May 13, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday dismissed an application filed by the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others which challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against seven leading members of the PNC.
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.
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.
Challenging the contempt suit brought against them, Dr Mahama and the six other executive members, namely, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban, had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents had prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because it was difficult to identify who the applicant in the suit was.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held that the affidavit, as well as a supplementary affidavit in support of the suit, clearly indicated that Dr Tobiga and the two others were the applicants in the case.
The court held that Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the deponents in the affidavit in support of the contempt application.
It further ruled that Dr Tobiga had clearly indicated in the supplementary affidavit that he had the consent of Jatoh and Gana to depose to the supplementary affidavit on their behalf.
It, therefore, disagreed with the defence team’s argument that Dr Tobiga and the two other deponents were strangers in the case.
After the ruling, counsel for Mr Monah, Mr James Agalga, informed the court that Jatoh and Gana had indicated to him that they wished to withdraw as applicants in the contempt suit.
The trial judge then directed Jatoh and Gana to file an application spelling out their withdrawal from the suit.
Mr Agalga then prayed the court to give the respondents ample time to file their response.
According to counsel, the respondents could not file their affidavit in opposition to the suit because of the preliminary objection they had raised.
Dr Mahama, Alhaji Ramadan, Mr Monah and the other respondents were present in court. Dr Tobiga and the two applicants were also present in court.
Hearing continues on June 6, 2011.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Kosmos to pay fine
May 11,, 2011 (Front Page)
KOSMOS Energy has agreed to pay a fine of $15 million to the Ghana Government for disclosing data on the Jubilee oil field without the government’s consent.
That followed the peaceful resolution of a dispute between the Government of Ghana and Kosmos.
The fine also includes the company’s spillage of low toxicity crude on the high seas.
According to sources close to the company, Kosmos was expected to raise $500 million through the floating of shares on the US stock market, part of the amount of which would be used to pay the fine, as well as expand the company’s operations in Ghana.
They disclosed that the company had resolved its differences with the government and looked forward to a “long and fruitful relationship with it which will, in the long run, reap benefits for both parties”.
The Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Agyei, confirmed the resolution of the differences but declined to give details, pointing out that “the government will always protect the interest of Ghanaians”.
According to him, Kosmos had publicly disclosed its intention to float its shares, as well as pay the fine, adding, “For that reason, let us leave it at that.”
Kosmos Energy and its partners discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 and they are currently lifting oil from the oil field.
The government has so far been paid US$112,189,575.52, being Ghana’s share of the first lifting of oil from the Jubilee Field.
The money has so far been paid to the Bank of Ghana (BoG) following the first lifting of oil on April 13, 2011.
The amount represented the five per cent royalty portion of the total first lifting of crude oil by all partners for the period.
Kosmos’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) Prospectus filed with the SEC on Thursday, April 14, 2011 stated that it would use proceeds of the IPO to fund capital expenditure.
It further disclosed in the document that it would make a $15 million payment to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) upon the successful completion of the IPO, pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into with the GNPC to resolve past disputes and for general corporate purposes.
The company estimated that its net proceeds from the sale of 30,000,000 common shares in that offering would be approximately $477.7 million, after deducting estimated offering expenses.
Each share is going for $17.
“We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering, available cash and borrowings under our commercial debt facility to fund our capital expenditures and in particular our exploration and appraisal drilling programme and development activities through early 2013, our related operating expenses, to make a $15 million payment to the GNPC upon the successful completion of this offering, pursuant to the settlement agreement we entered into with the GNPC to resolve our past disputes and for general corporate purposes,” it pointed out in its prospectus to the SEC.
“We estimate that we will incur approximately $500 million of capital expenditures for the year ending December 31, 2011. This capital expenditure budget consists of: $175 million for development in Ghana; $225 million for exploration and appraisal in Ghana; $30 million for exploration and appraisal in Cameroon; $30 million for new ventures to expand our licence portfolio (including geological and geophysical expenses), and $40 million in unallocated funds which are available for additional drilling and licensing costs and activities,” it added.
Kosmos further stated that the ultimate amount of capital it would expend might fluctuate materially based on market conditions and the success of its drilling results.
“Our future financial condition and liquidity will be impacted by, among other factors, our level of production of oil and natural gas and the prices we receive from the sale thereof, the success of our exploration and appraisal drilling programme, the number of commercially viable oil and natural gas discoveries made, the quantities of oil and natural gas discovered, the speed with which we can bring such discoveries to production and the actual cost of exploration, appraisal and development of our oil and natural gas assets,” the document added.
KOSMOS Energy has agreed to pay a fine of $15 million to the Ghana Government for disclosing data on the Jubilee oil field without the government’s consent.
That followed the peaceful resolution of a dispute between the Government of Ghana and Kosmos.
The fine also includes the company’s spillage of low toxicity crude on the high seas.
According to sources close to the company, Kosmos was expected to raise $500 million through the floating of shares on the US stock market, part of the amount of which would be used to pay the fine, as well as expand the company’s operations in Ghana.
They disclosed that the company had resolved its differences with the government and looked forward to a “long and fruitful relationship with it which will, in the long run, reap benefits for both parties”.
The Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Agyei, confirmed the resolution of the differences but declined to give details, pointing out that “the government will always protect the interest of Ghanaians”.
According to him, Kosmos had publicly disclosed its intention to float its shares, as well as pay the fine, adding, “For that reason, let us leave it at that.”
Kosmos Energy and its partners discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 and they are currently lifting oil from the oil field.
The government has so far been paid US$112,189,575.52, being Ghana’s share of the first lifting of oil from the Jubilee Field.
The money has so far been paid to the Bank of Ghana (BoG) following the first lifting of oil on April 13, 2011.
The amount represented the five per cent royalty portion of the total first lifting of crude oil by all partners for the period.
Kosmos’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) Prospectus filed with the SEC on Thursday, April 14, 2011 stated that it would use proceeds of the IPO to fund capital expenditure.
It further disclosed in the document that it would make a $15 million payment to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) upon the successful completion of the IPO, pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into with the GNPC to resolve past disputes and for general corporate purposes.
The company estimated that its net proceeds from the sale of 30,000,000 common shares in that offering would be approximately $477.7 million, after deducting estimated offering expenses.
Each share is going for $17.
“We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering, available cash and borrowings under our commercial debt facility to fund our capital expenditures and in particular our exploration and appraisal drilling programme and development activities through early 2013, our related operating expenses, to make a $15 million payment to the GNPC upon the successful completion of this offering, pursuant to the settlement agreement we entered into with the GNPC to resolve our past disputes and for general corporate purposes,” it pointed out in its prospectus to the SEC.
“We estimate that we will incur approximately $500 million of capital expenditures for the year ending December 31, 2011. This capital expenditure budget consists of: $175 million for development in Ghana; $225 million for exploration and appraisal in Ghana; $30 million for exploration and appraisal in Cameroon; $30 million for new ventures to expand our licence portfolio (including geological and geophysical expenses), and $40 million in unallocated funds which are available for additional drilling and licensing costs and activities,” it added.
Kosmos further stated that the ultimate amount of capital it would expend might fluctuate materially based on market conditions and the success of its drilling results.
“Our future financial condition and liquidity will be impacted by, among other factors, our level of production of oil and natural gas and the prices we receive from the sale thereof, the success of our exploration and appraisal drilling programme, the number of commercially viable oil and natural gas discoveries made, the quantities of oil and natural gas discovered, the speed with which we can bring such discoveries to production and the actual cost of exploration, appraisal and development of our oil and natural gas assets,” the document added.
Legon students granted bail
0May 7, 2011 (Front Page)
NINE students of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the University of Ghana, Legon, who are alleged to have molested a suspected laptop thief, Amina Haruna, were yesterday granted bail by the Accra Circuit Court.
The nine — Francis Asiedu Arthur, Mark-Dickson Tornu, Morris Awuregya, Nana Osei Asiamah, Gideon Agyei Ayiridaga, Gabriel Amobila Aboyadana, Godfred Afeatse, Evans Addae Boateng and Obed Banini — were granted bail in the sum of GH¢9,000 each with no sureties.
They each pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, assault by imprisonment, indecent assault and causing unlawful harm and are to reappear in court on May 30, 2011.
The students missed writing their mid-semester examination because they were in court at the time their mates were writing the examination.
Four of their accomplices — Edward Totor, Alexander Aryee, Benedict Boama Brohim and Jason Boama Amponsah — are currently on the run.
Scores of students from the university thronged the court premises to solidarise with the accused persons.
The sympathisers, mostly clad in dark T-shirts and jeans, chanted songs demanding the release of their colleagues.
The student leadership was also present in court and appealed to the sympathisers to remain calm.
Some students and family members of the accused could not hold back their tears, claiming that the accused were innocent or simply victims of circumstance.
Earlier, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr Kofi Blagodzi, presented the facts of the case and did not object to the granting of bail to the accused persons, who looked calm in the dock.
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, stated that the offences allegedly committed by the students were bailable and, accordingly, moved to grant them bail.
According to the facts of the case, the accused, who are all residents of the Annex B (Okponglo) of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the university, were identified by the university authorities on a video tape.
They were first handed over to the Legon Police, who in turn conveyed them to the CID Headquarters for an identification parade.
Soon after the alleged molestation, the university authorities set up a fact-finding committee to investigate the incident.
The prosecution said the committee identified a number of students who were present during the molestation, as seen on the video clips produced, as well as credible eyewitness accounts.
NINE students of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the University of Ghana, Legon, who are alleged to have molested a suspected laptop thief, Amina Haruna, were yesterday granted bail by the Accra Circuit Court.
The nine — Francis Asiedu Arthur, Mark-Dickson Tornu, Morris Awuregya, Nana Osei Asiamah, Gideon Agyei Ayiridaga, Gabriel Amobila Aboyadana, Godfred Afeatse, Evans Addae Boateng and Obed Banini — were granted bail in the sum of GH¢9,000 each with no sureties.
They each pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, assault by imprisonment, indecent assault and causing unlawful harm and are to reappear in court on May 30, 2011.
The students missed writing their mid-semester examination because they were in court at the time their mates were writing the examination.
Four of their accomplices — Edward Totor, Alexander Aryee, Benedict Boama Brohim and Jason Boama Amponsah — are currently on the run.
Scores of students from the university thronged the court premises to solidarise with the accused persons.
The sympathisers, mostly clad in dark T-shirts and jeans, chanted songs demanding the release of their colleagues.
The student leadership was also present in court and appealed to the sympathisers to remain calm.
Some students and family members of the accused could not hold back their tears, claiming that the accused were innocent or simply victims of circumstance.
Earlier, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr Kofi Blagodzi, presented the facts of the case and did not object to the granting of bail to the accused persons, who looked calm in the dock.
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, stated that the offences allegedly committed by the students were bailable and, accordingly, moved to grant them bail.
According to the facts of the case, the accused, who are all residents of the Annex B (Okponglo) of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the university, were identified by the university authorities on a video tape.
They were first handed over to the Legon Police, who in turn conveyed them to the CID Headquarters for an identification parade.
Soon after the alleged molestation, the university authorities set up a fact-finding committee to investigate the incident.
The prosecution said the committee identified a number of students who were present during the molestation, as seen on the video clips produced, as well as credible eyewitness accounts.
Vaglas Kanco jailed
May 6, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
THE General Overseer of the Vineyard Chapel International, Bishop Vaglas Kanco, was yesterday sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court for defrauding a British national to the tune of £120,000.
He was also ordered to refund the £120,000 he took from the complainant, Clova Sutherland.
Bishop Kanco had lured the complainant into believing that she would die if she did not allow him to pray over a £120,000 cheque she had issued in the name of her former partner.
“While in incarceration, read Psalm 51,” the trial judge, Mr D.E.K. Daketsey, advised Kanco while he was being handcuffed by a policeman at exactly 12.42 p.m. immediately after judgement had been passed.
Bishop Kanco managed to convince the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name in order for him to pray over it to exorcise the evil intent of the complainant’s partner and return it to her on a later date, but he reneged on his promise and cashed the cheque after he had met the complainant at a crusade organised by the Alive Chapel International Church on March 25, 2003.
The convict was then a guest speaker at the crusade, and during his meeting with the complainant she told him the problems she was going through.
She also informed him that she was to pay £120,000 to her partner, whom Bishop Kanco described as an evil person.
The convict also made Clova to believe that she would die if she issued the cheque directly to her partner.
According to the court, it was abundantly clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the convict took advantage of the emotional and psychological turmoil in which the complainant found herself as a result of the break-up of her 14-year-old relationship.
It held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredient of the charge of defrauding by false pretence levelled against Kanco and further described Kanco’s defence that the money was a gift as “lame, limping and an unpardonable excuse”.
It further held that the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove that the complainant’s partner rejected the £120,000 cheque on the grounds that the amount was short of £32,000 and for that reason it was impossible for the complainant to have issued the £120,000 cheque as a gift, especially at a time she was having financial, emotional and health problems.
It said it was on record that lawyers for the complainant’s partner had written letters demanding that she pay the £152,000 she owed her former partner.
“I am inclined to believe the story of the complainant that the accused person tricked her to re-issue the cheque in his name,” the judge intimated.
According to him, it was also clear from the record that the complainant had made several attempts to reclaim her money, while it was also on record that Kanco dispensed of the services of his lawyer, Mr Yonny Kulendi, when he (the lawyer) advised him (Kanco) to refund the £120,000.
“The court wants to send a strong signal to all those who, under the guise of religious Mumbo Jumbo, deceive unsuspecting persons. Society is now wide awake and the law has extended its hands in all human endeavours,” the judge held.
Kanco, who wore a batik shirt, looked fixedly at the trial judge as he read his judgement and at a point he could not sit when he was advised to do so after the judge had finished reading his judgement.
According to the trial judge, it was not in dispute that Kanco took possession of the cheque and cashed it. He also debunked claims by the convict that he did not know the content of the envelope which contained the cheque until he returned from London after a crusade.
The court asked why Kanco had not collected the first cheque which bore the name of the complainant’s alleged devilish partner to pray over it but rather chose to lure the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name.
Earlier, counsel for the convict, Mr Kissi Agyabeng, had prayed the court to defer sentence and indicated that the complainant was interested in her money and not incarceration.
He, therefore, prayed the court to grant Kanco bail, adding that it was not strange for men of God to be given expensive gifts, including houses and cars.
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said it was improper for defence counsel to pray the court to arrest its judgement, adding that followers of the convict could contribute and indemnify the surety should the convict escape.
Mr Wiredu, therefore, prayed the court to give its judgement.
THE General Overseer of the Vineyard Chapel International, Bishop Vaglas Kanco, was yesterday sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court for defrauding a British national to the tune of £120,000.
He was also ordered to refund the £120,000 he took from the complainant, Clova Sutherland.
Bishop Kanco had lured the complainant into believing that she would die if she did not allow him to pray over a £120,000 cheque she had issued in the name of her former partner.
“While in incarceration, read Psalm 51,” the trial judge, Mr D.E.K. Daketsey, advised Kanco while he was being handcuffed by a policeman at exactly 12.42 p.m. immediately after judgement had been passed.
Bishop Kanco managed to convince the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name in order for him to pray over it to exorcise the evil intent of the complainant’s partner and return it to her on a later date, but he reneged on his promise and cashed the cheque after he had met the complainant at a crusade organised by the Alive Chapel International Church on March 25, 2003.
The convict was then a guest speaker at the crusade, and during his meeting with the complainant she told him the problems she was going through.
She also informed him that she was to pay £120,000 to her partner, whom Bishop Kanco described as an evil person.
The convict also made Clova to believe that she would die if she issued the cheque directly to her partner.
According to the court, it was abundantly clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the convict took advantage of the emotional and psychological turmoil in which the complainant found herself as a result of the break-up of her 14-year-old relationship.
It held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredient of the charge of defrauding by false pretence levelled against Kanco and further described Kanco’s defence that the money was a gift as “lame, limping and an unpardonable excuse”.
It further held that the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove that the complainant’s partner rejected the £120,000 cheque on the grounds that the amount was short of £32,000 and for that reason it was impossible for the complainant to have issued the £120,000 cheque as a gift, especially at a time she was having financial, emotional and health problems.
It said it was on record that lawyers for the complainant’s partner had written letters demanding that she pay the £152,000 she owed her former partner.
“I am inclined to believe the story of the complainant that the accused person tricked her to re-issue the cheque in his name,” the judge intimated.
According to him, it was also clear from the record that the complainant had made several attempts to reclaim her money, while it was also on record that Kanco dispensed of the services of his lawyer, Mr Yonny Kulendi, when he (the lawyer) advised him (Kanco) to refund the £120,000.
“The court wants to send a strong signal to all those who, under the guise of religious Mumbo Jumbo, deceive unsuspecting persons. Society is now wide awake and the law has extended its hands in all human endeavours,” the judge held.
Kanco, who wore a batik shirt, looked fixedly at the trial judge as he read his judgement and at a point he could not sit when he was advised to do so after the judge had finished reading his judgement.
According to the trial judge, it was not in dispute that Kanco took possession of the cheque and cashed it. He also debunked claims by the convict that he did not know the content of the envelope which contained the cheque until he returned from London after a crusade.
The court asked why Kanco had not collected the first cheque which bore the name of the complainant’s alleged devilish partner to pray over it but rather chose to lure the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name.
Earlier, counsel for the convict, Mr Kissi Agyabeng, had prayed the court to defer sentence and indicated that the complainant was interested in her money and not incarceration.
He, therefore, prayed the court to grant Kanco bail, adding that it was not strange for men of God to be given expensive gifts, including houses and cars.
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said it was improper for defence counsel to pray the court to arrest its judgement, adding that followers of the convict could contribute and indemnify the surety should the convict escape.
Mr Wiredu, therefore, prayed the court to give its judgement.
Mahama, others challenge contempt case
May 4, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others have challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against them by three members of the party.
According to Dr Mahama and six other executive members of the PNC, the application for contempt brought against them was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the Fast Track High Court.
The other respondents are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, 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.
In the said case, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the 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.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents, Dr Raymond Atuguba, prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because from the records before it, it was difficult to identify who the applicant for the contempt suit was.
According to counsel, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the accused persons in the criminal case before the district magistrate court but in this particular contempt suit only Dr Tobiga was cited as an applicant, arguing that for that reason it was improper for Dr Tobiga and the two others to jointly sign the affidavit in support of the application.
Counsel further argued that assuming without admitting that Dr Tobiga was the applicant in the contempt suit, there was no affidavit in support of his application.
Dr Atuguba, therefore, stressed that the affidavit in support of the contempt application against his clients which was signed by Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana, whom he described as ‘strangers’, was irregular and must, accordingly, be struck out.
He prayed the court not to award costs against Dr Tobiga and the others because steps were underway to resolve the differences between the parties in the case.
Counsel for Dr Tobiga, however, argued that his client acted on behalf of Jatoh and Gana, adding that the averments in the affidavit in support of the contempt suit attested to that.
On the issue of irregularity, counsel argued that it had been cured by Dr Tobiga signing on behalf of the others.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, will rule on the matter on May 12, 2011.
THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others have challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against them by three members of the party.
According to Dr Mahama and six other executive members of the PNC, the application for contempt brought against them was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the Fast Track High Court.
The other respondents are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, 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.
In the said case, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the 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.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents, Dr Raymond Atuguba, prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because from the records before it, it was difficult to identify who the applicant for the contempt suit was.
According to counsel, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the accused persons in the criminal case before the district magistrate court but in this particular contempt suit only Dr Tobiga was cited as an applicant, arguing that for that reason it was improper for Dr Tobiga and the two others to jointly sign the affidavit in support of the application.
Counsel further argued that assuming without admitting that Dr Tobiga was the applicant in the contempt suit, there was no affidavit in support of his application.
Dr Atuguba, therefore, stressed that the affidavit in support of the contempt application against his clients which was signed by Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana, whom he described as ‘strangers’, was irregular and must, accordingly, be struck out.
He prayed the court not to award costs against Dr Tobiga and the others because steps were underway to resolve the differences between the parties in the case.
Counsel for Dr Tobiga, however, argued that his client acted on behalf of Jatoh and Gana, adding that the averments in the affidavit in support of the contempt suit attested to that.
On the issue of irregularity, counsel argued that it had been cured by Dr Tobiga signing on behalf of the others.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, will rule on the matter on May 12, 2011.
Two missionaries acquitted of defilement charges
April 30, 2011 (Mirror - Page 27)
TWO missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who were convicted for defiling a 14-year-old girl have been acquitted and discharged by the High Court in Accra.
Omale Ojonugwu Uwa, alias Elder Omale, 25, and Thatayaone Keeng, alias Elder Keeng, 20, were each found guilty on four counts of defilement and were sentenced to 10 years and seven years, respectively.
Omale, a Nigerian, was sentenced to seven years on the charge of conspiracy and 10 years on the charge of defilement, while Keeng, a Motswana, was sentenced to seven years on the charges of conspiracy and defilement.
The two were alleged to have committed the offence at Odorkor, a suburb of Accra, between February and April 2010 and were found guilty and convicted on August 6, 2010.
Dissatisfied with the circuit court’s decision, a legal practitioner, Mr Addo Atuah, filed an appeal on behalf of the two at the High Court in September 2010.
Counsel had argued that the trial court erred in not considering the weight of evidence which inured to the benefit of his clients.
He also argued that it was wrong for the prosecution to have put Omale and Keeng on one charge sheet.
The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, upheld the appeal, quashed the convictions and accordingly acquitted and discharged the missionaries.
The court deferred its reasons to a later date.
The facts of the case were that the missionaries lived in the same house with the complainant and the victim, who was a house help of the complainant.
According to the prosecution, Omale had called the victim to their room in February 2010 and asked if she had kissed or had sex before, to which she said no.
Omale and Keeng were accused of having sex with her in turns and warned her not to tell anyone.
The prosecution claimed the missionaries had bouts of sex with the victim in the months of March and April 2010.
According to it, the complainant later confronted the victim on how she came across a bottle of perfume, to which she explained that Omale had given it to her to remedy her bad body odour.
The circuit court, accordingly, convicted the two after a full trial, but the High Court held otherwise after counsel for the missionaries had pointed out loopholes in the prosecution’s case.
TWO missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who were convicted for defiling a 14-year-old girl have been acquitted and discharged by the High Court in Accra.
Omale Ojonugwu Uwa, alias Elder Omale, 25, and Thatayaone Keeng, alias Elder Keeng, 20, were each found guilty on four counts of defilement and were sentenced to 10 years and seven years, respectively.
Omale, a Nigerian, was sentenced to seven years on the charge of conspiracy and 10 years on the charge of defilement, while Keeng, a Motswana, was sentenced to seven years on the charges of conspiracy and defilement.
The two were alleged to have committed the offence at Odorkor, a suburb of Accra, between February and April 2010 and were found guilty and convicted on August 6, 2010.
Dissatisfied with the circuit court’s decision, a legal practitioner, Mr Addo Atuah, filed an appeal on behalf of the two at the High Court in September 2010.
Counsel had argued that the trial court erred in not considering the weight of evidence which inured to the benefit of his clients.
He also argued that it was wrong for the prosecution to have put Omale and Keeng on one charge sheet.
The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, upheld the appeal, quashed the convictions and accordingly acquitted and discharged the missionaries.
The court deferred its reasons to a later date.
The facts of the case were that the missionaries lived in the same house with the complainant and the victim, who was a house help of the complainant.
According to the prosecution, Omale had called the victim to their room in February 2010 and asked if she had kissed or had sex before, to which she said no.
Omale and Keeng were accused of having sex with her in turns and warned her not to tell anyone.
The prosecution claimed the missionaries had bouts of sex with the victim in the months of March and April 2010.
According to it, the complainant later confronted the victim on how she came across a bottle of perfume, to which she explained that Omale had given it to her to remedy her bad body odour.
The circuit court, accordingly, convicted the two after a full trial, but the High Court held otherwise after counsel for the missionaries had pointed out loopholes in the prosecution’s case.
Court cautions AMA, Advertisers
April 21, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday cautioned the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) not to prejudice a suit over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 which the AAG had brought against the AMA.
According to the AAG, the AMA had, in some cases, increased the special rates on billboards by more than 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
The AAG said the rates, which were published in a gazette notification of April 23, 2010, were 'adversely affecting the business' of advertisers, were unlawful and must therefore be set aside.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, also directed the AMA to serve the AAG with a supplementary affidavit it filed to support its claim 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 a notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit.
However, the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and further argued that it had not been served with the defendant’s supplementary affidavit, which prompted the court to direct the AMA to serve the AAG.
The court, on March 28, 2011, restrained the AMA from going ahead with its planned demolition of billboards belonging to the AAG until the final determination of the suit.
A writ filed on behalf of the AAG by Ankomah Mensah and Associates, legal practitioners, on behalf the AAG was praying the court to also give an order of injunction restraining the AMA from removing, touching or altering the AAG's billboards or advertising signs until the final determination of the case.
It further requested the court to order that excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion.
The writ said there was within the industry a convention established as far back as the 1980s by which advertising rates were determined.
That, it said, involved discussions between the association and the AMA before advertising rates were set.
“The plaintiff will show that the defendant (the AMA) has radically deviated from this norm of consulting with all stakeholders in the industry and has fixed very exorbitant rates for billboards for the year 2010 and 2011,” it said.
According to the statement, the rates were threatening to destroy the livelihoods of plaintiff’s members and the advertising industry as a whole.
It said the AAG had written several petitions against the rates so fixed by the AMA and also petitioned the office of the Greater Accra Regional Co-ordinating Council (RCC), as well as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Local Government and Rural Development.
According to the statement, on February 8, 2010, the Parliamentary Committee wrote a letter to the AMA and indicated its decision to mediate between the assembly and the association.
It said in recognition of the need for revenue generation by the assembly, the AAG agreed to pay fees using the previous year's rates pending the resolution of the rate of increment.
“The plaintiff has, through its members who own outdoor signs or billboards, complied with and paid the old rates to the defendant pending the arbitration,” it said.
However, it said, before the Parliamentary Committee’s process to resolve the impasse between the AAG and the AMA, the AMA issued warnings directing AAG members to remove their lawfully acquired billboards or risk getting them pulled down.
The statement said by Section 80 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), any change or increment in any rate or special rate eligible under the law relating to moveable or immovable property in the metropolis required the consent of the Minister of Local Government.
It further argued that the plaintiff would lead evidence to show that the increment in the rates, which was allegedly published in the gazette of April 23, 2010, was without the consent of the Minister of Local Government, as mandated by Section 80 of the act and was therefore void among others.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday cautioned the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) not to prejudice a suit over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 which the AAG had brought against the AMA.
According to the AAG, the AMA had, in some cases, increased the special rates on billboards by more than 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
The AAG said the rates, which were published in a gazette notification of April 23, 2010, were 'adversely affecting the business' of advertisers, were unlawful and must therefore be set aside.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, also directed the AMA to serve the AAG with a supplementary affidavit it filed to support its claim 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 a notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit.
However, the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and further argued that it had not been served with the defendant’s supplementary affidavit, which prompted the court to direct the AMA to serve the AAG.
The court, on March 28, 2011, restrained the AMA from going ahead with its planned demolition of billboards belonging to the AAG until the final determination of the suit.
A writ filed on behalf of the AAG by Ankomah Mensah and Associates, legal practitioners, on behalf the AAG was praying the court to also give an order of injunction restraining the AMA from removing, touching or altering the AAG's billboards or advertising signs until the final determination of the case.
It further requested the court to order that excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion.
The writ said there was within the industry a convention established as far back as the 1980s by which advertising rates were determined.
That, it said, involved discussions between the association and the AMA before advertising rates were set.
“The plaintiff will show that the defendant (the AMA) has radically deviated from this norm of consulting with all stakeholders in the industry and has fixed very exorbitant rates for billboards for the year 2010 and 2011,” it said.
According to the statement, the rates were threatening to destroy the livelihoods of plaintiff’s members and the advertising industry as a whole.
It said the AAG had written several petitions against the rates so fixed by the AMA and also petitioned the office of the Greater Accra Regional Co-ordinating Council (RCC), as well as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Local Government and Rural Development.
According to the statement, on February 8, 2010, the Parliamentary Committee wrote a letter to the AMA and indicated its decision to mediate between the assembly and the association.
It said in recognition of the need for revenue generation by the assembly, the AAG agreed to pay fees using the previous year's rates pending the resolution of the rate of increment.
“The plaintiff has, through its members who own outdoor signs or billboards, complied with and paid the old rates to the defendant pending the arbitration,” it said.
However, it said, before the Parliamentary Committee’s process to resolve the impasse between the AAG and the AMA, the AMA issued warnings directing AAG members to remove their lawfully acquired billboards or risk getting them pulled down.
The statement said by Section 80 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), any change or increment in any rate or special rate eligible under the law relating to moveable or immovable property in the metropolis required the consent of the Minister of Local Government.
It further argued that the plaintiff would lead evidence to show that the increment in the rates, which was allegedly published in the gazette of April 23, 2010, was without the consent of the Minister of Local Government, as mandated by Section 80 of the act and was therefore void among others.
Asamoah-Boateng's case adjourned to April 20
April 16, 2011 (Page 19)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday adjourned proceedings in the procurement case against a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, aka Asabee, and eight others to enable the prosecution to produce documents bordering on the case.
Asabee, his wife, Zuleika, Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister at the Ministry; Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, a former Director of Finance and Administration at the Ministry of Information; Dominic Yaw Sampong, a former Chief Director at the Ministry of Information; Kwabena Denkyira, a former Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Yasmin Domua and Prosper Aku of Supreme Procurement Agency Ltd, as well as the company as an entity, are standing trial for allegedly conspiring to contravene the Procurement Act by not following due processes in awarding a contract amounting to GHҐ86,915.85 to Plexiform Ventures for renovation work at the Ministry of Information.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, adjourned the case to April 20, 2011 after he had upheld an objection from counsel for Kofi Asamoah-Boateng and Sampong, Mr Augustine Obour, on the tendering of a single document which formed part of a set of five.
According to Mr Obour, a letter dated November 19, 2008 and signed by Mr Agyekum requesting for the release of funds for the payment of the renovation works formed part of a set of five documents.
He, therefore, argued that it was not proper for the prosecution to seek to tender only one out of the five documents in evidence through its witness, Mr Godfred Agyapong, the Head of Audit at the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Gyambiby, disagreed with Mr Obour on the grounds that the documents attached to the November 19, 2008 letter were irrelevant to the case and for that reason it was not necessary for them to have been brought to court.
Following defence counsel's objection, the court adjourned the case to April 20, 2011 to enable the prosecution to produce those documents.
Asabee and his wife have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and contravention of provisions of the Public Procurement Act.
Sampong is facing six counts of conspiracy, contravention of the Procurement Act, attempt to defraud, altering document and deceit of public officer, while Agyekum has been charged with five counts of conspiracy, contravention of provision, attempt to defraud and deceit of public officer.
Domua, a cousin of Zuleika’s, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit crime.
Kofi Asamoah-Boateng faces six counts of forgery of official document, possession of forged document, forgery and possession of false document, while Denkyira also faces one charge of conspiracy.
Aku has also been charged with four counts of possessing and forgery of document of architects, engineering certificate and false tender document.
All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been granted GHҐ10,000 bail with two sureties each.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday adjourned proceedings in the procurement case against a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, aka Asabee, and eight others to enable the prosecution to produce documents bordering on the case.
Asabee, his wife, Zuleika, Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister at the Ministry; Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, a former Director of Finance and Administration at the Ministry of Information; Dominic Yaw Sampong, a former Chief Director at the Ministry of Information; Kwabena Denkyira, a former Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Yasmin Domua and Prosper Aku of Supreme Procurement Agency Ltd, as well as the company as an entity, are standing trial for allegedly conspiring to contravene the Procurement Act by not following due processes in awarding a contract amounting to GHҐ86,915.85 to Plexiform Ventures for renovation work at the Ministry of Information.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, adjourned the case to April 20, 2011 after he had upheld an objection from counsel for Kofi Asamoah-Boateng and Sampong, Mr Augustine Obour, on the tendering of a single document which formed part of a set of five.
According to Mr Obour, a letter dated November 19, 2008 and signed by Mr Agyekum requesting for the release of funds for the payment of the renovation works formed part of a set of five documents.
He, therefore, argued that it was not proper for the prosecution to seek to tender only one out of the five documents in evidence through its witness, Mr Godfred Agyapong, the Head of Audit at the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Gyambiby, disagreed with Mr Obour on the grounds that the documents attached to the November 19, 2008 letter were irrelevant to the case and for that reason it was not necessary for them to have been brought to court.
Following defence counsel's objection, the court adjourned the case to April 20, 2011 to enable the prosecution to produce those documents.
Asabee and his wife have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and contravention of provisions of the Public Procurement Act.
Sampong is facing six counts of conspiracy, contravention of the Procurement Act, attempt to defraud, altering document and deceit of public officer, while Agyekum has been charged with five counts of conspiracy, contravention of provision, attempt to defraud and deceit of public officer.
Domua, a cousin of Zuleika’s, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit crime.
Kofi Asamoah-Boateng faces six counts of forgery of official document, possession of forged document, forgery and possession of false document, while Denkyira also faces one charge of conspiracy.
Aku has also been charged with four counts of possessing and forgery of document of architects, engineering certificate and false tender document.
All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been granted GHҐ10,000 bail with two sureties each.
Dr Mahama, others dragged to court for contempt
April 14, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THREE members of the People's National Convention (PNC) have dragged the 2008 flag bearer of the party and six others to court for contempt of court.
The three applicants — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — are praying the court to cite Dr Edward Mahama, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah and Attik Mohammed for contempt of court.
The applicants are further praying the court to also convict Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaba.
According to the applicants, the respondents flouted a district magistrate court order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC party office until the final determination of a case brought against the applicants.
In the said case, the applicants are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the court directed the applicants and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case.
The applicants’ bail was revoked by the court on February 24, 2011 for flouting its order to enter the party office. However, the High Court later quashed that decision after almost two weeks on remand.
The High Court revoked the lower court's order on the grounds that the lower court exceeded its powers.
An affidavit in support of the application for committal for contempt deposed to by three applicants stated, among others, that the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference.
According to the applicants, the respondents committed the contemptuous action on January 18, 2011 which was subsequently captured on national television.
The affidavit in support further stated that the respondents, who are mostly parties in the criminal case, had knowledge of the January 6, 2011 order and for that reason they had mocked the said order.
"The conduct of the respondents, as described herein, amounts to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard of the authority and prestige of this honourable court and brought the administration of justice into disrepute and should be held and punished accordingly for contempt of court as a lesson to others," the affidavit in support stressed.
The application is expected to be moved on April 20, 2011.
THREE members of the People's National Convention (PNC) have dragged the 2008 flag bearer of the party and six others to court for contempt of court.
The three applicants — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — are praying the court to cite Dr Edward Mahama, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah and Attik Mohammed for contempt of court.
The applicants are further praying the court to also convict Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaba.
According to the applicants, the respondents flouted a district magistrate court order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC party office until the final determination of a case brought against the applicants.
In the said case, the applicants are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the court directed the applicants and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case.
The applicants’ bail was revoked by the court on February 24, 2011 for flouting its order to enter the party office. However, the High Court later quashed that decision after almost two weeks on remand.
The High Court revoked the lower court's order on the grounds that the lower court exceeded its powers.
An affidavit in support of the application for committal for contempt deposed to by three applicants stated, among others, that the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference.
According to the applicants, the respondents committed the contemptuous action on January 18, 2011 which was subsequently captured on national television.
The affidavit in support further stated that the respondents, who are mostly parties in the criminal case, had knowledge of the January 6, 2011 order and for that reason they had mocked the said order.
"The conduct of the respondents, as described herein, amounts to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard of the authority and prestige of this honourable court and brought the administration of justice into disrepute and should be held and punished accordingly for contempt of court as a lesson to others," the affidavit in support stressed.
The application is expected to be moved on April 20, 2011.
Two persons remanded for stealing four taxis
April 14, 2011 (Back Page)
Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh
TWO persons who allegedly robbed their victims of their taxis at gunpoint were yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra Fast Track High Court.
The accused, Mustapha Ibin Asmiu, a labourer, and Kwame Owusu, alias Nana Kwame, who were charged with conspiracy and four counts of robbery each, pleaded not guilty.
They are to reappear on May 6, 2011.
The accused persons are also alleged to have used tape cords and knives to overpower their victims.
The facts of the case are that between July and August 2010, the Kotobabi District Police Command received a series of complaints from taxi drivers that their cars had been snatched from them at gunpoint.
Consequently, the command intensified its patrols and mounted several road checks to clamp down on the perpetrators of the alleged crimes.
Around 1.45 a.m. on August 9, 2010, a police patrol team on snap check duties, assisted by four neighbourhood watchdog members from Maamobi, intercepted a Daewoo taxi, with registration number GC 3830-09, which had the two accused persons on board.
A search conducted on the accused led to the discovery of tape cords and a toy pistol. They were subsequently arrested.
During interrogation, Asmiu and Owusu confessed to the offence and stated that they had succeeded in stealing four taxis and money amounting to GH¢157 from their victims.
According to the accused persons, their fifth victim was the driver of the taxi on which they had been intercepted.
The two later led the police to recover a Tata Indigo taxi, with registration number GR 7923-09, and a Geo Prism taxi, with registration number GW 6162 U, from Abeka Lapaz and Kotobabi Abavana Down, both suburbs of Accra.
The remaining two taxis were recovered by the police later.
Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh
TWO persons who allegedly robbed their victims of their taxis at gunpoint were yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra Fast Track High Court.
The accused, Mustapha Ibin Asmiu, a labourer, and Kwame Owusu, alias Nana Kwame, who were charged with conspiracy and four counts of robbery each, pleaded not guilty.
They are to reappear on May 6, 2011.
The accused persons are also alleged to have used tape cords and knives to overpower their victims.
The facts of the case are that between July and August 2010, the Kotobabi District Police Command received a series of complaints from taxi drivers that their cars had been snatched from them at gunpoint.
Consequently, the command intensified its patrols and mounted several road checks to clamp down on the perpetrators of the alleged crimes.
Around 1.45 a.m. on August 9, 2010, a police patrol team on snap check duties, assisted by four neighbourhood watchdog members from Maamobi, intercepted a Daewoo taxi, with registration number GC 3830-09, which had the two accused persons on board.
A search conducted on the accused led to the discovery of tape cords and a toy pistol. They were subsequently arrested.
During interrogation, Asmiu and Owusu confessed to the offence and stated that they had succeeded in stealing four taxis and money amounting to GH¢157 from their victims.
According to the accused persons, their fifth victim was the driver of the taxi on which they had been intercepted.
The two later led the police to recover a Tata Indigo taxi, with registration number GR 7923-09, and a Geo Prism taxi, with registration number GW 6162 U, from Abeka Lapaz and Kotobabi Abavana Down, both suburbs of Accra.
The remaining two taxis were recovered by the police later.
Driver's mate charged with child stealing
April 13, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
A driver's mate who allegedly kidnapped a 10-year-old girl and detained her for eight months was yesterday arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court.
Daniel Sosu was charged with one count of child stealing.
He pleaded not guilty to the offence and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢80,000 with one surety.
Sosu, who allegedly changed the victim's name to Vida Sosu, is expected to reappear before the court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, on April 19, 2011.
The facts of the case, as narrated by Chief Inspector A. Ahor, are that the victim, who lived with the complainant at Old Fadama in Accra, left home on July 28, 2010 and did not return.
According to the prosecution, all efforts made, including radio announcements, to locate the victim proved futile.
On March 22, 2011, the complainant, who is the victim’s father, received information that she had been traced to a house at Mataheko in Accra.
The complainant, who had lodged a complaint with the police, managed to locate the said house at Mataheko and, on
getting there, he observed that his daughter was under the care of one Afia Ramzy.
The prosecution said the complainant enquired how she (Afia) had come across the victim, to which Afia responded that Sosu was the victim’s father.
The police eventually effected Sosu’s arrest and, upon interrogation, he claimed he had met the victim at Abossey Okai in August 2010 and took her home.
Sosu also informed the police that he had renamed the victim, whose real name is being withheld, Vida Sosu.
A driver's mate who allegedly kidnapped a 10-year-old girl and detained her for eight months was yesterday arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court.
Daniel Sosu was charged with one count of child stealing.
He pleaded not guilty to the offence and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢80,000 with one surety.
Sosu, who allegedly changed the victim's name to Vida Sosu, is expected to reappear before the court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, on April 19, 2011.
The facts of the case, as narrated by Chief Inspector A. Ahor, are that the victim, who lived with the complainant at Old Fadama in Accra, left home on July 28, 2010 and did not return.
According to the prosecution, all efforts made, including radio announcements, to locate the victim proved futile.
On March 22, 2011, the complainant, who is the victim’s father, received information that she had been traced to a house at Mataheko in Accra.
The complainant, who had lodged a complaint with the police, managed to locate the said house at Mataheko and, on
getting there, he observed that his daughter was under the care of one Afia Ramzy.
The prosecution said the complainant enquired how she (Afia) had come across the victim, to which Afia responded that Sosu was the victim’s father.
The police eventually effected Sosu’s arrest and, upon interrogation, he claimed he had met the victim at Abossey Okai in August 2010 and took her home.
Sosu also informed the police that he had renamed the victim, whose real name is being withheld, Vida Sosu.
Taxi driver remanded for abducting boy, 3
April 12, 2011 (Page 3)
THE taxi driver who is alleged to have abducted a three-year-old boy, Kwabena Agyei-Henaku, was yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra District Magistrate Court.
Emmanuel Amanor, who was tasked to pick the toddler to and from school, refused to return the little boy home after picking him up from school around 3 p.m. on March 4, 2011.
The plea of the accused person, who is facing a provisional charge of murder, was not taken.
The prosecutor, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr C. Abadamlora, prayed the court to remand the accused person because investigations were ongoing to unravel the mystery surrounding the disappearance of the toddler.
The facts of the case are that the toddler’s grandmother, who was alarmed by Amanor’s delay in returning the boy, called the boy’s mother to inform her that the driver had failed to bring him home.
The prosecution said after several attempts to reach the taxi driver failed, the school was called and it was confirmed that the boy had been picked up at 3 p.m.
Efforts to get the taxi driver on the phone failed and that resulted in the subsequent reporting of the matter to the Adenta Police.
A witness met Amanor at home and confronted him over the whereabouts of the missing boy, but Amanor got furious, claiming that he had sent the child to the parents and drove away.
On March 5, 2011, Little Henaku’s family was able to get Amanor on phone. Amanor then said he was on his way to the Agyei-Henakus home but failed to turn up and even put off his cellular phone.
According to the prosecution, a group of young men at Adenta who knew about Amanor and the missing boy spotted Amanor driving by and chased him with another car to the Association International School where he was eventually caught in traffic.
When Amanor was questioned about the whereabouts of the boy, he explained that he had been involved in an accident and was on his way to the police station to report the accident.
At the police station, Amanor told the police that he had an accident, during which Little Henaku hit his head against the dashboard and that the boy was on admission at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital.
Amanor later changed the story and said an articulated truck had hit the taxi and Little Amanor had broken his neck and died so he (Amanor), out of fear, dropped him into a valley in Larteh in the Eastern Region.
Consequently, Amanor was arrested and sent where he said he had dropped the child but it was only Little Henaku’s schoolbag that was found on the hill.
The prosecution said the chief of the area then organised a search party to look for the toddler’s body in the valley but the search party returned with his school uniform, socks and lunch box.
THE taxi driver who is alleged to have abducted a three-year-old boy, Kwabena Agyei-Henaku, was yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra District Magistrate Court.
Emmanuel Amanor, who was tasked to pick the toddler to and from school, refused to return the little boy home after picking him up from school around 3 p.m. on March 4, 2011.
The plea of the accused person, who is facing a provisional charge of murder, was not taken.
The prosecutor, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr C. Abadamlora, prayed the court to remand the accused person because investigations were ongoing to unravel the mystery surrounding the disappearance of the toddler.
The facts of the case are that the toddler’s grandmother, who was alarmed by Amanor’s delay in returning the boy, called the boy’s mother to inform her that the driver had failed to bring him home.
The prosecution said after several attempts to reach the taxi driver failed, the school was called and it was confirmed that the boy had been picked up at 3 p.m.
Efforts to get the taxi driver on the phone failed and that resulted in the subsequent reporting of the matter to the Adenta Police.
A witness met Amanor at home and confronted him over the whereabouts of the missing boy, but Amanor got furious, claiming that he had sent the child to the parents and drove away.
On March 5, 2011, Little Henaku’s family was able to get Amanor on phone. Amanor then said he was on his way to the Agyei-Henakus home but failed to turn up and even put off his cellular phone.
According to the prosecution, a group of young men at Adenta who knew about Amanor and the missing boy spotted Amanor driving by and chased him with another car to the Association International School where he was eventually caught in traffic.
When Amanor was questioned about the whereabouts of the boy, he explained that he had been involved in an accident and was on his way to the police station to report the accident.
At the police station, Amanor told the police that he had an accident, during which Little Henaku hit his head against the dashboard and that the boy was on admission at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital.
Amanor later changed the story and said an articulated truck had hit the taxi and Little Amanor had broken his neck and died so he (Amanor), out of fear, dropped him into a valley in Larteh in the Eastern Region.
Consequently, Amanor was arrested and sent where he said he had dropped the child but it was only Little Henaku’s schoolbag that was found on the hill.
The prosecution said the chief of the area then organised a search party to look for the toddler’s body in the valley but the search party returned with his school uniform, socks and lunch box.
New judge to sit on Mobilla's case
April 12, 2011 (Page 3)
A new judge has been appointed to hear the case involving the three soldiers alleged to have murdered Alhaji Issa Mobilla, barely a month after the substantive judge was prohibited from hearing the case.
The new judge, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logo, replaces Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe, a Court of Appeal judge who sat as an additional High Court judge.
The defence and prosecution teams were present in court in Accra yesterday.
However, the accused persons, namely, Cpl Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka, who are in custody, were not brought to court by the security forces. Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and murder.
A third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
The case has been adjourned to May 13, 2011 for hearing.
The Supreme Court, on March 16, 2011, quashed the decision of Mr Justice Dzamefe to continue sitting on the case after the foreman of the seven-member jury had been replaced due to ill-health.
In a unanimous decision, the court, accordingly, prohibited the judge from further hearing the case on the grounds that he lacked the jurisdiction to hear afresh the suit against the accused persons after he was elevated to the Court of Appeal.
The court, presided over by Professor Dr Justice Date-Bah, with Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey and Mr Justice S. Gbadegbe as panel members, held that the trial judge had the authority to hear only part-heard cases and for that reason his decision to hear the case afresh after the foreman of the jurors had been replaced as a result of ill-health was wrong in law.
It, accordingly, upheld a motion filed on behalf of the soldiers by their counsel, Mr Thaddeus Sory, who prayed the court to prohibit the trial judge because he had no mandate.
The three soldiers are alleged to have murdered Alhaji Mobilla, who was the Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
The facts of the case are that Alhaji Mobilla was arrested by the police on December 9, 2004 for allegedly supplying the youth in Tamale with guns to foment trouble.
While he was in custody, the police claimed that they received information that his followers and sympathisers were mobilising to free him. The deceased was consequently transferred from police cells to the Kamina Military Barracks and handed over to the three accused persons.
According to the prosecution, Alhaji Mobilla died in military custody three hours after he had been handed over to the accused persons who were on duty that day.
The chief pathologist’s report revealed that the deceased was sent to the hospital dead and that he died from multiple wounds.
A new judge has been appointed to hear the case involving the three soldiers alleged to have murdered Alhaji Issa Mobilla, barely a month after the substantive judge was prohibited from hearing the case.
The new judge, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logo, replaces Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe, a Court of Appeal judge who sat as an additional High Court judge.
The defence and prosecution teams were present in court in Accra yesterday.
However, the accused persons, namely, Cpl Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka, who are in custody, were not brought to court by the security forces. Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and murder.
A third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
The case has been adjourned to May 13, 2011 for hearing.
The Supreme Court, on March 16, 2011, quashed the decision of Mr Justice Dzamefe to continue sitting on the case after the foreman of the seven-member jury had been replaced due to ill-health.
In a unanimous decision, the court, accordingly, prohibited the judge from further hearing the case on the grounds that he lacked the jurisdiction to hear afresh the suit against the accused persons after he was elevated to the Court of Appeal.
The court, presided over by Professor Dr Justice Date-Bah, with Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey and Mr Justice S. Gbadegbe as panel members, held that the trial judge had the authority to hear only part-heard cases and for that reason his decision to hear the case afresh after the foreman of the jurors had been replaced as a result of ill-health was wrong in law.
It, accordingly, upheld a motion filed on behalf of the soldiers by their counsel, Mr Thaddeus Sory, who prayed the court to prohibit the trial judge because he had no mandate.
The three soldiers are alleged to have murdered Alhaji Mobilla, who was the Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
The facts of the case are that Alhaji Mobilla was arrested by the police on December 9, 2004 for allegedly supplying the youth in Tamale with guns to foment trouble.
While he was in custody, the police claimed that they received information that his followers and sympathisers were mobilising to free him. The deceased was consequently transferred from police cells to the Kamina Military Barracks and handed over to the three accused persons.
According to the prosecution, Alhaji Mobilla died in military custody three hours after he had been handed over to the accused persons who were on duty that day.
The chief pathologist’s report revealed that the deceased was sent to the hospital dead and that he died from multiple wounds.
Ya-Na's murder case - STATE FILES APPEAL •Against High Court ruling
April 9, 2011 (Lead Story)
THE state has appealed against the acquittal and discharge of the 15 people accused of allegedly conspiring to murder the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya Na Yakubu Andani II, in March 2002.
In a notice of appeal filed on April 7, 2011, the state is praying the Court of Appeal to order the re-trial of the 15 people on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he held that the charge of conspiracy to murder failed because the Ya Na’s death had not been positively proved at the trial.
According to the state, the trial judge erred in law in admitting the alleged proceedings of the Wuaku Commission as evidence with which to contradict the conclusive judgement of the adverse findings made by the commission under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
The Fast Track High Court, on March 29, 2011, discharged the 15 people, namely, the former District Chief Executive for Yendi, Mr Mohammed Habib Tijani; Iddrisu Iddi, alias Mbadugu, 76; Alhaji Baba Iddrisu Abdulai, 54; Kwame Alhassan, 53; Mohammadu Abdulai, 57; Saibu Mohammed, 34; Alhassan Mohammed Briamah, 40; Alhassan Ibrahim, Mohammed Mustapha, Sani Moro, Baba Ibrahim, Yakubu Usifu, Ahmed Abukari, Abdul Razak Usifu and Alhassan Braimah.
Each had pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy. A seventh accused person, Zakaria Forest, who had been charged with two counts of conspiracy and murder and is on the run, was also discharged.
In an almost three-hour ruling on a submission of ‘no case’ filed on behalf of the accused persons by their lawyer, Mr Philip Addison, the court held that the prosecution had woefully failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons and it would, therefore, be dangerous to call on them to open their defence.
According to the trial judge, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against each of the accused persons on the grounds that evidence led by the 12 prosecution witnesses had been inconsistent, fabricated stories against the accused persons and were subsequently discredited on cross-examination.
Dissatisfied with the court’s decision, the Attorney-General’s Department filed the notice of appeal and further stated that the trial judge erred in law in admitting the alleged proceedings of the Wuaku Commission as evidence to contradict the evidence of most of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence was consistent with the judgement contained in the Report of the Wuaku Commission against the same accused persons under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
“The learned trial judge erred in law when he made findings of law which were inconsistent with the adverse findings contained in the judgement of the Report of the Wuaku Commission under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution,” the notice of appeal pointed out.
It further argued that the learned trial judge misdirected himself on the law when he held that because the Abudus asserted that they fought a war with the Andanis, it followed that the Andanis who also fought were equally liable and, therefore, the 15 accused persons only participated in the war which led to the death of the Ya Na but could not be found liable for the offences charged upon evidence given by any prosecution witness, who is an Andani.
“The learned trial judge approached the case with a fundamental prejudice and bias against any Andani prosecution witness and so disabled himself from an impartial assessment of the evidence before him, which led him to the erroneous conclusion that the Andani witnesses appeared to him to be telling the whole world that any Abudu was potentially liable for the murder of the Ya Na when, in fact, none of the 14 accused persons was standing trial for the murder of the Ya Na,” it said.
According to the state, the trial judge disabled himself from appreciating the true meaning of the expression “no evidence” as used in Section 271 (Act 30) in arriving at the erroneous conclusion that there was in law no evidence against the accused persons to call upon them to open their defence.
It further argued that the trial judge erred in law in admitting the record of proceedings in the Republic vs Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyamfo case as evidence for purposes of contradicting the evidence of the prosecution witness in the trial of the 15 because the Yidana Sugri trial was inconsistent with Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution and the adverse findings contained in the Report of the Wuaku Commission.
Based on the stated grounds of appeal, the state held that the learned trial judge’s ruling had occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice and for that reason the Court of Appeal should set aside the ruling of the lower court and order a re-trial of the acquitted persons.
The lower court had held, among others, that the prosecution witnesses who testified against the 15 were the same persons who had testified against Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyamfo in 2002 for the murder of the Ya Na. The two were acquitted and discharged in 2003.
The court was of the view that the witnesses, who, from their own testimonies, partook in the war in Dagbon, later turned round as prosecution witnesses to fabricate stories against the discharged persons, adding that “their conflicting statements totally undermine their credibility”.
“The trend of key witnesses was inconsistent. At no time was their evidence the same,” it held, and accordingly agreed with the defence team’s argument that the evidence put forward by the prosecution was “watery, suspicious, dubious and unreliable”.
It also reminded the prosecution that it (prosecution) relied on the Wuaku Commission’s Report to put together the facts of the case, adding, “Investigations do not only mean taking statements and charging persons with offence. Facts should not be forced to feed a pre-conceived notion.”
The court ruled that nowhere was the prosecution able to prove that the accused persons agreed to act together to murder the Ya Na and further pointed out that it was unfortunate for the prosecution to rely on portions of the Wuaku Commission’s Report when it suited it and later turn around to reject it when it did not serve its purpose.
A total of 12 witnesses testified in the case, which began in July 2010.
THE state has appealed against the acquittal and discharge of the 15 people accused of allegedly conspiring to murder the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya Na Yakubu Andani II, in March 2002.
In a notice of appeal filed on April 7, 2011, the state is praying the Court of Appeal to order the re-trial of the 15 people on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he held that the charge of conspiracy to murder failed because the Ya Na’s death had not been positively proved at the trial.
According to the state, the trial judge erred in law in admitting the alleged proceedings of the Wuaku Commission as evidence with which to contradict the conclusive judgement of the adverse findings made by the commission under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
The Fast Track High Court, on March 29, 2011, discharged the 15 people, namely, the former District Chief Executive for Yendi, Mr Mohammed Habib Tijani; Iddrisu Iddi, alias Mbadugu, 76; Alhaji Baba Iddrisu Abdulai, 54; Kwame Alhassan, 53; Mohammadu Abdulai, 57; Saibu Mohammed, 34; Alhassan Mohammed Briamah, 40; Alhassan Ibrahim, Mohammed Mustapha, Sani Moro, Baba Ibrahim, Yakubu Usifu, Ahmed Abukari, Abdul Razak Usifu and Alhassan Braimah.
Each had pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy. A seventh accused person, Zakaria Forest, who had been charged with two counts of conspiracy and murder and is on the run, was also discharged.
In an almost three-hour ruling on a submission of ‘no case’ filed on behalf of the accused persons by their lawyer, Mr Philip Addison, the court held that the prosecution had woefully failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons and it would, therefore, be dangerous to call on them to open their defence.
According to the trial judge, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against each of the accused persons on the grounds that evidence led by the 12 prosecution witnesses had been inconsistent, fabricated stories against the accused persons and were subsequently discredited on cross-examination.
Dissatisfied with the court’s decision, the Attorney-General’s Department filed the notice of appeal and further stated that the trial judge erred in law in admitting the alleged proceedings of the Wuaku Commission as evidence to contradict the evidence of most of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence was consistent with the judgement contained in the Report of the Wuaku Commission against the same accused persons under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
“The learned trial judge erred in law when he made findings of law which were inconsistent with the adverse findings contained in the judgement of the Report of the Wuaku Commission under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution,” the notice of appeal pointed out.
It further argued that the learned trial judge misdirected himself on the law when he held that because the Abudus asserted that they fought a war with the Andanis, it followed that the Andanis who also fought were equally liable and, therefore, the 15 accused persons only participated in the war which led to the death of the Ya Na but could not be found liable for the offences charged upon evidence given by any prosecution witness, who is an Andani.
“The learned trial judge approached the case with a fundamental prejudice and bias against any Andani prosecution witness and so disabled himself from an impartial assessment of the evidence before him, which led him to the erroneous conclusion that the Andani witnesses appeared to him to be telling the whole world that any Abudu was potentially liable for the murder of the Ya Na when, in fact, none of the 14 accused persons was standing trial for the murder of the Ya Na,” it said.
According to the state, the trial judge disabled himself from appreciating the true meaning of the expression “no evidence” as used in Section 271 (Act 30) in arriving at the erroneous conclusion that there was in law no evidence against the accused persons to call upon them to open their defence.
It further argued that the trial judge erred in law in admitting the record of proceedings in the Republic vs Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyamfo case as evidence for purposes of contradicting the evidence of the prosecution witness in the trial of the 15 because the Yidana Sugri trial was inconsistent with Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution and the adverse findings contained in the Report of the Wuaku Commission.
Based on the stated grounds of appeal, the state held that the learned trial judge’s ruling had occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice and for that reason the Court of Appeal should set aside the ruling of the lower court and order a re-trial of the acquitted persons.
The lower court had held, among others, that the prosecution witnesses who testified against the 15 were the same persons who had testified against Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyamfo in 2002 for the murder of the Ya Na. The two were acquitted and discharged in 2003.
The court was of the view that the witnesses, who, from their own testimonies, partook in the war in Dagbon, later turned round as prosecution witnesses to fabricate stories against the discharged persons, adding that “their conflicting statements totally undermine their credibility”.
“The trend of key witnesses was inconsistent. At no time was their evidence the same,” it held, and accordingly agreed with the defence team’s argument that the evidence put forward by the prosecution was “watery, suspicious, dubious and unreliable”.
It also reminded the prosecution that it (prosecution) relied on the Wuaku Commission’s Report to put together the facts of the case, adding, “Investigations do not only mean taking statements and charging persons with offence. Facts should not be forced to feed a pre-conceived notion.”
The court ruled that nowhere was the prosecution able to prove that the accused persons agreed to act together to murder the Ya Na and further pointed out that it was unfortunate for the prosecution to rely on portions of the Wuaku Commission’s Report when it suited it and later turn around to reject it when it did not serve its purpose.
A total of 12 witnesses testified in the case, which began in July 2010.
Osei-Adjei, Gyimah case - Appeal Court orders stay of proceedings
April 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Court of Appeal yesterday stayed proceedings in the trial of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Akwasi Osei-Adjei, and a former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Mr Daniel Charles Gyimah.
The two have appealed against the Fast Track High Court’s order directed at them to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
Following their appeal, the two filed another motion praying the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings at the lower court, since their appeal had a greater chance of success.
In a unanimous decision, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Yaw Appau, with Mr Justice P.K. Gyaesayor and Mr Justice Dennis Agyei as members, stayed proceedings in the interest of justice.
It gave its ruling 13 minutes after counsel for the accused persons, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, and a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Gyambiby, had argued their cases.
According to the court, the state had nothing to lose if it (court) stayed proceedings at the lower court.
It further pointed out that because of the public interest in the matter, the lower court should speed up the compilation of the record of proceedings to enable the registrar of the Court of Appeal to list the substantive appeal for hearing.
Mr Osei-Adjei and Mr Gyimah, who are each facing two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act, were in court.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000, with two sureties each to be justified.
Earlier, Mr Dame had prayed the court to stay proceedings at the lower court because the two accused persons would suffer irreparable loss if the Court of Appeal did not stay proceedings pending the appeal.
According to Mr Dame, who also argued on behalf of Colonel Alex Johnson (retd), counsel for Mr Gyimah, the appeal had a greater chance of success and for that reason it was only fair for the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings.
Opposing the application, Mr Gyambiby was of the view that the grant of stay of proceedings was not automatic, adding that the applicants had failed to show exceptional circumstances under which their request should be granted.
He also argued that there was no likelihood the appeal would succeed and further pointed out that the trial would be delayed if proceedings were stayed.
Mr Gyambiby, accordingly, prayed the court to dismiss the application for stay of proceedings.
In the substantive appeal, the two are appealing to the Court of Appeal to reverse or set aside part of the lower court’s ruling that they had a case to answer on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
On February 25, 2011, the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court acquitted and discharged the two on six counts of conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, use of public office for profit and stealing.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, however, ordered the two to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
The two are praying the court to set aside the ruling of the lower court and give consequential orders acquitting and discharging them on the two counts.
The grounds of appeal state, among others, that the trial judge placed weight on irrelevant evidence, as well as disregarded the overwhelming evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that there was no use of public funds as defined by the Public Procurement Act.
According to the appellants, the trial judge also disregarded the evidence of the prosecution that the NIB was not a procurement entity which was required to apply the Public Procurement Act.
In its ruling on a “submission of no case” filed on behalf of the accused persons, the lower court was of the view that the prosecution had failed to lead evidence to prove that Osei-Adjei and Gyimah wilfully caused financial loss to the state by allegedly acting together to steal 2,997 bags of rice valued at US$1,408,590.
It also upheld the defence team’s argument that the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused persons used public office for profit, as well as conspired to steal, but directed the two to open their defence on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses and closed its case on November 30, 2010. The trial began in October, 2009.
THE Court of Appeal yesterday stayed proceedings in the trial of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Akwasi Osei-Adjei, and a former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Mr Daniel Charles Gyimah.
The two have appealed against the Fast Track High Court’s order directed at them to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
Following their appeal, the two filed another motion praying the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings at the lower court, since their appeal had a greater chance of success.
In a unanimous decision, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Yaw Appau, with Mr Justice P.K. Gyaesayor and Mr Justice Dennis Agyei as members, stayed proceedings in the interest of justice.
It gave its ruling 13 minutes after counsel for the accused persons, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, and a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Gyambiby, had argued their cases.
According to the court, the state had nothing to lose if it (court) stayed proceedings at the lower court.
It further pointed out that because of the public interest in the matter, the lower court should speed up the compilation of the record of proceedings to enable the registrar of the Court of Appeal to list the substantive appeal for hearing.
Mr Osei-Adjei and Mr Gyimah, who are each facing two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act, were in court.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000, with two sureties each to be justified.
Earlier, Mr Dame had prayed the court to stay proceedings at the lower court because the two accused persons would suffer irreparable loss if the Court of Appeal did not stay proceedings pending the appeal.
According to Mr Dame, who also argued on behalf of Colonel Alex Johnson (retd), counsel for Mr Gyimah, the appeal had a greater chance of success and for that reason it was only fair for the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings.
Opposing the application, Mr Gyambiby was of the view that the grant of stay of proceedings was not automatic, adding that the applicants had failed to show exceptional circumstances under which their request should be granted.
He also argued that there was no likelihood the appeal would succeed and further pointed out that the trial would be delayed if proceedings were stayed.
Mr Gyambiby, accordingly, prayed the court to dismiss the application for stay of proceedings.
In the substantive appeal, the two are appealing to the Court of Appeal to reverse or set aside part of the lower court’s ruling that they had a case to answer on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
On February 25, 2011, the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court acquitted and discharged the two on six counts of conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, use of public office for profit and stealing.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, however, ordered the two to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
The two are praying the court to set aside the ruling of the lower court and give consequential orders acquitting and discharging them on the two counts.
The grounds of appeal state, among others, that the trial judge placed weight on irrelevant evidence, as well as disregarded the overwhelming evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that there was no use of public funds as defined by the Public Procurement Act.
According to the appellants, the trial judge also disregarded the evidence of the prosecution that the NIB was not a procurement entity which was required to apply the Public Procurement Act.
In its ruling on a “submission of no case” filed on behalf of the accused persons, the lower court was of the view that the prosecution had failed to lead evidence to prove that Osei-Adjei and Gyimah wilfully caused financial loss to the state by allegedly acting together to steal 2,997 bags of rice valued at US$1,408,590.
It also upheld the defence team’s argument that the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused persons used public office for profit, as well as conspired to steal, but directed the two to open their defence on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses and closed its case on November 30, 2010. The trial began in October, 2009.
'CHRAJ can investigate Baba Kamara'
April 7, 2011 (Front Page)
THE Supreme Court yesterday ruled that private individuals implicated in a bribery scandal alongside public officials could be investigated by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ).
Consequently, the court held that Ghana's Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr Baba Kamara, who has been implicated along with six others in the Mabey and Johnson (M&J) bribery scandal, could be investigated by CHRAJ.
Mr Kamara had challenged the authority of CHRAJ to investigate him on the grounds that he was a private individual at the time the alleged bribery took place.
Following Mr Kamara's objection, CHRAJ, through its lawyer, Mr Thaddeus Sory, took the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
In a unanimous decision, the court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia A.B. Akuffo, held that under Article 218 of the 1992 Constitution, CHRAJ had powers to investigate a private individual implicated alongside public officials.
The court held that where, in an alleged bribery/corruption allegation, a private individual was implicated alongside public officials, that individual could be investigated by CHRAJ.
It was of the view that CHRAJ's mandate would be frustrated if Mr Kamara's views were upheld.
Other members of the panel were Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Professor Justice S.K. Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey.
In a related development, the Court of Appeal, on March 24, 2011, set aside last year's ruling of the Human Rights Court which prohibited CHRAJ from investigating bribery allegations against six former public officers implicated in the M&J bribery scandal.
The court said after carefully examining the video tapes, documents and appeal processes, it found that there was no evidence that the comments made by the then Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Justice Emile Short, could lead to bias.
It was of the view that Mr Justice Short was not synonymous with CHRAJ, noting that even if there was any likelihood of bias shown by him, other commissioners could investigate the allegation.
The six officials are Mr Kwame Peprah, Alhaji Baba Kamara, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor (retd) and Dr Ato Quarshie.
A seventh official, Dr George Sipa Yankey, who was also cited in the scandal, however, prayed the Human Rights Court to order CHRAJ to investigate him, but the court declined his offer.
The latest rulings from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court indicate that Mr Yankey's dreams have been fulfilled.
The seven were said to have been given various sums of money by the British company, Mabey & Johnson, for the award of contracts in favour of the company.
THE Supreme Court yesterday ruled that private individuals implicated in a bribery scandal alongside public officials could be investigated by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ).
Consequently, the court held that Ghana's Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr Baba Kamara, who has been implicated along with six others in the Mabey and Johnson (M&J) bribery scandal, could be investigated by CHRAJ.
Mr Kamara had challenged the authority of CHRAJ to investigate him on the grounds that he was a private individual at the time the alleged bribery took place.
Following Mr Kamara's objection, CHRAJ, through its lawyer, Mr Thaddeus Sory, took the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
In a unanimous decision, the court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia A.B. Akuffo, held that under Article 218 of the 1992 Constitution, CHRAJ had powers to investigate a private individual implicated alongside public officials.
The court held that where, in an alleged bribery/corruption allegation, a private individual was implicated alongside public officials, that individual could be investigated by CHRAJ.
It was of the view that CHRAJ's mandate would be frustrated if Mr Kamara's views were upheld.
Other members of the panel were Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Professor Justice S.K. Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey.
In a related development, the Court of Appeal, on March 24, 2011, set aside last year's ruling of the Human Rights Court which prohibited CHRAJ from investigating bribery allegations against six former public officers implicated in the M&J bribery scandal.
The court said after carefully examining the video tapes, documents and appeal processes, it found that there was no evidence that the comments made by the then Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Justice Emile Short, could lead to bias.
It was of the view that Mr Justice Short was not synonymous with CHRAJ, noting that even if there was any likelihood of bias shown by him, other commissioners could investigate the allegation.
The six officials are Mr Kwame Peprah, Alhaji Baba Kamara, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor (retd) and Dr Ato Quarshie.
A seventh official, Dr George Sipa Yankey, who was also cited in the scandal, however, prayed the Human Rights Court to order CHRAJ to investigate him, but the court declined his offer.
The latest rulings from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court indicate that Mr Yankey's dreams have been fulfilled.
The seven were said to have been given various sums of money by the British company, Mabey & Johnson, for the award of contracts in favour of the company.
Judges resume sitting in Accra
April 6, 2011 (Page 3)
JUDGES of the superior and lower courts resumed duty 24 hours after they declined to sit on cases for fear of being attacked by hundreds of youth who staged a demonstration in Accra on Tuesday seeking justice for the murder of the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya Na Yakubu Andani II.
The Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex Opoku-Acheampong, had on Tuesday informed reporters that the judges stayed away from the courtrooms in view of the absence of security personnel at the courts to provide adequate protection against any possible attacks from the demonstrators.
A tour of the courts by the Daily Graphic indicated that the parking lots at the Cocoa Affairs Court, the Supreme and the Fast Track High courts were filled to capacity as of 8.40 a.m., indicating that normal activities had resumed.
Most courtrooms were also filled to capacity as of 9.00 a.m., while judges were seen busily adjudicating over cases.
Some lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed disappointment at the events that happened on Tuesday and expressed the hope that aggrieved persons would follow due process of the law and seek legal redress, instead of demonstrating and disrupting court proceedings, to the detriment of litigants and remand prisoners.
Some members of the public who had travelled long distances to the court premises were happy that normal activities had resumed.
Meanwhile, the trial involving a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, aka Asabee, and seven others resumed at the Fast Track High Court in Accra yesterday.
The prosecution amended aspects of counts one and two which bordered on conspiracy and contravention of the Public Procurement Act.
Following the amendment of the sections, which in effect did not affect the charges levelled against the accused persons over the GH¢86,915.85 contract for renovation works at the Ministry of Information, the defence team requested the court to allow it to recall prosecution witnesses.
The prosecution, however, prayed the court to decline the defence team’s request on the grounds that fresh evidence had not been introduced to warrant the recall of prosecution witnesses.
Ruling on the defence team’s request, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, was of the view that fresh evidence had not been introduced into the case and for that reason the court would not allow the recall of prosecution witnesses.
Hearing continues on April 14, 2011.
Those standing trial are Asabee, his wife, Zuleika Asamoah-Boateng; Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister at the ministry; Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, a former Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Kwabena Denkyira, a former Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Yasmin Domua and Prosper Aku, both of Supreme Procurement Agency Ltd, as well as the company as an entity.
They have been charged with contravening the Procurement Act. Asabee and Zuleika are alleged to have conspired to contravene the act by not following the due process in obtaining a contract amounting to GH¢86,915.85 for renovation works at the Ministry of Information.
All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have all been admitted to bail.
JUDGES of the superior and lower courts resumed duty 24 hours after they declined to sit on cases for fear of being attacked by hundreds of youth who staged a demonstration in Accra on Tuesday seeking justice for the murder of the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya Na Yakubu Andani II.
The Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex Opoku-Acheampong, had on Tuesday informed reporters that the judges stayed away from the courtrooms in view of the absence of security personnel at the courts to provide adequate protection against any possible attacks from the demonstrators.
A tour of the courts by the Daily Graphic indicated that the parking lots at the Cocoa Affairs Court, the Supreme and the Fast Track High courts were filled to capacity as of 8.40 a.m., indicating that normal activities had resumed.
Most courtrooms were also filled to capacity as of 9.00 a.m., while judges were seen busily adjudicating over cases.
Some lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed disappointment at the events that happened on Tuesday and expressed the hope that aggrieved persons would follow due process of the law and seek legal redress, instead of demonstrating and disrupting court proceedings, to the detriment of litigants and remand prisoners.
Some members of the public who had travelled long distances to the court premises were happy that normal activities had resumed.
Meanwhile, the trial involving a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, aka Asabee, and seven others resumed at the Fast Track High Court in Accra yesterday.
The prosecution amended aspects of counts one and two which bordered on conspiracy and contravention of the Public Procurement Act.
Following the amendment of the sections, which in effect did not affect the charges levelled against the accused persons over the GH¢86,915.85 contract for renovation works at the Ministry of Information, the defence team requested the court to allow it to recall prosecution witnesses.
The prosecution, however, prayed the court to decline the defence team’s request on the grounds that fresh evidence had not been introduced to warrant the recall of prosecution witnesses.
Ruling on the defence team’s request, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, was of the view that fresh evidence had not been introduced into the case and for that reason the court would not allow the recall of prosecution witnesses.
Hearing continues on April 14, 2011.
Those standing trial are Asabee, his wife, Zuleika Asamoah-Boateng; Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister at the ministry; Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, a former Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Kwabena Denkyira, a former Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Yasmin Domua and Prosper Aku, both of Supreme Procurement Agency Ltd, as well as the company as an entity.
They have been charged with contravening the Procurement Act. Asabee and Zuleika are alleged to have conspired to contravene the act by not following the due process in obtaining a contract amounting to GH¢86,915.85 for renovation works at the Ministry of Information.
All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have all been admitted to bail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)