Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Microsoft warns consumers and businesses in Ghana to beware of fake software

Accra, Ghana — 12 December 2011 Ghanaian law enforcement authorities raided the premises of Skynet Computers and Accessories, a computer reseller operating in Asylum Down, Accra after obtaining a search warrant from a Magistrate Court. The raid took place on 30 November 2011 and the matter has been handed to the Ghana Copyright Office for further investigation.

The raid points to the fact that many resellers are in possession of high quality counterfeit software that is packaged like genuine software – a trend resulting in many consumers, who believe they are purchasing software from a reliable source, unknowingly becoming victims to software piracy.

Says Seye Oloruntoba, Anti-Piracy Manager, Microsoft Anglophone West Africa: “We’ve noticed a rising number of what turn out to be ‘accidental pirates’ – people who unintentionally purchase counterfeit software from resellers and only later find out they have been duped. In doing so, they expose themselves to a plethora of risks, which in the long-run can prove extremely costly for individuals, and often disastrous for businesses. Honest resellers, who sell only genuine software, are put at an unfair disadvantage, and ultimately the whole economy feels the effects. ”

39 pieces of suspected counterfeit Microsoft Windows software were recovered at Skynet Computers and Accessories’ premises. While the original source of the counterfeit software in still under investigation, it is understood that Skynet Computers and Accessories had recently supplied 400 pieces of Windows 7 Professional software to a local bank.
A recent global study conducted by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) revealed that over 70% of PC users in Africa acquire software illegally on a regular basis and confirmed that many consumers are unsure of what constitutes software piracy .

“We are actively working to ensure our customers and partners in Ghana are protected from unscrupulous suppliers,” added Oloruntoba. “This is a responsibility we take extremely seriously. When they come to us for help, we make sure they receive the necessary support and we also alert local law enforcement authorities like the Ghana Copyright Office. There must be severe consequences for those who sell pirated and counterfeit software in Ghana.”

It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between genuine and non-genuine software, unless consumers are discerning and know what to look out for. Oloruntoba suggests following these tips to avoid being misled when purchasing software:

1. Before you purchase Windows software, ask resellers to confirm it will pass the Windows activation test. Activation and validation are the keys to genuine software.
2. Beware of the common gateways of digital counterfeiting: websites advertising ‘cheap software’; online auction sites with links to download sites offering counterfeit software; and peer-to-peer (P2P) networks or other file-sharing technologies.
3. Buy from a trusted source. Research online or local sellers extensively before making a purchase.
4. Compare the price. Counterfeit software is often sold at a much cheaper price, but can end up costing users hundreds or thousands of dollars.
5. Be suspicious of products that lack some form of proof of authenticity – such as a hologram, CD, DVD, recovery media, manuals and Microsoft Software License Terms (MSLT).
6. Be extremely careful when buying from software sellers in other countries as this complicates matters if the transaction goes awry.
7. Keep your anti-virus program up to date. This reduces your computer’s risk of exposure to viruses and malware when downloading software.
8. Say no to sellers offering backup copies or bundles of several programs.

For more information on how to protect yourself from counterfeit software, as well as tips and tricks for how to spot and avoid illegal software, please visit Microsoft’s anti-counterfeiting site http://www.howtotell.com.
About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq “MSFT”) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential.

Editorial Contact
Olabisi Soleye
itg Communications for Microsoft Nigeria

Thursday, July 28, 2011

'Fee-paying policy legal'

July 29, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Supreme Court yesterday declared that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian public universities was not discriminatory under the 1992 Constitution. In a unanimous decision, the court held that the policy had rather made it possible for more qualified students to gain admission to public universities under the current 10 per cent quota allocated to foreign students, adding, ÒFull fee-paying policy must continue.Ó It also affirmed that 28 per cent of the total revenue of public universities was generated from fees collected from fee-paying students, pointing out that those students were currently subsidising the education of non-fee paying students. The court, accordingly dismissed an action filed by the Federation of Youth Associations of Ghana (FEDYAG) against the public universities and the Attorney-General which sought a declaration that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian public universities was unconstitutional and discriminatory under the Constitution. The FEDYAG instituted the action through its lawyer, Mr Dennis Ofosuapea, claiming that the public universities had been ÒsellingÓ spaces to people based on their economic status and not their intellectual abilities. The public universities, represented by Mr Ace Anan Ankomah and Mr Kwesi Fynn, however, argued that admissions were generally based on how much subvention the government made available to them each year, adding that it was over and above the quota determined by government subventions, that spaces were made available to foreign students, Ghanaian nationals resident abroad and Ghanaian students who had qualified but did not receive admission because they could not be covered by the government subvention. They also argued that the money earned from the full-fee paying students constituted 28 per cent of their overall income and that that money had gone to support non-fee paying students and provided scholarships for students from deprived senior high schools. The panel of nine judges, headed by Mr Justice W.A. Atuguba, declared that the full-fee paying policy was justified and achieved a constitutionally valid purpose because it was one of the means by which the universities had been able to offer education to others. The ruling, read on behalf of the panel by Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyirah, disagreed with the plaintiff and, accordingly, averred that the plaintiff did not understand how the fee-paying system worked. It also held that the plaintiff could not substantiate its claims that the fee-paying policy was discriminatory and not transparent. According to the court, the universities were able to fully articulate and justify with statistics how the fee-paying system worked and also justified that admissions were purely based on merit and not ability to pay. The court further stated that the fee-paying policy was not unprecedented, since it was practised in other African countries and world-wide. It stated that apart from bare assertions made by the plaintiff, it failed to offer any further proof of its case, adding that although Article 25 of the Constitution demanded same or equal chances for educational advancement to Ghanaians, it recognised inherent limitations based on the capacity of the student and the availability of educational facilities. The ultimate object of Article 25, according to the court, was free education by gradual introduction, holding that under Article 38, educational objectives could only be implemented by Òthe availability of resourcesÓ. The court was of the view that the reality was that education came with costs, such as in infrastructure, pointing out that Ghana could not provide free tertiary education in the shortest time possible. It, therefore, suggested the award of more grants, insurance and adequate student loans to enable more students to access university education. The President of the panel, Mr Justice Atuguba, congratulated the FEDYAG on instituting the action and said the fact that its action had failed did not mean it had not served the country well. Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sofia Akuffo, Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

Bawku MP's case - Supreme Court rules on appeal in October

July 27, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Supreme Court will, on October 26, 2011, review its decision on whether or not it has the jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande.The court had, in October 2010 and in a 6-3 majority decision, ruled that it had the jurisdiction to hear an appeal challenging the eligibility of Mr Sakande as an MP.The court had overturned counsel for the MPÕs argument that electoral disputes ended at the Court of Appeal and for that reason the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of AppealÕs decision that a suit brought against the MP by a cattle farmer, Mr Sumaila Biebel, was an electoral dispute.Mr Biebel had, in March 2009, filed a suit at the High Court challenging the eligibility of the MP on the grounds that the MP held both British and Burkinabe passports.The High Court, in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High CourtÕs decision, counsel for the MP appealed, resulting in the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, declaring that Mr Biebel should have gone by an electoral petition, since the matter bordered on electoral dispute.Under the law, all matters relating to electoral disputes are to be heard as electoral petitions and those petitions are to be heard 21 days after results have been declared. At its sitting in Accra yesterday, the Supreme Court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, directed the Attorney-GeneralÕs Department to file its written submissions to the MPÕs application on or before July 29, 2011 following the failure of the department to file an address, although it was a party in the suit.Other members of the panel were Justices S.A. Brobbey, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Annin Yeboah, P. Baffoe-Bonnie, B.T. Aryeetey, G.S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo.The court gave Mr Biebel up to October 14, 2011 to file his response to the A-GÕs response, while ruling on the matter would be delivered on October 26, 2011.Moving his application for review, counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, argued that the highest court of the land had no jurisdiction to entertain Mr BiebelÕs suit because the suit was an electoral dispute clothed in constitutionalism.According to counsel, the Supreme CourtÕs decision in October 2010 did not take into consideration the position of the law on electoral disputes, as well as its own numerous decisions on electoral disputes.

Court denies EOCO's appeal for stay

July 20, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) suffered another setback yesterday when the Human Rights Court dismissed its application for stay of execution of the courtÕs order to pay GH¢59,000 in damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).EOCOÕs first setback was on May 13, 2011 when the same court declared that it had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity, and, accordingly, ordered EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December last year.Dissatisfied with the courtÕs ruling, EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.Counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone for the appeal under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.On July 5, 2011, counsel had argued that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.Opposing his opponentÕs application, counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.He further argued that EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because it was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple its operations.Counsel explained that EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the office was not financially resourced.In a terse ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Uuter Paul Dery, upheld counsel for the GFAÕs preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules. In its appeal, EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple its functions.It is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCOÕs assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises. It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body, adding that the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.

Bawku MP appeals against High Court decision

July 19, 2011 (Centre Spread)

THE Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, has appealed against a High CourtÕs decision which directed that the state could recall a witness in his nationality trial if it wished to do so.According to lawyers for the MP, it was wrong for the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, to direct the prosecution on how to conduct its trial.The court had, on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed ÒambiguityÓ arising from the MPÕs evidence and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his British nationality status.Lead counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, is arguing that it was wrong for the court to direct the prosecution to recall a witness months after the prosecution had closed its case and especially when it had not made such a request.According to the defence, the trial judge assumed the role of a lawyer when he directed the prosecution to recall a witness if it so wished.Meanwhile, the defence team has filed for stay of proceedings at the lower court pending the determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.At the Court of Appeal sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said the prosecution had not filed its affidavit in opposition to the MPÕs application because he had been out of the jurisdiction.He also raised a preliminary objection to the motion for stay of proceedings and stated that the defence should have filed for stay of proceedings at the High Court and not the Court of Appeal, as stated in Section 28 of C.I. 19.However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke, with Justices F. Kusi-Appiah and Dennis Adjei as panel members, drew Mr WireduÕs attention to Section 27 of C.I. 19 and stated that the High Court could not stay its own proceedings.According to the court, the section Mr Wiredu quoted referred only to stay of execution of a courtÕs order and not stay of proceedings. Mr Wiredu conceded.The court then dismissed his preliminary objection and gave the prosecution 10 days to file its affidavit in opposition.On June 8, 2011, the High Court, after giving the prosecution the opportunity to recall a witness, however, refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, Mr Justice Quist devoted a major part of his ruling to explain why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MPÕs claims, citing authorities.Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Kulendi, in his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his clientÕs defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but he was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.

Monday, July 18, 2011

PNC Court case - Dr Mahama, others acquitted

Friday, July 15, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six other executives of the party were yesterday acquitted and discharged of a contempt of court charge.
The other executives are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Chairman; Bernard Mornah, General Secretary; Attik Mohammed, Policy Analyst of the PNC; Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held a different view and accordingly awarded costs of GH¢5,000 against the applicants.
Giving its ruling on the matter, the court was of the view that the conduct of Dr Mahama and the other executives did not constitute contempt of court.
According to the court, the word “party members” in the lower court’s ruling was not referable to Dr Mahama and the other respondents because the preceding words in the said ruling clearly referred to the applicants.
It said it would be improper to stop Dr Mahama and the other respondents from carrying out their duties as executives of the party, since that would be in violation of the Political Parties Act.
Reacting to the court’s ruling, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said he would apply for a copy of the ruling, study it and advise his clients accordingly.
He was of the view that the costs awarded against his clients were harsh, adding, “The costs will further deepen the internal crisis within the party.”
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to the applicants, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
However, the respondents raised preliminary legal objection and argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed. But on May 12, 2011, the court dismissed the preliminary objection and moved to hear the contempt application.
It arrived at yesterday's decision after hearing both parties in the case.

Madina rioters case adjourned

July 12, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE case involving 20 people who were allegedly involved in a violent clash between the police and a section of the youth at Madina Zongo Junction in Accra on May 17, 2011 has been adjourned.
The clash, which bordered on a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land, resulted in the injury of eight people, including two policemen.
The Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, adjourned the case to August 10, 2011 following a plea from the prosecution for a short adjournment.
A Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr Kofi Blagodzi, informed the court that a committee set up by the government to investigate the riots had completed its work and submitted its report.
According to him, he was yet to receive briefing on the findings of the committee and, therefore, prayed the court for a short adjournment.
The accused persons are Abdul Hamid, Adam Mohammed, Alidue Hamidu, Bala Camal, James Fadama, Anas Matire, Abubakar Alhassan, Salifu Haridu, Tahiru Kadri and Monsuro Musah.
The rest are Musah Abubakar, Tibriru Masawudu, Musah Mahmoud, Tahiru Ali, Zibrim Abubakar, Ibrahim Alhassan, Aminu Salifu, Baki Salifu, Jerry Mc-Mills Gomelessio and Mohammed Raffi.
They were each charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting with weapons, causing unlawful damage and assault on public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and are currently on bail.
On May 17, 2011, the Madina Zongo Junction area was thrown into chaos when the police fired tear gas, rubber and live ammunition to disperse angry youth protesting the take-over of a parcel of land by the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools.
According to the demonstrators, the land was the only available space in the area for public activities, including political rallies, church crusades and Islamic festivities.
The land in question has been a subject of litigation between the Baptist Church and some members of the community for close to 17 years.
However, the issuance of a writ of possession by an Accra High Court for the church to take over the land, which a bailiff served on the people occupying the land to vacate the place within two weeks, sparked the riot.
Some kiosks and food vending tables in the Zongo community were destroyed, while at the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools glass windows were shattered by the stone-throwing youth.
According to the prosecution, the police managed to restore order, but two policemen sustained injuries in the process.

Judge unhappy with absence of AMA boss

Thursday, July 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday expressed its dissatisfaction at the absence of the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, who, together with another person, has been cited for contempt in two different contempt applications.
According to the trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, although the court’s clerk had informed him (judge) that Mr Vanderpuije was in the court earlier before leaving for an official assignment, it was unacceptable for him to be absent.
He reminded counsel for the AMA that the contempt application was a quasi-criminal matter for which reason he directed Mr Vanderpuije to be personally present in court until the matter was determined.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, took note of the judge’s position and explained that Mr Vanderpuije did not act out of disrespect for the court.
In the first contempt application, Mr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing the payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.??????
Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
Meanwhile, Mr Vanderpuije has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and Mr Yankah.
He also filed another application praying the court to stay its June 8, 2011 order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
At the court’s hearing in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AAG was short served with Mr Vanderpuije’s application and ,for that reason, filed its affidavit in opposition yesterday morning.
Following the new development, the court adjourned the matter to July 15, 2011 to enable the AAG to serve the AMA with its affidavit in opposition.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije’s) security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije’s office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait. The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, “Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.”
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
Mr Vanderpuije denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

EOCO Files For Stay Of Execution

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 (Front Page)

The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed for a stay of execution of a court order which directed it to pay GH¢59,000 being damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).

The Human Rights Court on May 13, 2011 declared that the EOCO had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity.

It accordingly ordered the EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.

It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of the fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December, last year.

Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.

Before counsel for the EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, could move the motion for stay of execution at the court’s sitting yesterday, counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that the EOCO should have come under Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.

He explained that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.

Opposing his colleague’s application, Dr Anderson argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

He further argued that the EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because the EOCO was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple EOCO’s operations.
Counsel explained that the EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the EOCO was not financially resourced.

In its appeal, the EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple the function of the EOCO which was on government subvention.

The EOCO is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.

On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCO’s assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises.

It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.

It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body.

It said the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.

The court further contended that the state could be said to have financial interest in an institution when the state funded the running of that institution and expected dividend from it.

It also declared that the court order obtained by EOCO and the subsequent seizure of the GFA's documents and computers were illegal and wrong.

Besides, the court held that EOCO had violated the GFA's right to privacy, property and work.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Tsikata Pursues Appeal Against Conviction

July 5, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

The Court of Appeal Monday directed its registrar to furnish the state with the record of proceedings at the Fast Track High Court which convicted Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, a former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).

The state is also expected to be served with exhibits of the trial of Mr Tsikata, who was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in June, 2008, for wilfully causing financial loss to the state and misapplying public property.

Mr Tsikata, who was released in December, 2008, under presidential pardon, filed an appeal against his conviction saying the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence on record.

At the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Merley Wood, informed the court that the court on the last adjourned date ordered that mistakes in the record of proceedings at the lower court be corrected but that had not been done yet.

Mr Tsikata, whose lawyer was absent, explained that there were no mistakes in the record of proceedings; rather the court had on May 27, 2010, ordered that the font sizes of the record of proceedings be emboldened.

He also stated that the record of proceedings did not come with exhibits.

The court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke and supported by Mr Justice K. N. Aduama-Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, accordingly directed the registrar to serve the state with the records of proceedings and exhibits.

A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata was found guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public property and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.

The former chief executive of the GNPC was charged in 2002 with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state through a loan he guaranteed for Valley Farms, a private cocoa-producing company, on behalf of the GNPC, and another count of misapplying GH¢2,000 in public property.

Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991, but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.

Tsikata pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted a recognisance bail.

On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata had gone to the court without his lawyer who, he said, was outside the jurisdiction on the day of his incarceration, and had sought to take a date for the hearing of a fresh motion on notice to take further evidence that he had filed at the court.

The motion sought an order granting leave for the defence to call further evidence in the case but the court, presided over by Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, convicted him.

In the grounds of appeal, Mr Tsikata contended that the trial judge erred in law in deciding that financial loss had been caused simply because payment of monies had been made by the GNPC.

According to him, the trial judge erred in law in deciding that there was no provision for indemnity from Valley Farms for the guarantee when the express terms of the guarantee agreement gave GNPC a right of subrogation over the assets of Valley Farms.

It said the trial judge erred in law in deciding that because the said investment in Valley Farms was outside the objects of GNPC, on her interpretation of the statute setting up GNPC, financial loss had thereby been caused to the state.

According to the appellant, the trial judge showed manifest bias against him in the conduct of the trial and particularly in relation to her decision to proceed to give judgement when no notice had been served on him to the effect that judgement would be given on that fateful day.

He said the trial judge manifested her determination to give a biased judgement by striking out an application by his counsel to introduce further evidence from admissions made by the Attorney-General during a Supreme Court proceeding that there was no dispute about the viability of the evidence when his counsel had written to the court to explain his absence and requested a date for the hearing of the application.

He said the trial judge also erred in disregarding evidence from the prosecution itself that made it clear that the project in relation to which the charges had been brought was a profitable investment which would have yielded benefits to the nation and the GNPC.

The appellant argued that the trial judge again erred in claiming that an investment in a cocoa project was unrelated to the business of the government when there was uncontested evidence that funding from the export of cocoa was critical to the responsibility of GNPC to import crude oil for the country.

He noted that the trial judge again erred in holding that the he had admitted in a caution statement that he authorised the GNPC Head of Finance to effect the payment in the charge sheet.

According to Mr Tsikata, the trial judge further erred in failing to appreciate the role that Merchant Bank played as the trustee of GNPC resources.

Ghana @ 50 Ruling, State Appeals Against Mpiani, Wereko-Brobbey

Tuesday, July 5,2011 (Lead Story)

HEARING of the state’s appeal against the acquittal and discharge of a former Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani, and Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, of all charges of wilfully causing financial loss to the state began at the Court of Appeal yesterday.

The case was, however, adjourned indefinitely because Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process filed by the state.
Consequently, the court directed its registrar to serve appeal processes on Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani.

The two former officials of the defunct Ghana@50 Secretariat were discharged by the Accra Fast Track High Court on August 11, 2010 on the grounds that due process was not followed to warrant their prosecution.

Dissatisfied with their discharge, the state filed an appeal but it emerged at the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.

Dr Wereko-Brobby has, however, been served with the appeal process.

Counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobby, Mr Akoto Ampaw, drew the court’s attention to the fact that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.

He, therefore, stated that it was important that the issue was resolved before hearing of the appeal could proceed.

Following counsel’s submission, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Canyon, with Mr Justice K. N. Aduama Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei as the other members, accordingly directed the registrar of the court to serve Mr Mpiani with the relevant documents on the case.

A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the substantive appeal.

Among the grounds of appeal filed by the state are that the trial judge erred in law when he concluded that before adverse findings or reports were deemed to be judgements of the High Court, the constitutional arrangements under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution precluded the Attorney-General from initiating prosecution against persons affected adversely by the findings or reports of commissions of inquiry, whose conclusion was clearly a gross misdirection on the powers of the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.

It said the judge, having confused himself on the issues as to ‘public inquiries developing into criminal trials’ and ‘public inquiries forming the basis of criminal trials’, erroneously concluded that the prosecutions in the High Court of persons against whom adverse findings were made by the commissions established under Constitutional Instrument (C.I) 36 of 2002 were in contravention of Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.

The trial judge, it said, having misinformed himself that all persons who appeared before the Ghana@50 Commission of Inquiry were called as witnesses, failed to appreciate the legal distinction between a person called by a commission of inquiry ‘as a subject of inquiry or as having been in anyway implicated/concerned in the matter under inquiry’ and ‘as witness’ under Article 282 and 283 of the 1992 Constitution respectively, and thereby came to the wrong conclusion that the respondents were compellable witnesses whose incriminatory evidence was not used in any criminal or civil proceedings against them under Section 10 of C.I 61, rather than finding that the respondents were either subjects of inquiry or persons who were otherwise implicated/concerned in the matter before the Ghana@50 Inquiry within the meaning of Article 282 of the 1992 Constitution and on the strength of the evidence before him.

It said the trial judge misinformed himself on the import of Sections 8 and 9 of the Commission of Inquiry (Ghana@50) Instrument, 2009 (C.I 61) of 2009 relating to privilege, indemnity and immunities of persons appearing before the commission when he held that the criminal proceedings subsequently instituted against the respondents at the High Court after the commission’s work were wrong in law.

Dr Wereko-Brobby, also known as Tarzan, the former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana@50 Secretariat, and Mr Mpiani, Chairman of the National Planning Committee (NPC) for Ghana@50, were charged with four counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state.

They pleaded not guilty and were each admitted to GH¢35 million on their own recognisance bail.

A Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, in his ruling, upheld the motion of the defence that under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution, the accused persons were entitled to an appeal at the Court of Appeal because the Ghana @50 Commission of Inquiry which recommended the prosecution of the two had the powers of the High Court.

According to the court, although the law mandated the Attorney-General (A-G) to prosecute, the A-G must ensure that due process of the law was adhered to, adding that the arguments put forward by the prosecution that the accused persons misappropriated Ghana @50 property at Trassaco Valley were not part of the charges before the court.

It said Article 282 (61)(2a) and (62) of the Constitution made it unlawful for the prosecution to charge the accused persons who appeared before the Commission of Enquiry as witnesses with any criminal offence.

It accordingly advised that any time the state wanted to prosecute people considered to have misappropriated state resources, it could resort to other investigative agencies and not a Commission of Enquiry.

The facts of the case were that Parliament 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.

The prosecution said 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 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 said it was against that background that the Commission of Enquiry was set up by President John Evans Atta Mills into activities of Ghana@50 Secretariat and the entire celebration.

According to the prosecution, the Commission found out that although Parliament had approved GH¢29.31 million for the celebration, GH¢97,776,338.44 was spent on it, out of which GH¢75,569,563.34 was directly spent by the Secretariat and the NPC.

The Secretariat and NPC, therefore, spent about GH¢46,999,563 in excess of the amount approved by Parliament for the celebration, the prosecution said.

It further stated that the Commission of Enquiry also found out that contrary to Articles 176 and 178 of the 1992 Constitution, the Secretariat and NPC used all the internally generated funds, totalling GH¢19,352,498.00, without approval from Parliament.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Court stops govt, CSC from probing director

June 30,2011 (Page 3 Lead)

The Human Rights Court has prohibited the government and the Civil Service Council from proceeding with investigations against a former Director of the Ministry of Youth and Sports and another over the disbursement and loss of $30,000 at the ministry.

The court also declared that the purported investigations being undertaken by the Civil Service Council into the alleged disbursement and loss of $30,000 and the invitation to the two to appear before the so-called fact-finding committee of the council were 'actuated by bias and prejudice and, therefore, unlawful and a gross infringement of the applicants' fundamental human right to a fair hearing under Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution'.

According to the court, the Civil Service Council had demonstrated that it did not have an impartial mind to conduct investigations against Mr Albert Anthony Ampong, a former Chief Director, and Mr Adim Odoom, a former Principal Accountant, both of the Ministry of Youth and Sports.

The legal tussle between the applicants and the council began on July 7, 2009 when the two were interdicted for their alleged disbursement of $20,000 and $10,000 to a former Minister of Youth and Sports, Alhaji Muntaka Mohammed Mubarak.

The two applicants reported the conduct of Alhaji Mubarak to the President, resulting in the National Security Council taking over investigations.

The two were found culpable after investigations.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations, their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed an application for judicial review on their behalf.

In December 2009, the Accra Fast Track High Court, in two separate rulings, held that the interdiction of the two was illegal and, accordingly, quashed an order directed at them to refund $30,00 to the state coffers.

The court held that the sanctions must not be applied against the two based on the national security report which it described as 'flawed'.

According to the court, due process was not followed and for that reason it was inappropriate for sanctions to be applied against the two because they had neither been investigated nor charged for any offence.

The applicants resumed work as ordered by the court, but the Civil Service Council, by a letter dated March 31, 2010, interdicted them and indicated its intention to conduct investigations into their conduct in the disbursement of the $30,000.

The two, however, instituted legal action, resulting in the Human Rights Court, on November 8, 2010, declaring the decision of the Civil Service Council as unlawful.

Despite the Human Rights Court's directive, the Civil Service Council decided to embark on a fact-finding mission but the court held that from its letters to the applicants, it was clear that the Civil Service had not conducted fresh investigations and it was, therefore, relying on the flawed National Security report to conduct the said investigations into the disbursement of the $30,000.

'It was simply carrying forward the President's directives, which were declared unlawful by the Fast Track Division of this court,' the court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, held.

Citing authorities to support its decision, the court held that the council simply wanted a way to rubber-stamp the National Security investigations and the President's directives which said the two should be interdicted.

According to the court, the findings of fact against the applicants by the Civil Service Council were the same conclusions the National Security Council had arrived at, adding, 'It is obvious that this fact-finding committee is a ruse. It is not a genuine, impartial, fact-finding committee.'

It further held that the applicants would not be given a fair hearing, which would be a violation of their right to administrative justice pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution, pointing out that the applicants were, therefore, entitled to be protected under Article 33 of the Constitution.

The court awarded costs of GH¢6,000 against the Civil Service Council.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

AMA Boss Files Appeal Against Contempt Case

June 29, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

The Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.

Mr Vanderpuije, who was absent in court yesterday, filed another application praying the court to stay the order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, announced the filing of the appeal and stay of execution of the court order when the matter was called yesterday and stated that the motion for stay of execution would be moved on July 6, 2011.

Opposing counsel's plea for an adjournment, counsel for the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG), Mr George Ankomah Mensah, prayed the court to issue a bench warrant for Mr Vanderpuije's arrest but the court declined.

The two applications, which were filed on Monday, are yet to be served on the court and the AAG.

The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.

But he has denied any wrongdoing.
In the first contempt application, Mr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the AAG until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.

In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.

Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.

The court's ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.

The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije's) security guard.

According to Mr Baffour, he informed Mr Vanderpuije that because it was a contempt application, he was expected to personally sign for it but Mr Vanderpuije walked out on him while directing Baffour to give the documents to his security guard.

He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije's office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait.

The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.

A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.

Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, 'Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.'

According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.

The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.

An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.

He also denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Bawku Central MP's case - Hearing adjourned

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE nationality trial involving the Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, was today adjourned because the prosecutor in the case is out of the jurisdiction.
A Chief State Attorney, Mrs Merley Wood, informed the court when the case was called that the substantive prosecutor, Mr Rexford Wiredu, was outside the country and accordingly, prayed the court to adjourn the case.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, adjourned the case to July 18, 2011.
The court had on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness, if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed “ambiguity” arising from the evidence of the MP and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his nationality status.
However, the court refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.
Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, devoted a major part of his ruling to why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MP’s claims, citing authorities.
Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, on his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.
After the ruling, the court declined to grant the defence team’s request for a short adjournment to enable it (defence team) to study the ruling for the necessary action to be taken.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Student remanded for possessing heroin

June 24, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

A student who was arrested for allegedly possessing 416 grammes of heroin was yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Frimpong Ntim has pleaded not guilty to two counts of attempting to export a narcotic drug without licence and possession of a narcotic drug without lawful authority.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, a High Court judge with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge, warned that the court would proceed to hear the case if the lawyer for the accused person did not appear on the next adjourned date.
Counsel was absent when the matter was called, prompting the trial judge to adjourn the case to July 7, 2011.
Frimpong, who reportedly hid 36 pellets of heroin in his baggage and swallowed four pellets, was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) around 8:30 p.m. on December 20, 2010.
The facts of the case are that the accused person arrived at the KIA on December 20, 2010 to board a United Airlines flight to Washington, DC, USA.
While he was undergoing departure formalities, officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) suspected him of carrying narcotic drugs and, therefore, picked him up for questioning.
A search in his baggage, according to the prosecution, revealed 36 pellets of a brownish substance suspected to be heroin.
Frimpong was said to have confessed to swallowing four pellets of the drug. He was later sent to the NACOB Headquarters where he expelled the four pellets.
According to the prosecution, the accused person admitted in his caution statement that someone called Sulley of Accra Newtown had given him the heroin to be delivered to somebody in Washington, DC, for a fee of $6,000.
A report from the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) confirmed that the substance found on Frimpong was heroin, with a net weight of 416 grammes.

Terminator of telephone calls jailed

June 23, 2011 (Front page)

THE mastermind behind the illegal termination of international telephone traffic in Ghana, Hassan Nonni, was yesterday sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court.
The convict interfered with international telephone traffic by making international calls as local ones, thereby denying the country and the service providers large amounts of revenue.
Nonni was apprehended at his hideout in Achimota, Accra, in November 2010.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of providing electronic communications service without a licence and knowingly obstructing and interfering with the sending, transmission, delivering and reception of communication.
The investigator in charge of the case was expected to testify when the case was called, but Nonni, who had earlier pleaded not guilty, decided to change his plea to guilty.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, then found him guilty on both counts and sentenced him accordingly to five years’ imprisonment on both counts. The sentences are to run concurrently.
The facts of the case were that Nonni, a Ghanaian who has been resident in Italy for the past 23 years and holds an Italian passport, had in his possession at the time of his arrest sophisticated gadgets used in his illicit enterprise.
Experts identified them as a Cisco Router and three pieces of Telles IGate equipment which uses four megawatts user Internet account, each with 16 slot cards.
Also in his possession were 3,869 SIM cards, mainly from Vodafone and Zain.
Each of the SIM cards was capable of generating approximately US$40 and it had been estimated that his operations led to the loss of millions of dollars to telecom operators and the government.
His arrest followed a joint anti-fraud task force which was set up by the National Communications Authority (NCA), in conjunction with the telecom operators, to track down people involved in the fraudulent by-pass of international calls.

New jury for Mobilla's case

June 23, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

TRIAL begins at the Accra Motor Court on August 15, 2011 of the popular female musician, Nana Akua Amoah, alias Mzbel, and her two friends who are charged for assaulting a police officer.
The court fixed the date when the accused persons, who were granted bail by the Human Rights Court last Wednesday, appeared before it on Thursday.
Mzbel, Maxwell Mensah, a businessman, and Emmanuel Edem Lordzoh, a student, were on Monday refused bail and remanded in custody by the Motor Court to reappear on Friday, June 10, 2011 when they made their first appearance before the court, charged with traffic-related offences.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, counsel for the three, Mr Anthony Naamo, applied and secured bail for them at the Human Rights Court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery.
Mzbel has pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Maxwell has been charged with four counts of unauthorised parking, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, while Emmanuel is charged with driving without licence.
The two have also pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence with a Mitsubishi vehicle, with registration number GR 9470 - 11, at Tudu in Accra about 12.40 p.m. on June 4, 2011 but the defence team has denied the charges.

EOCO's motion to confiscate Exopa's assets - Hearing adjourned

June 22, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE hearing of the motion filed by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to give the office the permission to confiscate and dispose of assets of the Chief Executive Officer of the Exopa Modelling Agency, Sima Ibrahim, has been adjourned to July 15, 2011.
The adjournment was necessitated by the non-availability of the record of proceedings and the absence of the substantive prosecutor in the case.
At the court's hearing in Accra yesterday, a lawyer from the EOCO prayed the court to adjourn the case because the prosecutor, Mr Philip Addison, was out of the jurisdiction on a training programme.
The lawyer also informed the court that the record of proceedings in the case were also not ready.
Counsel, therefore, prayed for an adjournment.
The trial judge also stated that the court had also not received the record of proceedings.
Sima was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on March 3, 2011 after he had been found guilty on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs concealed in four
tubers of yam.
The EOCO motion was expected to be moved on May 19, 2011, but the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, directed the EOCO to furnish it with the record of proceedings of March 3, 2011.
Earlier, counsel for Sima, Dr Dominic Ayine, had raised a preliminary objection and said the EOCO should have gone to court under PNDCL 328 and not Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it had done.
However, the court drew counsel's attention to the fact that it was too early for counsel to be making that argument.
The EOCO's action formed part of the Narcotics Control Board's (NACOB’s) plans to confiscate and sell assets of convicted drug dealers to the public.
The Daily Graphic issue of May 13, 2011 listed 24 properties belonging to Sima, including buildings, a number of vehicles, bank accounts, both local and foreign, cash in foreign and local currencies, digital cameras, laptops, as well as pistols and shotguns.
The properties include the EXOPA Modelling School, situated behind the Trade Fair Centre at La; a house numbered 1233 at Tema Community 10; shareholding and assets in the EXOPA Modelling School; a Range Rover, a Land Rover, BMW and Opel vehicles, credit cards, as well as German, Belgian and Togolese passports.

Law lecturers drag AMJG to court

June 14, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

TWO lawyers have dragged the Association of Magistrates and Judges of Ghana (AMJG) to court for refusing to hear four lawyers who have accused judges of being corrupt.
Also joined in the suit are the General Legal Council and the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee of the council.
Dr Clement Apaak and Dr Samuel Buame, both lecturers at the University of Ghana, in a motion for judicial review, are praying the court, which will be presided over by a member of the AMJG, to review the actions of the respondents against the four lawyers, among other reliefs.
The two, who are also spokespersons for the Forum for Governance and Justice, in an affidavit in support of the motion, stated that the AMJG had, on May 18, 2011, lodged a complaint with the General Legal Council praying the council to deal with four lawyers, namely, Dr Raymond Atuguba, Mr Abraham Amaliba, Mr Laary Bimi and Mr David Annan, by inviting the four to the Disciplinary Committee of the council to substantiate and justify their allegations.
The two are praying the court to prohibit the General Legal Council and its Disciplinary Committee from proceeding to act on the purported complaint made against the four lawyers by an organisation operating illegally.
The applicants are also urging the court to declare that the AMJG does not possess the legal authority to engage in business in Ghana, since all activities of the AMJG, after its incorporation, including the purported complaint submitted by it to the General Legal Council, are illegal and therefore, null and void.
They are also praying for a declaration that the objects of the AMJG are illegal, as they contravene the Labour Laws of Ghana.
They are also praying for a certiorari to quash any purported decision of the General Legal Council or its Disciplinary Committee to proceed with the hearing of the purported complaint.
Exhibits attached to the motion for judicial review stated, among others, that although the AMJG was incorporated on February 12, 1999 with certificate number G-4 125, it did not have a certificate to commence business, adding that documents received from the Registrar of Companies indicated that every action taken by the AMJG since its incorporation was illegal.
According to the applicants, under the Labour Act, the AMJG, being a decision-making body, was not allowed to form or join a trade union, adding that the association, according to the law, was supposed to have 20 executive members but it currently had 16 members and yet the purported petition against the four lawyers was signed by 25 executive members of the AMJG.
An affidavit in support said the AMJG also issued a statement permitting judges to recuse themselves from hearing the four lawyers until they substantiated their claims.
“That following the decision of the AMJG, on May 19, 2011, one of the lawyers named in the complaint of the AMJG was refused hearing in the Supreme Court,” it held.
The said lawyer, Dr Atuguba, who had gone to do a civil case between the Mr Sumaila Biebel and the Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, had been refused hearing by a nine-member Supreme Court panel.
The court was made up of Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose C. Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
According to the applicants, the action by the Superior Court justices and the AMJG amounted to “embarking on strike or a go-slow in a manner that contravenes the Labour Laws of Ghana”.

Jesus Onetouch appeals

June 11, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

THE convicted ‘Prophet’ of the Jesus Blood Prophetic Ministry, Nana Kofi Yirenkyi, has filed an appeal against his 10-year sentence for defiling his 10-year-old daughter.
The convict, also known as Jesus One Touch, is praying the Accra High Court to quash the decision of the circuit court which found him guilty on two counts of incest and defilement.
He is currently serving his term at the Nsawam Medium Security Prison.
According to the grounds of appeal filed on behalf of the convict by his lawyer, Mr K.N. Adomako Acheampong, the trial court erred in not considering the evidence of a seasoned gynaecologist and a police officer which cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case.
The appellant argued that that doubt should have inured to his benefit, in accordance with the law.
According to him, the trial judge relied on the weak and unbelievable story of two prosecution witnesses, to his disadvantage.
The appeal was called at the High Court in Accra, presided over by Mr Justice E.F. Dzakpasu, yesterday, but a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, informed the court that the statement of case of the prosecution would be filed on Monday, June 13, 2011.
According to Mr Wiredu, he had had discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and there was an indication that the prosecution would file a short address.
The case was, accordingly, adjourned to Wednesday, June 15, 2011.
The appellant was absent in court.
On January 20, 2011, the premises of the Cocoa Affairs Court was turned into a funeral ground as church and family members, as well as sympathisers, of the convict wailed after he had been committed to jail.
The facts of the case were that the 10-year-old victim confessed that the convict, after bouts of sexual intercourse with her, wiped off the sperms from his sexual organ and the fluids from her vagina with a white handkerchief.
According to the prosecution, the victim, who was born out of wedlock, lived with her mother at Dawu in Akuapem until 2005 when she relocated to Accra to live with her father at McCarthy Hill to attend school.
In the latter part of 2007, the convict began having sex with the victim, each time before he organised a church service.
In November 2009, the convict gave the victim's mother an opportunity to hold discussions with the victim on a bad behaviour she was exhibiting.
During the interaction with her mother, the victim revealed her ordeal to her, which resulted in the woman lodging a complaint with the police.

Judge withdraws from Vodafone case

June 10 (Front page)

A judge at the Commercial Court, Mrs Justice Gifty Dekyem, has withdrawn from hearing the litigation over the sale of the government’s 70 per cent share in Ghana Telecom to Vodafone International.
According to the judge, she just discovered that her half-sister was related to one of the parties in the case and for that reason she could not continue hearing the case which had suffered a similar withdrawal in the past.
She, however, declined to mention the party in the case who was related to her half-sister when counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr Bright Akwetey, implored her to state who that person was.
This is the second time a judge has declined jurisdiction over the matter. The first judge assigned to hear the matter, Mr Justice Amadu Tanko, also declined jurisdiction, claiming he knew a party in the case.
A second judge who was appointed to replace Mr Justice Tanko, Mr Justice Henry Chafe, was also transferred in the course of the trial.
The Chief Justice is, therefore, expected to appoint a fourth judge to hear the case which began in the latter part of 2008.
Mrs Justice Dekyem’s withdrawal came at a time she had subpoenaed the Volta River Authority (VRA), the National Communications Authority (NCA), the Ecobank Development Corporation and the Ministry of Communications to provide relevant documents bordering on the sale of the government’s shares.
The issue of the subpoena was at the instance of Mr Akwetey.
The plaintiffs in the matter, Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa and five others, sued the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, the Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited and the Registrar-General over the sale of GT to Vodafone.
The other plaintiffs, who are all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), are Mr Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah, are seeking a declaration that the sale of GT is inimical to the public interest.
They are, therefore, seeking relief from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with due process of law and is, therefore, a nullity.
They are also seeking an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect.
The plaintiffs are further praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the government from disposing of its 70 per cent share of GT to Vodafone or any other foreign company without first exploring avenues for funding and better management in Ghana, among others.
They contend that the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for $900 million was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government.
The plaintiffs said they were opposed to the unlawful establishment of the said Enlarged GT Group, as it undermined the sovereignty of the country, endangered the national security of Ghana, among other things.
On February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court gave Mr Justice Chafe 14 days to comply with the necessary legal steps before referring the matter to it for interpretation, but Mr Justice Chafe could not comply with the court order following his transfer.
The new judge who is yet to be appointed is, therefore, expected to comply with the Supreme Court’s order by including in his or her referral specific issues, as well as state any findings of fact.
The issues so far referred to the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Chafe include whether or not aspects of the SPA, dated July 3, 2008 and executed among the Government of Ghana, Vodafone International and Ghana Telecom, contravened the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, rendered the agreement void, as well as whether or not any procedural, substantive errors and defects in the SPA were or could be cured through parliamentary ratification.
The third issue referred for determination by the Supreme Court was whether or not an agreement executed by the government and ratified by Parliament could be challenged at the High Court.

Court indicts Accra Mayor

June 9, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

The Accra Fast Track High Court Wednesday indicted the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, for deliberately refusing to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.

The court, accordingly, gave him seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence.

Following a plea from counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that Dr Vanderpuije was billed to travel to the United States with the Vice-President on official business for two weeks, the court adjourned the case to June 28, 2011, instead of the earlier date of June 14, 2011.

In the first contempt application, Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.

In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Dr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.

Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.

The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mayor had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.

Mr Baffour informed the court that the Chief Bailiff had given him the two contempt applications to be served on the Mayor on May 31, 2011 but he did not meet the Mayor on that day, adding that he again went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on the Mayor, who arrived around 8:05 a.m.

The bailiff informed the court that he greeted the Mayor and introduced himself as a bailiff who had come to serve him with two contempt applications but the Mayor directed him to give the documents to his security guard.

According to Mr Baffour, he informed the Mayor that because it was a contempt application, the Mayor was expected to personally sign for it but the Mayor walked out on him while directing him to give the documents to his security guard.

The bailiff informed the court that the security guard, a police officer, went to the Mayor’s office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that the Mayor said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait but he (bailiff) declined to wait and, accordingly, left the documents with the police officer.

Basing its ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of High Court Rules (CI 47), the court, presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, held that it was overwhelmingly clear from the bailiff’s evidence that the Mayor had been approached but he had refused to accept service.

Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of CI 47 states, “Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.”

According to the court, it would have been acceptable if the bailiff had left the documents at the doorstep of the Mayor.

The court stated that it was clear Via Afrinity Ghana Limited had not been served and further directed that the company be served before the next adjourned date.

Court grants prosecution leave to recal witness

June9, 2011

THE Accra Fast Track High Court on June 8, 2011 granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness in the trial of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed “ambiguity” arising from the evidence of the MP and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his nationality status.
However, the court refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.
Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, devoted a major part of his ruling to why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MP’s claims, citing authorities.
Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, on his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.
After the ruling, the court declined to grant the defence team’s request for a short adjournment to enable it (defence team) to study the ruling for the necessary action to be taken.
Following the court’s refusal to adjourn the matter, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, continued with his cross-examination of the accused person.
During the cross-examination, the MP denied assertions from the prosecution that he had forged his renunciation papers to throw dust in the eyes of the court.
The prosecution has since completed cross-examining the MP.
On May 24, 2011, Mr Kulendi had argued that it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the NSS and other agencies.
Mr Wiredu had urged the MP to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the National Security Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
According to him, the documents were concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice had been shut on the prosecution.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Contempt case against AMA boss - Bailiff summoned before court

June 8, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday directed its registrar to summon a bailiff before it today for it to determine whether or not the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, had been served with two contempt applications pending against him and another.
In the first contempt application, Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Dr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is also a defendant in the second contempt application which accused him of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The Fast Track High Court which is hearing both applications directed the registrar to summon the bailiff to testify as to whether or not he had served the respondents following a claim by counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that the AMA had not been served with both applications.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, said the records before him indicated that the AMA had been served.
Ms Fenteng then prayed the court to summon the bailiff to come and explain where and on whom he had served the documents.
Following the development, the court adjourned proceedings to today.
In the substantive suit, the AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf of the AAG by its lawyer, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, said the respondents had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before the trial judge.
The AMA has denied the AAG's claims and advised the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if it was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed that the AAG failed to comply with Section 127 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) which required the AAG to serve the AMA with notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited suit against the AMA and Via Afrinity Ghana Limited, a company run by Mr Yankah, the applicant is praying the court to declare that a contract dated December 12, 2009 and titled "Supply of Services Agreement" between the AMA and Via Afrinity Limited was a public procurement service and must, therefore, conform to all requirements laid down in the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
It said the court should also declare that a sole or single sourcing procedure adopted by the AMA in executing the contract without the permission of the Minister of Finance amounted to a violation of the mandatory provision of the PPA.
The applicant is also praying the court to declare as null and void the entire contract on the grounds that it violated Section 35 of the PPA, as well as perpetually restrain Via Afrinity Ghana Limited from exercising any functions or duties conferred by the said contract.
Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited is imploring the court to order Via Afrinity Ghana Limited to refund any or all moneys or payments made to it from public or any funds as a result of the said contract, as well as any other cost the court might deem fit.

The political scene - Court to decide on PNC case

June 8, 2011 (Front Page)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court will, on June 24, 2011, decide whether or not to cite the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others for contempt of court.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
The other respondents, who are all executives of the PNC, are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Mornah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
The respondents had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court, but on May 12, 2011 it dismissed the application and fixed yesterday for hearing the contempt application.
Moving the motion for contempt, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said apart from Dr Mahama and Mr Mornah, the other respondents had not opposed the application for contempt.
He said the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference, thereby mocking the said court order.
According to counsel, the action of the respondents amounted to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard for the authority and prestige of the court and had, therefore, brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Mr Chambers argued that the court’s order was directed at all party members and for that reason the High Court should punish the respondents as a lesson to others.
Opposing the application, counsel for the respondents, Mr James Agalga, described the applicants’ motion as vexatious and without basis in law.
According to counsel, the lower court’s order was directed at the applicants who had earlier broken into the party office, vandalised party property, as well as made away with party property.
He further stated that the lower court’s order was lacking in terms of clarity and was vague where his clients were concerned but precise and clear where Dr Tobiga and the other applicants were concerned.
Mr Agalga, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the contempt application with punitive costs.

Mzbel and friends remanded • For assaulting police officer

June 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

A popular female musician, Mzbel, known in private life as Nana Akua Amoah, was yesterday remanded with two others by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Her two accomplices are Maxwell Mensah, a businessman, and Emmanuel Edem Lordzoh, a student.
The three, their family members and followers were thrown into a state of shock when the trial judge, Mr Emmanuel Plange-Brew, decided to remand them until Friday, June 10, 2011.
Mzbel, who wore a dark dress with dark sunglasses to match, was seen making and receiving several phone calls while being instructed by her lawyers before the trial judge entered the courtroom.
She pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Maxwell was charged with four counts of unauthorised parking, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, while Emmanuel was charged with driving without licence.
The two also pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The accused persons were alleged to have committed the offence with a Mitsubishi vehicle, with registration number GR 9470-11, at Tudu in Accra about 12.40 p.m. on June 4, 2011.
Earlier, lead counsel for the accused persons, Mr Addo Atuah, had denied the allegations levelled against his clients and said there was a video recording of the incident and at the appropriate time the court would have the opportunity to arrive at the truth.
He said it was impossible for a frail-looking person like Mzbel to assault a police officer, adding that he would prove the innocence of the accused persons in due course.
Mr Atuah gave the assurance that his clients would avail themselves for trial and that they all had fixed places of abode and were, therefore, in a position to meet the bail conditions.
Prosecuting, Chief Inspector Dora Seiwaah, said the accused persons parked their vehicle at the wrong side of the road on the said date, leading to heavy vehicular traffic.
She said a police officer who was on duty on that stretch of the road decided to investigate the cause of the traffic and, on reaching the Tudu side of the road, he realised that the Mitsubishi vehicle which belonged to Mzbel was the cause of the traffic.
The prosecutor said the police officer observed that the car's ignition was on, while Mzbel and Emmanuel sat in the vehicle.
On seeing the police officer, who asked why the vehicle had been parked in such a haphazard manner, Emmanuel moved to the front seat to move the vehicle from where it was parked.
While the police officer demanded Emmanuel's licence, Maxwell emerged and ordered the police officer to leave the scene.
According to the prosecutor, Maxwell allegedly moved the vehicle and attempted to hit the police officer, who managed to jump onto the bonnet.
Not satisfied, Maxwell allegedly sped off and drove the vehicle in a zigzag manner in his bid to throw the police officer off the bonnet of the vehicle, to the shock of onlookers and other motorists.
A bullion van which was on the scene tracked Mzbel's vehicle until it managed to cross it to stop Maxwell from injuring the police officer.
The policeman then made an attempt to arrest Maxwell, but the policeman was allegedly assaulted by Mzbel, who claimed ownership of the vehicle.
Other police officers and witnesses managed to rescue the police officer from the grip of Mzbel.
Inspector Seiwaah said Mzbel and her alleged accomplices would have been lynched by a mob if she had not been taken from the scene of the incident.

Trader abuses mentally retarded person

June 4, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

A trader who allegedly had canal knowledge of a mentally retarded 18-year-old female was yesterday remanded in custody by an Accra Circuit Court.
Frank Owusu, 40, was charged with one count of having canal knowledge of a female idiot.
He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and will reappear on June 15, 2011.
Presenting the facts of the case, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mrs Sarah Acquah, told the court that the complainant is a 59-year-old trader who lived at Dome Pillar Two, a suburb of Accra, with the victim and other family members.
The accused person, on the other hand, live in a kiosk near the victim's house.
Around 8 a.m. on May 18, 2011, the accused person approached the victim at home and lured her to a nearby uncompleted building and forcibly had sex with her.
A witness in the case, who chanced upon the accused person having sex with the victim, raised an alarm, thereby attracting another witness to the scene.
The two witnesses rescued the victim and took her home.
A complaint was subsequently lodged with the police, who issued a form to the victim to seek medical attention.
Owusu was arrested after investigations and charged with the offence.
The accused person admitted in his caution statement that although he had taken the victim to the uncompleted building, he had not had sex her with her.

FARMER SWINDLES ACCOUNTANT • He fraudulently sells school

June 4, 2011 (Lead Story)

A farmer who allegedly impersonated the owner of the Association International School (AIS) and succeeded in defrauding a chartered accountant named Frederick Sappor to the tune of GH¢450,000 and $15,000 has been remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Emmanuel Kwabena Gainfort managed to procure a passport bearing the name of the original owner of the school, Emmanuel George Amoah, to defraud the accountant.
Four other accomplices — Collins Amoateng, Nana Bonsu, Arka and Bismark Osei Danso — are currently on the run.
Gainfort will reappear before the court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, on June 14, 2011.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and defrauding by false pretences.
The facts of the case are that a year ago the complainant wanted a plot of land to buy and, therefore, contacted a number of agents to assist.
The complainant then received a call from Amoateng, who said he had a parcel of land at the Airport Residential Area for sale.
The agent led the complainant to the said land for inspection but the complainant later said he was not in a position to buy it.
However, the complainant's brother-in-law, who is a chartered accountant, later expressed interest in the said land which was situated at the Nursery Section of the AIS.
The chartered accountant then met Gainfort, who introduced himself as the owner of the AIS.
He was able to produce a passport and other documents bearing the name of the owner of the AIS in his bid to convince the accountant to part with money.
The complainant went to the Lands Commission to verify the authenticity of Gainfort's claims and the search there proved that the owner of the school was, indeed, George Emmanuel Amoah.
Satisfied with the outcome of the search, the complainant and his brother-in-law paid the $15,000 and GH¢450,000 to Gainfort and Amoateng.
The complainant, after a few days, went to conduct further inspection on the land and, in the process, met a number of people who said they were potential buyers on inspection.
On realising that his brother in-law had been defrauded, he made strenuous efforts to get in touch with Gainfort, all to no avail.
The complainant conducted further investigations and found out that Gainfort had impersonated the original owner of the AIS.
The complainant, accordingly, lodged a complaint with the police on May 30, 2011, leading to the subsequent arrest of Gainfort at his hideout at Kpando.
Efforts are underway to apprehend the other accused persons.

Ga Mantse wins defamation case

June 3, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday slapped the Dzasetse of the Ga Paramount Stool, Nii Yaote Oto-Ga II, with GH¢500,000 damages for defaming the Ga Mantse, King Tackie Tawiah III.
Nii Oto-Ga, known in private life as Emmanuel Tackie Yarboi, who is a member of the rival faction poised to wrest the Ga Stool from the Ga Mantse, was also ordered to pay GH¢10,000 costs in favour of the Ga Mantse for falsely alleging that the Ga Mantse had forged President J.E.A. Mills’s signature on a document to give the impression that he (Ga Mantse) was the recognised and legitimate occupant of the Ga Stool.
The allegation was made in a press statement signed by Nii Oto-Ga, issued on April 17, 2009 and copied to the Greater Accra Regional Minister, the Greater Accra Regional Police Commander, the Security Advisor to the President at the Castle, Osu, and the National Security Co-ordinator.
Nii Oto-Ga’s allegation, which was widely circulated in the media and on the Internet, meant and was understood to mean that the Ga Mantse was a fraudster, a forger and dishonest man with criminal tendencies.
Following the defendant’s inability to substantiate the allegation and his further failure to withdraw and apologise, the Ga Mantse filed a suit at the Fast Track High Court, claiming GH¢6 million in general damages for libel, costs and other relief the court might deem fit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice E. A. Asante, however, declined to award the GH¢6 million general damages sought by the Ga Mantse and rather awarded GH¢500,000.
It said it took into account the stature of the Ga Mantse in society and the effect the defamatory remarks would have on him.
The court, after taking evidence from parties in the case, held that the defendant had failed to substantiate the allegation he had levelled against the Ga Mantse.
It was also of the view that the defendant deliberately and recklessly made the malicious statement without taking into consideration whether it was true or false.
The court was of the view that Nii Oto-Ga had made the malicious statement in a deliberate and calculated attempt to cause maximum damage in order to hurt the Ga Mantse’s reputation.
Citing authorities to buttress its decision, it held that the plaintiff was able to lead ample evidence to prove that the defendant had been given fair and ample opportunity to retract and apologise to the Ga Mantse for the defamatory statement but the defendant refused to do so.
It further stated that the Ga Mantse had been able to prove that the defendant treated his demand for an apology and a retraction with contempt.