel for Sima, Mr James Agalga.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, then moved in and directed that the officer who conducted the test be invited to answer questions on the report amidst protest from Mr Agalga, who was, on the last adjourned date, overruled by the court when he protested against the tendering of the document by Mr Anabah.
Sima, 39, was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport on September 7, 2009 after security officials had found three tubers of yam containing cocaine in his baggage while he was going through departure formalities for a trip to Germany.
He has pleaded not guilty to two counts of possessing narcotic drugs and attempting to export narcotic drugs without lawful authority and is currently in prison custody.
During cross-examination, Mr Anabah told the court that he was not present when a team of NACOB officers interrogated Sima.
He also denied an assertion from the defence counsel that six heavily armed men searched Sima’s house on the day of his arrest.
Mr Anabah told the court that he did not send to the police forensic laboratory for examination, the tubers of yam and the scraper which was used to scoop the tubers of yam before the cocaine was stuffed in them.
He said he gave the suspected narcotic substances which were retrieved from the yam in four polythene bags and labelled them from A to D.
He, however, could not explain why results on the substances came in as one and that prompted the court to order that an official from GSB should come to court and testify about it.
Hearing continues on June 18, 2010.

Court declares BoG's action null and void

Friday, June 4, 2010 (Front Page)

THE Human Rights Court has declared as null and void, a directive from the Bank of Ghana (BoG) which ordered the removal from office of Mr Oluwole Ajomale, the Managing Director of the Amalgamated Bank.
The court also declared that the BoG had no power to impose a fine on Mr Ajomale under the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723) and as such the BoG could not rely on same to issue a disqualifying directive in respect of Mr Ajomale’s position as Managing Director.
It also awarded GH¢20,000 damages against the BoG in favour of Mr Ajomale.
Counsel for Mr Ajomale, Kwame Boafo Akuffo, filed an application for judicial review after the BoG had in March, 2009, written to the Board Chairman and Board of Directors of Amalbank, requesting the replacement of Mr Ajomale, whose conduct the BoG described as constituting serious violations of the banking regulations and the Foreign Exchange Act and undermined the trust and confidence reserved for a person in that position.
The applicant also challenged an order from the BoG which directed him to pay a GH¢18,000 fine while the bank was directed to pay GH¢48,000 after the BoG had allegedly found fake foreign currencies in the bank’s vaults.
Granting the applicant’s reliefs, the presiding judge, Mr Justice U. P. Dery, held that it was wrong for the BoG to have come to such a conclusion without giving Mr Ajomale a fair hearing, which, according to the court, violated Mr Ajomale’s constitutional human rights as enshrined in Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution.
“The respondent failed to give the applicant a hearing before imposing penalties and sanctions on him contrary to the requirements of the Banking Act 673 (2004 ) as amended by the Banking (Amendment) Act 738 (2007). The respondent’s decision is thus null and void.
“Secondly, the respondent had no power to impose a fine of GH¢18,000 on the applicant under Act 673 as amended by Act 738, since the applicant did not violate these Acts but rather allegedly violated the Foreign Exchange Act 723 (2006 ) by which only a court of competent jurisdiction could have been the body to try the applicant and impose the requisite penalties,” the court further contended.
The court also quashed the directive that Mr Ajomale be replaced, as well as the directive that a penalty be imposed on him on the grounds that the directive was “ultra vires, in breach of natural justice and violates the fundamental human right of the applicant to administrative justice”.
The court further upheld submissions by counsel for the applicant that the BoG acted beyond its scope of statutory powers contained in the Foreign Exchange Act, which eventually denied Mr Ajomale substantive fairness or due process, thereby rendering the BoG’s order wrongful and invalid.
It also agreed with counsel’s submissions that the central bank’s failure to observe procedural fairness and due process in arriving at its conclusion and issuing the directive disqualifying Mr Ajomale was also invalid.
The court further held that Act 673 clearly explained the functions and powers of the BoG and “nowhere in these provisions were specific provisions made for dealings in foreign exchange,” adding that “the penalties provision referred to in section 52 (4), 53 (2) and 56 (5) do not refer to violations of foreign exchange guidelines”.
“Following from above, it is clear that the penalties imposed on the Amalgamated Bank and the applicant by the respondent by its letter of 03-03-2009 has no lawful basis,” the court ruled.
Touching on the BoG’s response to the suit, the court held that the BoG gave two contradictory stories to whether or not the bank or the applicant were heard and that, according to the court, “exposes the evidence of the respondent as a make-up story and untrue”.

Court says no to AG's retiring age

June 3, 2010 (Page 51)

THE Supreme Court by a majority decision yesterday dismissed an application which prayed it to peg the retirement age of the Auditor-General at 70 years.
In its three-hour ruling, the court ruled that the Auditor-General was a public servant and not an office holder under Article 70 of the 1992 Constitution and for that reason his retirement age was 60 years subject to renewal not exceeding five years.
Article 70 office holders include the Speaker and Deputy Speakers of Parliament, the Chief Justice and Justices of the Superior Court, members of the National Media Commission and the Lands Commission, among others.
The court accordingly dismissed an application filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament (MP) for the Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa Constituency in the Central Region, Mr P.C. Appiah-Ofori, which sought a declaration that by the combined effect of Articles 17, 70, 71, 144, 145, 146 and 187 of the 1992 Constitution and on a true and proper interpretation of the Constitution, retirement age of the Auditor-General was the same as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.
However, the court dismissed Mr Appiah-Ofori’s claim in its entirety and held that the Auditor-General by virtue of the Audit-Service Act, which was passed by Parliament and by virtue of Article 199 of the 1992 Constitution, was a public servant whose retirement age had been pegged at 60 years.
The court also dismissed his claims, which among others prayed it to declare that on the true and proper interpretation of the 1992 Constitution, the Auditor-General is not a public officer within the contemplation of and for the purposes of articles 191, 195 and 199 of the Constitution, but a public officer within articles 70 and 71 of the Constitution.
He also sought a declaration that section 10 (4) of the Audit Service Act, 2000 (Act 584) was inconsistent with and in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution, and accordingly same be declared null and void but that was also dismissed by six out of the nine justices of the Supreme Court.
The six who dismissed Mr Appiah-Ofori’s suit included Mr Justice W. A. Atuguba, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice Sulley Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo while the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina T. Wood, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mr Justice Jones Dotse held a dissenting view.
According to the majority, neither Article 199 nor the Audit Service Act which pegged the retiring age of the Auditor-General at 60 was inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution.
However, the three dissenting justices held that the Auditor-General fell under Article 70 office holders, although that Article did not specifically state the retirement age of the Auditor-General.
Reading her reasons, Mrs Justice Wood held that the Constitution omitted the retirement age for the Auditor-General thereby leaving a legally permissible gap to be filled by the court and accordingly granted the reliefs being sought by Mr Appiah-Ofori.
The three were of the view that the office of the Auditor-General was a sensitive one which needed to be protected from political interference.
The court declined to award cost against Mr Appiah-Ofori, who was present in court. The immediate past Auditor-General, Mr Edward Dua Agyeman, was also present in court.
Reacting to the court’s decision, Mr Appiah-Ofori, who filed the suit in July 2007, said he would not give up.
Although he declined to go for review, he stated that he would put his case before the Constitutional Review Commission for redress.
Mr Appiah-Ofori brought the action against the Attorney-General in his capacity as a citizen of the Republic of Ghana.
Mr Agyeman, who said he was currently on leave, declined to comment on the court’s ruling.

Ghanair case adjourned

June 1, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE case involving five persons accused of causing financial loss related to the sale of Ghana Airways and the operations of Ghana International Airline (GIA) was yesterday adjourned because the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is out of the country.
The matter was, accordingly, adjourned to June 21, 2010, by which time she would have arrived to respond to an application filed by counsel for the accused persons which is praying the Financial Division of the High Court to refer their request for relevant documents on the case to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
The accused persons — Dr Richard Anane, a former Minister of Transport; Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, a former Chief of Staff and Minister for Presidential Affairs; Dr Anthony Akoto Osei, a former Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; Mr Sammy Crabbe, a former Greater Accra Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and Prof George Gyan-Baffour — variously face 22 counts of causing financial loss to the state, defrauding by false pretences, conspiracy to deceive public officers, deceit of public officer, misappropriation of public funds, opening an offshore account without authorisation from the Bank of Ghana (BoG), conspiracy to commit stealing and stealing.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, has granted them self-recognisance bail.
At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, an Assistant State Attorney, Mr Kwame Amoako, told the court that the DPP, Ms Gertrude Aikins, was in Uganda on a national assignment, for which reason the prosecution would need an adjournment.
The court also granted a request by Mr Sam Okudzeto, counsel for Prof Gyan-Baffour, to grant his client permission to receive medical treatment in the United States of America (USA) from June 5, 2010 to June 25, 2010.
All the accused persons were present and, as usual, their family members and sympathisers thronged the court premises in their numbers to give them support.
Counsel for the accused persons have filed applications requesting for relevant documents to aid their defence, under Article 19 (2e) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “a person charged with criminal offence shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”.
But the State has opposed the application on the grounds that sections 163 and 181 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 (Act 30) do not allow accused persons who are standing trial summarily to have access to such documents.
Following the State's opposition, lawyers for the accused are praying the court to refer their request for an order directed at the Attorney-General to furnish them with all documents and exhibits the prosecution intends to rely on during the trial to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
According to the lawyers, Act 30, which the State relied on, clearly contravened Article 19 (2e) of the 1992 Constitution, which they described as being "supreme to all laws of the land".
According to the accused persons, all documents, including letters, technical evaluations and reports, business plans, press releases, Cabinet memos, memoranda of understanding (MoU), shareholders’ agreement, tenancy agreements, among a host of others, were what the prosecution intended to rely on during the trial and it was important that they had access to those documents in order to have a fair trial, as enshrined in the Constitution.
The lawyers have argued that the Constitution compelled the Attorney-General to provide the accused persons with appropriate documents to facilitate their defence and further argued that the apparent conflict between the prosecution and the defence needed to be handled by the Supreme Court.
Issues intended to be referred to the Supreme Court are whether or not within the plain, natural and practical meaning of Article 19 (1) and (2e) of the Constitution, an accused person in a criminal trial, whether charged summarily or by indictment, is entitled to a disclosure of copies of statements made to police by persons who will and may be called to testify as prosecution witnesses and copies of documents and exhibits which are to be offered in evidence by the prosecution before trial, among others.