June 30,2011 (Page 3 Lead)
The Human Rights Court has prohibited the government and the Civil Service Council from proceeding with investigations against a former Director of the Ministry of Youth and Sports and another over the disbursement and loss of $30,000 at the ministry.
The court also declared that the purported investigations being undertaken by the Civil Service Council into the alleged disbursement and loss of $30,000 and the invitation to the two to appear before the so-called fact-finding committee of the council were 'actuated by bias and prejudice and, therefore, unlawful and a gross infringement of the applicants' fundamental human right to a fair hearing under Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution'.
According to the court, the Civil Service Council had demonstrated that it did not have an impartial mind to conduct investigations against Mr Albert Anthony Ampong, a former Chief Director, and Mr Adim Odoom, a former Principal Accountant, both of the Ministry of Youth and Sports.
The legal tussle between the applicants and the council began on July 7, 2009 when the two were interdicted for their alleged disbursement of $20,000 and $10,000 to a former Minister of Youth and Sports, Alhaji Muntaka Mohammed Mubarak.
The two applicants reported the conduct of Alhaji Mubarak to the President, resulting in the National Security Council taking over investigations.
The two were found culpable after investigations.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations, their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed an application for judicial review on their behalf.
In December 2009, the Accra Fast Track High Court, in two separate rulings, held that the interdiction of the two was illegal and, accordingly, quashed an order directed at them to refund $30,00 to the state coffers.
The court held that the sanctions must not be applied against the two based on the national security report which it described as 'flawed'.
According to the court, due process was not followed and for that reason it was inappropriate for sanctions to be applied against the two because they had neither been investigated nor charged for any offence.
The applicants resumed work as ordered by the court, but the Civil Service Council, by a letter dated March 31, 2010, interdicted them and indicated its intention to conduct investigations into their conduct in the disbursement of the $30,000.
The two, however, instituted legal action, resulting in the Human Rights Court, on November 8, 2010, declaring the decision of the Civil Service Council as unlawful.
Despite the Human Rights Court's directive, the Civil Service Council decided to embark on a fact-finding mission but the court held that from its letters to the applicants, it was clear that the Civil Service had not conducted fresh investigations and it was, therefore, relying on the flawed National Security report to conduct the said investigations into the disbursement of the $30,000.
'It was simply carrying forward the President's directives, which were declared unlawful by the Fast Track Division of this court,' the court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, held.
Citing authorities to support its decision, the court held that the council simply wanted a way to rubber-stamp the National Security investigations and the President's directives which said the two should be interdicted.
According to the court, the findings of fact against the applicants by the Civil Service Council were the same conclusions the National Security Council had arrived at, adding, 'It is obvious that this fact-finding committee is a ruse. It is not a genuine, impartial, fact-finding committee.'
It further held that the applicants would not be given a fair hearing, which would be a violation of their right to administrative justice pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution, pointing out that the applicants were, therefore, entitled to be protected under Article 33 of the Constitution.
The court awarded costs of GH¢6,000 against the Civil Service Council.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
AMA Boss Files Appeal Against Contempt Case
June 29, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
The Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.
Mr Vanderpuije, who was absent in court yesterday, filed another application praying the court to stay the order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, announced the filing of the appeal and stay of execution of the court order when the matter was called yesterday and stated that the motion for stay of execution would be moved on July 6, 2011.
Opposing counsel's plea for an adjournment, counsel for the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG), Mr George Ankomah Mensah, prayed the court to issue a bench warrant for Mr Vanderpuije's arrest but the court declined.
The two applications, which were filed on Monday, are yet to be served on the court and the AAG.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
But he has denied any wrongdoing.
In the first contempt application, Mr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the AAG until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The court's ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije's) security guard.
According to Mr Baffour, he informed Mr Vanderpuije that because it was a contempt application, he was expected to personally sign for it but Mr Vanderpuije walked out on him while directing Baffour to give the documents to his security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije's office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait.
The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, 'Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.'
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
He also denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.
The Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.
Mr Vanderpuije, who was absent in court yesterday, filed another application praying the court to stay the order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, announced the filing of the appeal and stay of execution of the court order when the matter was called yesterday and stated that the motion for stay of execution would be moved on July 6, 2011.
Opposing counsel's plea for an adjournment, counsel for the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG), Mr George Ankomah Mensah, prayed the court to issue a bench warrant for Mr Vanderpuije's arrest but the court declined.
The two applications, which were filed on Monday, are yet to be served on the court and the AAG.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
But he has denied any wrongdoing.
In the first contempt application, Mr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the AAG until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The court's ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije's) security guard.
According to Mr Baffour, he informed Mr Vanderpuije that because it was a contempt application, he was expected to personally sign for it but Mr Vanderpuije walked out on him while directing Baffour to give the documents to his security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije's office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait.
The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, 'Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.'
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
He also denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Bawku Central MP's case - Hearing adjourned
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE nationality trial involving the Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, was today adjourned because the prosecutor in the case is out of the jurisdiction.
A Chief State Attorney, Mrs Merley Wood, informed the court when the case was called that the substantive prosecutor, Mr Rexford Wiredu, was outside the country and accordingly, prayed the court to adjourn the case.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, adjourned the case to July 18, 2011.
The court had on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness, if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed “ambiguity” arising from the evidence of the MP and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his nationality status.
However, the court refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.
Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, devoted a major part of his ruling to why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MP’s claims, citing authorities.
Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, on his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.
After the ruling, the court declined to grant the defence team’s request for a short adjournment to enable it (defence team) to study the ruling for the necessary action to be taken.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
THE nationality trial involving the Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, was today adjourned because the prosecutor in the case is out of the jurisdiction.
A Chief State Attorney, Mrs Merley Wood, informed the court when the case was called that the substantive prosecutor, Mr Rexford Wiredu, was outside the country and accordingly, prayed the court to adjourn the case.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, adjourned the case to July 18, 2011.
The court had on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness, if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed “ambiguity” arising from the evidence of the MP and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his nationality status.
However, the court refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.
Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, devoted a major part of his ruling to why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MP’s claims, citing authorities.
Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, on his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.
After the ruling, the court declined to grant the defence team’s request for a short adjournment to enable it (defence team) to study the ruling for the necessary action to be taken.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Student remanded for possessing heroin
June 24, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
A student who was arrested for allegedly possessing 416 grammes of heroin was yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Frimpong Ntim has pleaded not guilty to two counts of attempting to export a narcotic drug without licence and possession of a narcotic drug without lawful authority.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, a High Court judge with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge, warned that the court would proceed to hear the case if the lawyer for the accused person did not appear on the next adjourned date.
Counsel was absent when the matter was called, prompting the trial judge to adjourn the case to July 7, 2011.
Frimpong, who reportedly hid 36 pellets of heroin in his baggage and swallowed four pellets, was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) around 8:30 p.m. on December 20, 2010.
The facts of the case are that the accused person arrived at the KIA on December 20, 2010 to board a United Airlines flight to Washington, DC, USA.
While he was undergoing departure formalities, officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) suspected him of carrying narcotic drugs and, therefore, picked him up for questioning.
A search in his baggage, according to the prosecution, revealed 36 pellets of a brownish substance suspected to be heroin.
Frimpong was said to have confessed to swallowing four pellets of the drug. He was later sent to the NACOB Headquarters where he expelled the four pellets.
According to the prosecution, the accused person admitted in his caution statement that someone called Sulley of Accra Newtown had given him the heroin to be delivered to somebody in Washington, DC, for a fee of $6,000.
A report from the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) confirmed that the substance found on Frimpong was heroin, with a net weight of 416 grammes.
A student who was arrested for allegedly possessing 416 grammes of heroin was yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Frimpong Ntim has pleaded not guilty to two counts of attempting to export a narcotic drug without licence and possession of a narcotic drug without lawful authority.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, a High Court judge with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge, warned that the court would proceed to hear the case if the lawyer for the accused person did not appear on the next adjourned date.
Counsel was absent when the matter was called, prompting the trial judge to adjourn the case to July 7, 2011.
Frimpong, who reportedly hid 36 pellets of heroin in his baggage and swallowed four pellets, was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) around 8:30 p.m. on December 20, 2010.
The facts of the case are that the accused person arrived at the KIA on December 20, 2010 to board a United Airlines flight to Washington, DC, USA.
While he was undergoing departure formalities, officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) suspected him of carrying narcotic drugs and, therefore, picked him up for questioning.
A search in his baggage, according to the prosecution, revealed 36 pellets of a brownish substance suspected to be heroin.
Frimpong was said to have confessed to swallowing four pellets of the drug. He was later sent to the NACOB Headquarters where he expelled the four pellets.
According to the prosecution, the accused person admitted in his caution statement that someone called Sulley of Accra Newtown had given him the heroin to be delivered to somebody in Washington, DC, for a fee of $6,000.
A report from the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) confirmed that the substance found on Frimpong was heroin, with a net weight of 416 grammes.
Terminator of telephone calls jailed
June 23, 2011 (Front page)
THE mastermind behind the illegal termination of international telephone traffic in Ghana, Hassan Nonni, was yesterday sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court.
The convict interfered with international telephone traffic by making international calls as local ones, thereby denying the country and the service providers large amounts of revenue.
Nonni was apprehended at his hideout in Achimota, Accra, in November 2010.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of providing electronic communications service without a licence and knowingly obstructing and interfering with the sending, transmission, delivering and reception of communication.
The investigator in charge of the case was expected to testify when the case was called, but Nonni, who had earlier pleaded not guilty, decided to change his plea to guilty.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, then found him guilty on both counts and sentenced him accordingly to five years’ imprisonment on both counts. The sentences are to run concurrently.
The facts of the case were that Nonni, a Ghanaian who has been resident in Italy for the past 23 years and holds an Italian passport, had in his possession at the time of his arrest sophisticated gadgets used in his illicit enterprise.
Experts identified them as a Cisco Router and three pieces of Telles IGate equipment which uses four megawatts user Internet account, each with 16 slot cards.
Also in his possession were 3,869 SIM cards, mainly from Vodafone and Zain.
Each of the SIM cards was capable of generating approximately US$40 and it had been estimated that his operations led to the loss of millions of dollars to telecom operators and the government.
His arrest followed a joint anti-fraud task force which was set up by the National Communications Authority (NCA), in conjunction with the telecom operators, to track down people involved in the fraudulent by-pass of international calls.
THE mastermind behind the illegal termination of international telephone traffic in Ghana, Hassan Nonni, was yesterday sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court.
The convict interfered with international telephone traffic by making international calls as local ones, thereby denying the country and the service providers large amounts of revenue.
Nonni was apprehended at his hideout in Achimota, Accra, in November 2010.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of providing electronic communications service without a licence and knowingly obstructing and interfering with the sending, transmission, delivering and reception of communication.
The investigator in charge of the case was expected to testify when the case was called, but Nonni, who had earlier pleaded not guilty, decided to change his plea to guilty.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, then found him guilty on both counts and sentenced him accordingly to five years’ imprisonment on both counts. The sentences are to run concurrently.
The facts of the case were that Nonni, a Ghanaian who has been resident in Italy for the past 23 years and holds an Italian passport, had in his possession at the time of his arrest sophisticated gadgets used in his illicit enterprise.
Experts identified them as a Cisco Router and three pieces of Telles IGate equipment which uses four megawatts user Internet account, each with 16 slot cards.
Also in his possession were 3,869 SIM cards, mainly from Vodafone and Zain.
Each of the SIM cards was capable of generating approximately US$40 and it had been estimated that his operations led to the loss of millions of dollars to telecom operators and the government.
His arrest followed a joint anti-fraud task force which was set up by the National Communications Authority (NCA), in conjunction with the telecom operators, to track down people involved in the fraudulent by-pass of international calls.
New jury for Mobilla's case
June 23, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)
TRIAL begins at the Accra Motor Court on August 15, 2011 of the popular female musician, Nana Akua Amoah, alias Mzbel, and her two friends who are charged for assaulting a police officer.
The court fixed the date when the accused persons, who were granted bail by the Human Rights Court last Wednesday, appeared before it on Thursday.
Mzbel, Maxwell Mensah, a businessman, and Emmanuel Edem Lordzoh, a student, were on Monday refused bail and remanded in custody by the Motor Court to reappear on Friday, June 10, 2011 when they made their first appearance before the court, charged with traffic-related offences.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, counsel for the three, Mr Anthony Naamo, applied and secured bail for them at the Human Rights Court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery.
Mzbel has pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Maxwell has been charged with four counts of unauthorised parking, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, while Emmanuel is charged with driving without licence.
The two have also pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence with a Mitsubishi vehicle, with registration number GR 9470 - 11, at Tudu in Accra about 12.40 p.m. on June 4, 2011 but the defence team has denied the charges.
TRIAL begins at the Accra Motor Court on August 15, 2011 of the popular female musician, Nana Akua Amoah, alias Mzbel, and her two friends who are charged for assaulting a police officer.
The court fixed the date when the accused persons, who were granted bail by the Human Rights Court last Wednesday, appeared before it on Thursday.
Mzbel, Maxwell Mensah, a businessman, and Emmanuel Edem Lordzoh, a student, were on Monday refused bail and remanded in custody by the Motor Court to reappear on Friday, June 10, 2011 when they made their first appearance before the court, charged with traffic-related offences.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, counsel for the three, Mr Anthony Naamo, applied and secured bail for them at the Human Rights Court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery.
Mzbel has pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Maxwell has been charged with four counts of unauthorised parking, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, while Emmanuel is charged with driving without licence.
The two have also pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence with a Mitsubishi vehicle, with registration number GR 9470 - 11, at Tudu in Accra about 12.40 p.m. on June 4, 2011 but the defence team has denied the charges.
EOCO's motion to confiscate Exopa's assets - Hearing adjourned
June 22, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE hearing of the motion filed by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to give the office the permission to confiscate and dispose of assets of the Chief Executive Officer of the Exopa Modelling Agency, Sima Ibrahim, has been adjourned to July 15, 2011.
The adjournment was necessitated by the non-availability of the record of proceedings and the absence of the substantive prosecutor in the case.
At the court's hearing in Accra yesterday, a lawyer from the EOCO prayed the court to adjourn the case because the prosecutor, Mr Philip Addison, was out of the jurisdiction on a training programme.
The lawyer also informed the court that the record of proceedings in the case were also not ready.
Counsel, therefore, prayed for an adjournment.
The trial judge also stated that the court had also not received the record of proceedings.
Sima was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on March 3, 2011 after he had been found guilty on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs concealed in four
tubers of yam.
The EOCO motion was expected to be moved on May 19, 2011, but the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, directed the EOCO to furnish it with the record of proceedings of March 3, 2011.
Earlier, counsel for Sima, Dr Dominic Ayine, had raised a preliminary objection and said the EOCO should have gone to court under PNDCL 328 and not Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it had done.
However, the court drew counsel's attention to the fact that it was too early for counsel to be making that argument.
The EOCO's action formed part of the Narcotics Control Board's (NACOB’s) plans to confiscate and sell assets of convicted drug dealers to the public.
The Daily Graphic issue of May 13, 2011 listed 24 properties belonging to Sima, including buildings, a number of vehicles, bank accounts, both local and foreign, cash in foreign and local currencies, digital cameras, laptops, as well as pistols and shotguns.
The properties include the EXOPA Modelling School, situated behind the Trade Fair Centre at La; a house numbered 1233 at Tema Community 10; shareholding and assets in the EXOPA Modelling School; a Range Rover, a Land Rover, BMW and Opel vehicles, credit cards, as well as German, Belgian and Togolese passports.
THE hearing of the motion filed by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to give the office the permission to confiscate and dispose of assets of the Chief Executive Officer of the Exopa Modelling Agency, Sima Ibrahim, has been adjourned to July 15, 2011.
The adjournment was necessitated by the non-availability of the record of proceedings and the absence of the substantive prosecutor in the case.
At the court's hearing in Accra yesterday, a lawyer from the EOCO prayed the court to adjourn the case because the prosecutor, Mr Philip Addison, was out of the jurisdiction on a training programme.
The lawyer also informed the court that the record of proceedings in the case were also not ready.
Counsel, therefore, prayed for an adjournment.
The trial judge also stated that the court had also not received the record of proceedings.
Sima was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on March 3, 2011 after he had been found guilty on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs concealed in four
tubers of yam.
The EOCO motion was expected to be moved on May 19, 2011, but the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, directed the EOCO to furnish it with the record of proceedings of March 3, 2011.
Earlier, counsel for Sima, Dr Dominic Ayine, had raised a preliminary objection and said the EOCO should have gone to court under PNDCL 328 and not Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it had done.
However, the court drew counsel's attention to the fact that it was too early for counsel to be making that argument.
The EOCO's action formed part of the Narcotics Control Board's (NACOB’s) plans to confiscate and sell assets of convicted drug dealers to the public.
The Daily Graphic issue of May 13, 2011 listed 24 properties belonging to Sima, including buildings, a number of vehicles, bank accounts, both local and foreign, cash in foreign and local currencies, digital cameras, laptops, as well as pistols and shotguns.
The properties include the EXOPA Modelling School, situated behind the Trade Fair Centre at La; a house numbered 1233 at Tema Community 10; shareholding and assets in the EXOPA Modelling School; a Range Rover, a Land Rover, BMW and Opel vehicles, credit cards, as well as German, Belgian and Togolese passports.
Law lecturers drag AMJG to court
June 14, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
TWO lawyers have dragged the Association of Magistrates and Judges of Ghana (AMJG) to court for refusing to hear four lawyers who have accused judges of being corrupt.
Also joined in the suit are the General Legal Council and the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee of the council.
Dr Clement Apaak and Dr Samuel Buame, both lecturers at the University of Ghana, in a motion for judicial review, are praying the court, which will be presided over by a member of the AMJG, to review the actions of the respondents against the four lawyers, among other reliefs.
The two, who are also spokespersons for the Forum for Governance and Justice, in an affidavit in support of the motion, stated that the AMJG had, on May 18, 2011, lodged a complaint with the General Legal Council praying the council to deal with four lawyers, namely, Dr Raymond Atuguba, Mr Abraham Amaliba, Mr Laary Bimi and Mr David Annan, by inviting the four to the Disciplinary Committee of the council to substantiate and justify their allegations.
The two are praying the court to prohibit the General Legal Council and its Disciplinary Committee from proceeding to act on the purported complaint made against the four lawyers by an organisation operating illegally.
The applicants are also urging the court to declare that the AMJG does not possess the legal authority to engage in business in Ghana, since all activities of the AMJG, after its incorporation, including the purported complaint submitted by it to the General Legal Council, are illegal and therefore, null and void.
They are also praying for a declaration that the objects of the AMJG are illegal, as they contravene the Labour Laws of Ghana.
They are also praying for a certiorari to quash any purported decision of the General Legal Council or its Disciplinary Committee to proceed with the hearing of the purported complaint.
Exhibits attached to the motion for judicial review stated, among others, that although the AMJG was incorporated on February 12, 1999 with certificate number G-4 125, it did not have a certificate to commence business, adding that documents received from the Registrar of Companies indicated that every action taken by the AMJG since its incorporation was illegal.
According to the applicants, under the Labour Act, the AMJG, being a decision-making body, was not allowed to form or join a trade union, adding that the association, according to the law, was supposed to have 20 executive members but it currently had 16 members and yet the purported petition against the four lawyers was signed by 25 executive members of the AMJG.
An affidavit in support said the AMJG also issued a statement permitting judges to recuse themselves from hearing the four lawyers until they substantiated their claims.
“That following the decision of the AMJG, on May 19, 2011, one of the lawyers named in the complaint of the AMJG was refused hearing in the Supreme Court,” it held.
The said lawyer, Dr Atuguba, who had gone to do a civil case between the Mr Sumaila Biebel and the Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, had been refused hearing by a nine-member Supreme Court panel.
The court was made up of Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose C. Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
According to the applicants, the action by the Superior Court justices and the AMJG amounted to “embarking on strike or a go-slow in a manner that contravenes the Labour Laws of Ghana”.
TWO lawyers have dragged the Association of Magistrates and Judges of Ghana (AMJG) to court for refusing to hear four lawyers who have accused judges of being corrupt.
Also joined in the suit are the General Legal Council and the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee of the council.
Dr Clement Apaak and Dr Samuel Buame, both lecturers at the University of Ghana, in a motion for judicial review, are praying the court, which will be presided over by a member of the AMJG, to review the actions of the respondents against the four lawyers, among other reliefs.
The two, who are also spokespersons for the Forum for Governance and Justice, in an affidavit in support of the motion, stated that the AMJG had, on May 18, 2011, lodged a complaint with the General Legal Council praying the council to deal with four lawyers, namely, Dr Raymond Atuguba, Mr Abraham Amaliba, Mr Laary Bimi and Mr David Annan, by inviting the four to the Disciplinary Committee of the council to substantiate and justify their allegations.
The two are praying the court to prohibit the General Legal Council and its Disciplinary Committee from proceeding to act on the purported complaint made against the four lawyers by an organisation operating illegally.
The applicants are also urging the court to declare that the AMJG does not possess the legal authority to engage in business in Ghana, since all activities of the AMJG, after its incorporation, including the purported complaint submitted by it to the General Legal Council, are illegal and therefore, null and void.
They are also praying for a declaration that the objects of the AMJG are illegal, as they contravene the Labour Laws of Ghana.
They are also praying for a certiorari to quash any purported decision of the General Legal Council or its Disciplinary Committee to proceed with the hearing of the purported complaint.
Exhibits attached to the motion for judicial review stated, among others, that although the AMJG was incorporated on February 12, 1999 with certificate number G-4 125, it did not have a certificate to commence business, adding that documents received from the Registrar of Companies indicated that every action taken by the AMJG since its incorporation was illegal.
According to the applicants, under the Labour Act, the AMJG, being a decision-making body, was not allowed to form or join a trade union, adding that the association, according to the law, was supposed to have 20 executive members but it currently had 16 members and yet the purported petition against the four lawyers was signed by 25 executive members of the AMJG.
An affidavit in support said the AMJG also issued a statement permitting judges to recuse themselves from hearing the four lawyers until they substantiated their claims.
“That following the decision of the AMJG, on May 19, 2011, one of the lawyers named in the complaint of the AMJG was refused hearing in the Supreme Court,” it held.
The said lawyer, Dr Atuguba, who had gone to do a civil case between the Mr Sumaila Biebel and the Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, had been refused hearing by a nine-member Supreme Court panel.
The court was made up of Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose C. Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
According to the applicants, the action by the Superior Court justices and the AMJG amounted to “embarking on strike or a go-slow in a manner that contravenes the Labour Laws of Ghana”.
Jesus Onetouch appeals
June 11, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
THE convicted ‘Prophet’ of the Jesus Blood Prophetic Ministry, Nana Kofi Yirenkyi, has filed an appeal against his 10-year sentence for defiling his 10-year-old daughter.
The convict, also known as Jesus One Touch, is praying the Accra High Court to quash the decision of the circuit court which found him guilty on two counts of incest and defilement.
He is currently serving his term at the Nsawam Medium Security Prison.
According to the grounds of appeal filed on behalf of the convict by his lawyer, Mr K.N. Adomako Acheampong, the trial court erred in not considering the evidence of a seasoned gynaecologist and a police officer which cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case.
The appellant argued that that doubt should have inured to his benefit, in accordance with the law.
According to him, the trial judge relied on the weak and unbelievable story of two prosecution witnesses, to his disadvantage.
The appeal was called at the High Court in Accra, presided over by Mr Justice E.F. Dzakpasu, yesterday, but a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, informed the court that the statement of case of the prosecution would be filed on Monday, June 13, 2011.
According to Mr Wiredu, he had had discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and there was an indication that the prosecution would file a short address.
The case was, accordingly, adjourned to Wednesday, June 15, 2011.
The appellant was absent in court.
On January 20, 2011, the premises of the Cocoa Affairs Court was turned into a funeral ground as church and family members, as well as sympathisers, of the convict wailed after he had been committed to jail.
The facts of the case were that the 10-year-old victim confessed that the convict, after bouts of sexual intercourse with her, wiped off the sperms from his sexual organ and the fluids from her vagina with a white handkerchief.
According to the prosecution, the victim, who was born out of wedlock, lived with her mother at Dawu in Akuapem until 2005 when she relocated to Accra to live with her father at McCarthy Hill to attend school.
In the latter part of 2007, the convict began having sex with the victim, each time before he organised a church service.
In November 2009, the convict gave the victim's mother an opportunity to hold discussions with the victim on a bad behaviour she was exhibiting.
During the interaction with her mother, the victim revealed her ordeal to her, which resulted in the woman lodging a complaint with the police.
THE convicted ‘Prophet’ of the Jesus Blood Prophetic Ministry, Nana Kofi Yirenkyi, has filed an appeal against his 10-year sentence for defiling his 10-year-old daughter.
The convict, also known as Jesus One Touch, is praying the Accra High Court to quash the decision of the circuit court which found him guilty on two counts of incest and defilement.
He is currently serving his term at the Nsawam Medium Security Prison.
According to the grounds of appeal filed on behalf of the convict by his lawyer, Mr K.N. Adomako Acheampong, the trial court erred in not considering the evidence of a seasoned gynaecologist and a police officer which cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case.
The appellant argued that that doubt should have inured to his benefit, in accordance with the law.
According to him, the trial judge relied on the weak and unbelievable story of two prosecution witnesses, to his disadvantage.
The appeal was called at the High Court in Accra, presided over by Mr Justice E.F. Dzakpasu, yesterday, but a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, informed the court that the statement of case of the prosecution would be filed on Monday, June 13, 2011.
According to Mr Wiredu, he had had discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and there was an indication that the prosecution would file a short address.
The case was, accordingly, adjourned to Wednesday, June 15, 2011.
The appellant was absent in court.
On January 20, 2011, the premises of the Cocoa Affairs Court was turned into a funeral ground as church and family members, as well as sympathisers, of the convict wailed after he had been committed to jail.
The facts of the case were that the 10-year-old victim confessed that the convict, after bouts of sexual intercourse with her, wiped off the sperms from his sexual organ and the fluids from her vagina with a white handkerchief.
According to the prosecution, the victim, who was born out of wedlock, lived with her mother at Dawu in Akuapem until 2005 when she relocated to Accra to live with her father at McCarthy Hill to attend school.
In the latter part of 2007, the convict began having sex with the victim, each time before he organised a church service.
In November 2009, the convict gave the victim's mother an opportunity to hold discussions with the victim on a bad behaviour she was exhibiting.
During the interaction with her mother, the victim revealed her ordeal to her, which resulted in the woman lodging a complaint with the police.
Judge withdraws from Vodafone case
June 10 (Front page)
A judge at the Commercial Court, Mrs Justice Gifty Dekyem, has withdrawn from hearing the litigation over the sale of the government’s 70 per cent share in Ghana Telecom to Vodafone International.
According to the judge, she just discovered that her half-sister was related to one of the parties in the case and for that reason she could not continue hearing the case which had suffered a similar withdrawal in the past.
She, however, declined to mention the party in the case who was related to her half-sister when counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr Bright Akwetey, implored her to state who that person was.
This is the second time a judge has declined jurisdiction over the matter. The first judge assigned to hear the matter, Mr Justice Amadu Tanko, also declined jurisdiction, claiming he knew a party in the case.
A second judge who was appointed to replace Mr Justice Tanko, Mr Justice Henry Chafe, was also transferred in the course of the trial.
The Chief Justice is, therefore, expected to appoint a fourth judge to hear the case which began in the latter part of 2008.
Mrs Justice Dekyem’s withdrawal came at a time she had subpoenaed the Volta River Authority (VRA), the National Communications Authority (NCA), the Ecobank Development Corporation and the Ministry of Communications to provide relevant documents bordering on the sale of the government’s shares.
The issue of the subpoena was at the instance of Mr Akwetey.
The plaintiffs in the matter, Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa and five others, sued the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, the Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited and the Registrar-General over the sale of GT to Vodafone.
The other plaintiffs, who are all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), are Mr Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah, are seeking a declaration that the sale of GT is inimical to the public interest.
They are, therefore, seeking relief from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with due process of law and is, therefore, a nullity.
They are also seeking an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect.
The plaintiffs are further praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the government from disposing of its 70 per cent share of GT to Vodafone or any other foreign company without first exploring avenues for funding and better management in Ghana, among others.
They contend that the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for $900 million was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government.
The plaintiffs said they were opposed to the unlawful establishment of the said Enlarged GT Group, as it undermined the sovereignty of the country, endangered the national security of Ghana, among other things.
On February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court gave Mr Justice Chafe 14 days to comply with the necessary legal steps before referring the matter to it for interpretation, but Mr Justice Chafe could not comply with the court order following his transfer.
The new judge who is yet to be appointed is, therefore, expected to comply with the Supreme Court’s order by including in his or her referral specific issues, as well as state any findings of fact.
The issues so far referred to the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Chafe include whether or not aspects of the SPA, dated July 3, 2008 and executed among the Government of Ghana, Vodafone International and Ghana Telecom, contravened the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, rendered the agreement void, as well as whether or not any procedural, substantive errors and defects in the SPA were or could be cured through parliamentary ratification.
The third issue referred for determination by the Supreme Court was whether or not an agreement executed by the government and ratified by Parliament could be challenged at the High Court.
A judge at the Commercial Court, Mrs Justice Gifty Dekyem, has withdrawn from hearing the litigation over the sale of the government’s 70 per cent share in Ghana Telecom to Vodafone International.
According to the judge, she just discovered that her half-sister was related to one of the parties in the case and for that reason she could not continue hearing the case which had suffered a similar withdrawal in the past.
She, however, declined to mention the party in the case who was related to her half-sister when counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr Bright Akwetey, implored her to state who that person was.
This is the second time a judge has declined jurisdiction over the matter. The first judge assigned to hear the matter, Mr Justice Amadu Tanko, also declined jurisdiction, claiming he knew a party in the case.
A second judge who was appointed to replace Mr Justice Tanko, Mr Justice Henry Chafe, was also transferred in the course of the trial.
The Chief Justice is, therefore, expected to appoint a fourth judge to hear the case which began in the latter part of 2008.
Mrs Justice Dekyem’s withdrawal came at a time she had subpoenaed the Volta River Authority (VRA), the National Communications Authority (NCA), the Ecobank Development Corporation and the Ministry of Communications to provide relevant documents bordering on the sale of the government’s shares.
The issue of the subpoena was at the instance of Mr Akwetey.
The plaintiffs in the matter, Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa and five others, sued the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, the Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited and the Registrar-General over the sale of GT to Vodafone.
The other plaintiffs, who are all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), are Mr Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah, are seeking a declaration that the sale of GT is inimical to the public interest.
They are, therefore, seeking relief from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with due process of law and is, therefore, a nullity.
They are also seeking an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect.
The plaintiffs are further praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the government from disposing of its 70 per cent share of GT to Vodafone or any other foreign company without first exploring avenues for funding and better management in Ghana, among others.
They contend that the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for $900 million was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government.
The plaintiffs said they were opposed to the unlawful establishment of the said Enlarged GT Group, as it undermined the sovereignty of the country, endangered the national security of Ghana, among other things.
On February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court gave Mr Justice Chafe 14 days to comply with the necessary legal steps before referring the matter to it for interpretation, but Mr Justice Chafe could not comply with the court order following his transfer.
The new judge who is yet to be appointed is, therefore, expected to comply with the Supreme Court’s order by including in his or her referral specific issues, as well as state any findings of fact.
The issues so far referred to the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Chafe include whether or not aspects of the SPA, dated July 3, 2008 and executed among the Government of Ghana, Vodafone International and Ghana Telecom, contravened the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, rendered the agreement void, as well as whether or not any procedural, substantive errors and defects in the SPA were or could be cured through parliamentary ratification.
The third issue referred for determination by the Supreme Court was whether or not an agreement executed by the government and ratified by Parliament could be challenged at the High Court.
Court indicts Accra Mayor
June 9, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
The Accra Fast Track High Court Wednesday indicted the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, for deliberately refusing to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.
The court, accordingly, gave him seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence.
Following a plea from counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that Dr Vanderpuije was billed to travel to the United States with the Vice-President on official business for two weeks, the court adjourned the case to June 28, 2011, instead of the earlier date of June 14, 2011.
In the first contempt application, Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Dr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mayor had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
Mr Baffour informed the court that the Chief Bailiff had given him the two contempt applications to be served on the Mayor on May 31, 2011 but he did not meet the Mayor on that day, adding that he again went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on the Mayor, who arrived around 8:05 a.m.
The bailiff informed the court that he greeted the Mayor and introduced himself as a bailiff who had come to serve him with two contempt applications but the Mayor directed him to give the documents to his security guard.
According to Mr Baffour, he informed the Mayor that because it was a contempt application, the Mayor was expected to personally sign for it but the Mayor walked out on him while directing him to give the documents to his security guard.
The bailiff informed the court that the security guard, a police officer, went to the Mayor’s office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that the Mayor said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait but he (bailiff) declined to wait and, accordingly, left the documents with the police officer.
Basing its ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of High Court Rules (CI 47), the court, presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, held that it was overwhelmingly clear from the bailiff’s evidence that the Mayor had been approached but he had refused to accept service.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of CI 47 states, “Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.”
According to the court, it would have been acceptable if the bailiff had left the documents at the doorstep of the Mayor.
The court stated that it was clear Via Afrinity Ghana Limited had not been served and further directed that the company be served before the next adjourned date.
The Accra Fast Track High Court Wednesday indicted the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, for deliberately refusing to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.
The court, accordingly, gave him seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence.
Following a plea from counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that Dr Vanderpuije was billed to travel to the United States with the Vice-President on official business for two weeks, the court adjourned the case to June 28, 2011, instead of the earlier date of June 14, 2011.
In the first contempt application, Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Dr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mayor had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
Mr Baffour informed the court that the Chief Bailiff had given him the two contempt applications to be served on the Mayor on May 31, 2011 but he did not meet the Mayor on that day, adding that he again went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on the Mayor, who arrived around 8:05 a.m.
The bailiff informed the court that he greeted the Mayor and introduced himself as a bailiff who had come to serve him with two contempt applications but the Mayor directed him to give the documents to his security guard.
According to Mr Baffour, he informed the Mayor that because it was a contempt application, the Mayor was expected to personally sign for it but the Mayor walked out on him while directing him to give the documents to his security guard.
The bailiff informed the court that the security guard, a police officer, went to the Mayor’s office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that the Mayor said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait but he (bailiff) declined to wait and, accordingly, left the documents with the police officer.
Basing its ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of High Court Rules (CI 47), the court, presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, held that it was overwhelmingly clear from the bailiff’s evidence that the Mayor had been approached but he had refused to accept service.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of CI 47 states, “Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.”
According to the court, it would have been acceptable if the bailiff had left the documents at the doorstep of the Mayor.
The court stated that it was clear Via Afrinity Ghana Limited had not been served and further directed that the company be served before the next adjourned date.
Court grants prosecution leave to recal witness
June9, 2011
THE Accra Fast Track High Court on June 8, 2011 granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness in the trial of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed “ambiguity” arising from the evidence of the MP and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his nationality status.
However, the court refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.
Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, devoted a major part of his ruling to why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MP’s claims, citing authorities.
Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, on his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.
After the ruling, the court declined to grant the defence team’s request for a short adjournment to enable it (defence team) to study the ruling for the necessary action to be taken.
Following the court’s refusal to adjourn the matter, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, continued with his cross-examination of the accused person.
During the cross-examination, the MP denied assertions from the prosecution that he had forged his renunciation papers to throw dust in the eyes of the court.
The prosecution has since completed cross-examining the MP.
On May 24, 2011, Mr Kulendi had argued that it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the NSS and other agencies.
Mr Wiredu had urged the MP to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the National Security Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
According to him, the documents were concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice had been shut on the prosecution.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court on June 8, 2011 granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness in the trial of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed “ambiguity” arising from the evidence of the MP and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his nationality status.
However, the court refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.
Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, devoted a major part of his ruling to why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MP’s claims, citing authorities.
Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, on his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.
After the ruling, the court declined to grant the defence team’s request for a short adjournment to enable it (defence team) to study the ruling for the necessary action to be taken.
Following the court’s refusal to adjourn the matter, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, continued with his cross-examination of the accused person.
During the cross-examination, the MP denied assertions from the prosecution that he had forged his renunciation papers to throw dust in the eyes of the court.
The prosecution has since completed cross-examining the MP.
On May 24, 2011, Mr Kulendi had argued that it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the NSS and other agencies.
Mr Wiredu had urged the MP to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the National Security Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
According to him, the documents were concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice had been shut on the prosecution.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Contempt case against AMA boss - Bailiff summoned before court
June 8, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday directed its registrar to summon a bailiff before it today for it to determine whether or not the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, had been served with two contempt applications pending against him and another.
In the first contempt application, Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Dr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is also a defendant in the second contempt application which accused him of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The Fast Track High Court which is hearing both applications directed the registrar to summon the bailiff to testify as to whether or not he had served the respondents following a claim by counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that the AMA had not been served with both applications.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, said the records before him indicated that the AMA had been served.
Ms Fenteng then prayed the court to summon the bailiff to come and explain where and on whom he had served the documents.
Following the development, the court adjourned proceedings to today.
In the substantive suit, the AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf of the AAG by its lawyer, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, said the respondents had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before the trial judge.
The AMA has denied the AAG's claims and advised the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if it was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed that the AAG failed to comply with Section 127 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) which required the AAG to serve the AMA with notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited suit against the AMA and Via Afrinity Ghana Limited, a company run by Mr Yankah, the applicant is praying the court to declare that a contract dated December 12, 2009 and titled "Supply of Services Agreement" between the AMA and Via Afrinity Limited was a public procurement service and must, therefore, conform to all requirements laid down in the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
It said the court should also declare that a sole or single sourcing procedure adopted by the AMA in executing the contract without the permission of the Minister of Finance amounted to a violation of the mandatory provision of the PPA.
The applicant is also praying the court to declare as null and void the entire contract on the grounds that it violated Section 35 of the PPA, as well as perpetually restrain Via Afrinity Ghana Limited from exercising any functions or duties conferred by the said contract.
Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited is imploring the court to order Via Afrinity Ghana Limited to refund any or all moneys or payments made to it from public or any funds as a result of the said contract, as well as any other cost the court might deem fit.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday directed its registrar to summon a bailiff before it today for it to determine whether or not the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, had been served with two contempt applications pending against him and another.
In the first contempt application, Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Dr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is also a defendant in the second contempt application which accused him of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The Fast Track High Court which is hearing both applications directed the registrar to summon the bailiff to testify as to whether or not he had served the respondents following a claim by counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that the AMA had not been served with both applications.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, said the records before him indicated that the AMA had been served.
Ms Fenteng then prayed the court to summon the bailiff to come and explain where and on whom he had served the documents.
Following the development, the court adjourned proceedings to today.
In the substantive suit, the AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf of the AAG by its lawyer, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, said the respondents had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before the trial judge.
The AMA has denied the AAG's claims and advised the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if it was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed that the AAG failed to comply with Section 127 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) which required the AAG to serve the AMA with notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited suit against the AMA and Via Afrinity Ghana Limited, a company run by Mr Yankah, the applicant is praying the court to declare that a contract dated December 12, 2009 and titled "Supply of Services Agreement" between the AMA and Via Afrinity Limited was a public procurement service and must, therefore, conform to all requirements laid down in the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
It said the court should also declare that a sole or single sourcing procedure adopted by the AMA in executing the contract without the permission of the Minister of Finance amounted to a violation of the mandatory provision of the PPA.
The applicant is also praying the court to declare as null and void the entire contract on the grounds that it violated Section 35 of the PPA, as well as perpetually restrain Via Afrinity Ghana Limited from exercising any functions or duties conferred by the said contract.
Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited is imploring the court to order Via Afrinity Ghana Limited to refund any or all moneys or payments made to it from public or any funds as a result of the said contract, as well as any other cost the court might deem fit.
The political scene - Court to decide on PNC case
June 8, 2011 (Front Page)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court will, on June 24, 2011, decide whether or not to cite the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others for contempt of court.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
The other respondents, who are all executives of the PNC, are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Mornah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
The respondents had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court, but on May 12, 2011 it dismissed the application and fixed yesterday for hearing the contempt application.
Moving the motion for contempt, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said apart from Dr Mahama and Mr Mornah, the other respondents had not opposed the application for contempt.
He said the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference, thereby mocking the said court order.
According to counsel, the action of the respondents amounted to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard for the authority and prestige of the court and had, therefore, brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Mr Chambers argued that the court’s order was directed at all party members and for that reason the High Court should punish the respondents as a lesson to others.
Opposing the application, counsel for the respondents, Mr James Agalga, described the applicants’ motion as vexatious and without basis in law.
According to counsel, the lower court’s order was directed at the applicants who had earlier broken into the party office, vandalised party property, as well as made away with party property.
He further stated that the lower court’s order was lacking in terms of clarity and was vague where his clients were concerned but precise and clear where Dr Tobiga and the other applicants were concerned.
Mr Agalga, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the contempt application with punitive costs.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court will, on June 24, 2011, decide whether or not to cite the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others for contempt of court.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
The other respondents, who are all executives of the PNC, are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Mornah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
The respondents had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court, but on May 12, 2011 it dismissed the application and fixed yesterday for hearing the contempt application.
Moving the motion for contempt, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said apart from Dr Mahama and Mr Mornah, the other respondents had not opposed the application for contempt.
He said the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference, thereby mocking the said court order.
According to counsel, the action of the respondents amounted to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard for the authority and prestige of the court and had, therefore, brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Mr Chambers argued that the court’s order was directed at all party members and for that reason the High Court should punish the respondents as a lesson to others.
Opposing the application, counsel for the respondents, Mr James Agalga, described the applicants’ motion as vexatious and without basis in law.
According to counsel, the lower court’s order was directed at the applicants who had earlier broken into the party office, vandalised party property, as well as made away with party property.
He further stated that the lower court’s order was lacking in terms of clarity and was vague where his clients were concerned but precise and clear where Dr Tobiga and the other applicants were concerned.
Mr Agalga, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the contempt application with punitive costs.
Mzbel and friends remanded • For assaulting police officer
June 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
A popular female musician, Mzbel, known in private life as Nana Akua Amoah, was yesterday remanded with two others by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Her two accomplices are Maxwell Mensah, a businessman, and Emmanuel Edem Lordzoh, a student.
The three, their family members and followers were thrown into a state of shock when the trial judge, Mr Emmanuel Plange-Brew, decided to remand them until Friday, June 10, 2011.
Mzbel, who wore a dark dress with dark sunglasses to match, was seen making and receiving several phone calls while being instructed by her lawyers before the trial judge entered the courtroom.
She pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Maxwell was charged with four counts of unauthorised parking, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, while Emmanuel was charged with driving without licence.
The two also pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The accused persons were alleged to have committed the offence with a Mitsubishi vehicle, with registration number GR 9470-11, at Tudu in Accra about 12.40 p.m. on June 4, 2011.
Earlier, lead counsel for the accused persons, Mr Addo Atuah, had denied the allegations levelled against his clients and said there was a video recording of the incident and at the appropriate time the court would have the opportunity to arrive at the truth.
He said it was impossible for a frail-looking person like Mzbel to assault a police officer, adding that he would prove the innocence of the accused persons in due course.
Mr Atuah gave the assurance that his clients would avail themselves for trial and that they all had fixed places of abode and were, therefore, in a position to meet the bail conditions.
Prosecuting, Chief Inspector Dora Seiwaah, said the accused persons parked their vehicle at the wrong side of the road on the said date, leading to heavy vehicular traffic.
She said a police officer who was on duty on that stretch of the road decided to investigate the cause of the traffic and, on reaching the Tudu side of the road, he realised that the Mitsubishi vehicle which belonged to Mzbel was the cause of the traffic.
The prosecutor said the police officer observed that the car's ignition was on, while Mzbel and Emmanuel sat in the vehicle.
On seeing the police officer, who asked why the vehicle had been parked in such a haphazard manner, Emmanuel moved to the front seat to move the vehicle from where it was parked.
While the police officer demanded Emmanuel's licence, Maxwell emerged and ordered the police officer to leave the scene.
According to the prosecutor, Maxwell allegedly moved the vehicle and attempted to hit the police officer, who managed to jump onto the bonnet.
Not satisfied, Maxwell allegedly sped off and drove the vehicle in a zigzag manner in his bid to throw the police officer off the bonnet of the vehicle, to the shock of onlookers and other motorists.
A bullion van which was on the scene tracked Mzbel's vehicle until it managed to cross it to stop Maxwell from injuring the police officer.
The policeman then made an attempt to arrest Maxwell, but the policeman was allegedly assaulted by Mzbel, who claimed ownership of the vehicle.
Other police officers and witnesses managed to rescue the police officer from the grip of Mzbel.
Inspector Seiwaah said Mzbel and her alleged accomplices would have been lynched by a mob if she had not been taken from the scene of the incident.
A popular female musician, Mzbel, known in private life as Nana Akua Amoah, was yesterday remanded with two others by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Her two accomplices are Maxwell Mensah, a businessman, and Emmanuel Edem Lordzoh, a student.
The three, their family members and followers were thrown into a state of shock when the trial judge, Mr Emmanuel Plange-Brew, decided to remand them until Friday, June 10, 2011.
Mzbel, who wore a dark dress with dark sunglasses to match, was seen making and receiving several phone calls while being instructed by her lawyers before the trial judge entered the courtroom.
She pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Maxwell was charged with four counts of unauthorised parking, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, while Emmanuel was charged with driving without licence.
The two also pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The accused persons were alleged to have committed the offence with a Mitsubishi vehicle, with registration number GR 9470-11, at Tudu in Accra about 12.40 p.m. on June 4, 2011.
Earlier, lead counsel for the accused persons, Mr Addo Atuah, had denied the allegations levelled against his clients and said there was a video recording of the incident and at the appropriate time the court would have the opportunity to arrive at the truth.
He said it was impossible for a frail-looking person like Mzbel to assault a police officer, adding that he would prove the innocence of the accused persons in due course.
Mr Atuah gave the assurance that his clients would avail themselves for trial and that they all had fixed places of abode and were, therefore, in a position to meet the bail conditions.
Prosecuting, Chief Inspector Dora Seiwaah, said the accused persons parked their vehicle at the wrong side of the road on the said date, leading to heavy vehicular traffic.
She said a police officer who was on duty on that stretch of the road decided to investigate the cause of the traffic and, on reaching the Tudu side of the road, he realised that the Mitsubishi vehicle which belonged to Mzbel was the cause of the traffic.
The prosecutor said the police officer observed that the car's ignition was on, while Mzbel and Emmanuel sat in the vehicle.
On seeing the police officer, who asked why the vehicle had been parked in such a haphazard manner, Emmanuel moved to the front seat to move the vehicle from where it was parked.
While the police officer demanded Emmanuel's licence, Maxwell emerged and ordered the police officer to leave the scene.
According to the prosecutor, Maxwell allegedly moved the vehicle and attempted to hit the police officer, who managed to jump onto the bonnet.
Not satisfied, Maxwell allegedly sped off and drove the vehicle in a zigzag manner in his bid to throw the police officer off the bonnet of the vehicle, to the shock of onlookers and other motorists.
A bullion van which was on the scene tracked Mzbel's vehicle until it managed to cross it to stop Maxwell from injuring the police officer.
The policeman then made an attempt to arrest Maxwell, but the policeman was allegedly assaulted by Mzbel, who claimed ownership of the vehicle.
Other police officers and witnesses managed to rescue the police officer from the grip of Mzbel.
Inspector Seiwaah said Mzbel and her alleged accomplices would have been lynched by a mob if she had not been taken from the scene of the incident.
Trader abuses mentally retarded person
June 4, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
A trader who allegedly had canal knowledge of a mentally retarded 18-year-old female was yesterday remanded in custody by an Accra Circuit Court.
Frank Owusu, 40, was charged with one count of having canal knowledge of a female idiot.
He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and will reappear on June 15, 2011.
Presenting the facts of the case, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mrs Sarah Acquah, told the court that the complainant is a 59-year-old trader who lived at Dome Pillar Two, a suburb of Accra, with the victim and other family members.
The accused person, on the other hand, live in a kiosk near the victim's house.
Around 8 a.m. on May 18, 2011, the accused person approached the victim at home and lured her to a nearby uncompleted building and forcibly had sex with her.
A witness in the case, who chanced upon the accused person having sex with the victim, raised an alarm, thereby attracting another witness to the scene.
The two witnesses rescued the victim and took her home.
A complaint was subsequently lodged with the police, who issued a form to the victim to seek medical attention.
Owusu was arrested after investigations and charged with the offence.
The accused person admitted in his caution statement that although he had taken the victim to the uncompleted building, he had not had sex her with her.
A trader who allegedly had canal knowledge of a mentally retarded 18-year-old female was yesterday remanded in custody by an Accra Circuit Court.
Frank Owusu, 40, was charged with one count of having canal knowledge of a female idiot.
He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and will reappear on June 15, 2011.
Presenting the facts of the case, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mrs Sarah Acquah, told the court that the complainant is a 59-year-old trader who lived at Dome Pillar Two, a suburb of Accra, with the victim and other family members.
The accused person, on the other hand, live in a kiosk near the victim's house.
Around 8 a.m. on May 18, 2011, the accused person approached the victim at home and lured her to a nearby uncompleted building and forcibly had sex with her.
A witness in the case, who chanced upon the accused person having sex with the victim, raised an alarm, thereby attracting another witness to the scene.
The two witnesses rescued the victim and took her home.
A complaint was subsequently lodged with the police, who issued a form to the victim to seek medical attention.
Owusu was arrested after investigations and charged with the offence.
The accused person admitted in his caution statement that although he had taken the victim to the uncompleted building, he had not had sex her with her.
FARMER SWINDLES ACCOUNTANT • He fraudulently sells school
June 4, 2011 (Lead Story)
A farmer who allegedly impersonated the owner of the Association International School (AIS) and succeeded in defrauding a chartered accountant named Frederick Sappor to the tune of GH¢450,000 and $15,000 has been remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Emmanuel Kwabena Gainfort managed to procure a passport bearing the name of the original owner of the school, Emmanuel George Amoah, to defraud the accountant.
Four other accomplices — Collins Amoateng, Nana Bonsu, Arka and Bismark Osei Danso — are currently on the run.
Gainfort will reappear before the court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, on June 14, 2011.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and defrauding by false pretences.
The facts of the case are that a year ago the complainant wanted a plot of land to buy and, therefore, contacted a number of agents to assist.
The complainant then received a call from Amoateng, who said he had a parcel of land at the Airport Residential Area for sale.
The agent led the complainant to the said land for inspection but the complainant later said he was not in a position to buy it.
However, the complainant's brother-in-law, who is a chartered accountant, later expressed interest in the said land which was situated at the Nursery Section of the AIS.
The chartered accountant then met Gainfort, who introduced himself as the owner of the AIS.
He was able to produce a passport and other documents bearing the name of the owner of the AIS in his bid to convince the accountant to part with money.
The complainant went to the Lands Commission to verify the authenticity of Gainfort's claims and the search there proved that the owner of the school was, indeed, George Emmanuel Amoah.
Satisfied with the outcome of the search, the complainant and his brother-in-law paid the $15,000 and GH¢450,000 to Gainfort and Amoateng.
The complainant, after a few days, went to conduct further inspection on the land and, in the process, met a number of people who said they were potential buyers on inspection.
On realising that his brother in-law had been defrauded, he made strenuous efforts to get in touch with Gainfort, all to no avail.
The complainant conducted further investigations and found out that Gainfort had impersonated the original owner of the AIS.
The complainant, accordingly, lodged a complaint with the police on May 30, 2011, leading to the subsequent arrest of Gainfort at his hideout at Kpando.
Efforts are underway to apprehend the other accused persons.
A farmer who allegedly impersonated the owner of the Association International School (AIS) and succeeded in defrauding a chartered accountant named Frederick Sappor to the tune of GH¢450,000 and $15,000 has been remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Emmanuel Kwabena Gainfort managed to procure a passport bearing the name of the original owner of the school, Emmanuel George Amoah, to defraud the accountant.
Four other accomplices — Collins Amoateng, Nana Bonsu, Arka and Bismark Osei Danso — are currently on the run.
Gainfort will reappear before the court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, on June 14, 2011.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and defrauding by false pretences.
The facts of the case are that a year ago the complainant wanted a plot of land to buy and, therefore, contacted a number of agents to assist.
The complainant then received a call from Amoateng, who said he had a parcel of land at the Airport Residential Area for sale.
The agent led the complainant to the said land for inspection but the complainant later said he was not in a position to buy it.
However, the complainant's brother-in-law, who is a chartered accountant, later expressed interest in the said land which was situated at the Nursery Section of the AIS.
The chartered accountant then met Gainfort, who introduced himself as the owner of the AIS.
He was able to produce a passport and other documents bearing the name of the owner of the AIS in his bid to convince the accountant to part with money.
The complainant went to the Lands Commission to verify the authenticity of Gainfort's claims and the search there proved that the owner of the school was, indeed, George Emmanuel Amoah.
Satisfied with the outcome of the search, the complainant and his brother-in-law paid the $15,000 and GH¢450,000 to Gainfort and Amoateng.
The complainant, after a few days, went to conduct further inspection on the land and, in the process, met a number of people who said they were potential buyers on inspection.
On realising that his brother in-law had been defrauded, he made strenuous efforts to get in touch with Gainfort, all to no avail.
The complainant conducted further investigations and found out that Gainfort had impersonated the original owner of the AIS.
The complainant, accordingly, lodged a complaint with the police on May 30, 2011, leading to the subsequent arrest of Gainfort at his hideout at Kpando.
Efforts are underway to apprehend the other accused persons.
Ga Mantse wins defamation case
June 3, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday slapped the Dzasetse of the Ga Paramount Stool, Nii Yaote Oto-Ga II, with GH¢500,000 damages for defaming the Ga Mantse, King Tackie Tawiah III.
Nii Oto-Ga, known in private life as Emmanuel Tackie Yarboi, who is a member of the rival faction poised to wrest the Ga Stool from the Ga Mantse, was also ordered to pay GH¢10,000 costs in favour of the Ga Mantse for falsely alleging that the Ga Mantse had forged President J.E.A. Mills’s signature on a document to give the impression that he (Ga Mantse) was the recognised and legitimate occupant of the Ga Stool.
The allegation was made in a press statement signed by Nii Oto-Ga, issued on April 17, 2009 and copied to the Greater Accra Regional Minister, the Greater Accra Regional Police Commander, the Security Advisor to the President at the Castle, Osu, and the National Security Co-ordinator.
Nii Oto-Ga’s allegation, which was widely circulated in the media and on the Internet, meant and was understood to mean that the Ga Mantse was a fraudster, a forger and dishonest man with criminal tendencies.
Following the defendant’s inability to substantiate the allegation and his further failure to withdraw and apologise, the Ga Mantse filed a suit at the Fast Track High Court, claiming GH¢6 million in general damages for libel, costs and other relief the court might deem fit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice E. A. Asante, however, declined to award the GH¢6 million general damages sought by the Ga Mantse and rather awarded GH¢500,000.
It said it took into account the stature of the Ga Mantse in society and the effect the defamatory remarks would have on him.
The court, after taking evidence from parties in the case, held that the defendant had failed to substantiate the allegation he had levelled against the Ga Mantse.
It was also of the view that the defendant deliberately and recklessly made the malicious statement without taking into consideration whether it was true or false.
The court was of the view that Nii Oto-Ga had made the malicious statement in a deliberate and calculated attempt to cause maximum damage in order to hurt the Ga Mantse’s reputation.
Citing authorities to buttress its decision, it held that the plaintiff was able to lead ample evidence to prove that the defendant had been given fair and ample opportunity to retract and apologise to the Ga Mantse for the defamatory statement but the defendant refused to do so.
It further stated that the Ga Mantse had been able to prove that the defendant treated his demand for an apology and a retraction with contempt.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday slapped the Dzasetse of the Ga Paramount Stool, Nii Yaote Oto-Ga II, with GH¢500,000 damages for defaming the Ga Mantse, King Tackie Tawiah III.
Nii Oto-Ga, known in private life as Emmanuel Tackie Yarboi, who is a member of the rival faction poised to wrest the Ga Stool from the Ga Mantse, was also ordered to pay GH¢10,000 costs in favour of the Ga Mantse for falsely alleging that the Ga Mantse had forged President J.E.A. Mills’s signature on a document to give the impression that he (Ga Mantse) was the recognised and legitimate occupant of the Ga Stool.
The allegation was made in a press statement signed by Nii Oto-Ga, issued on April 17, 2009 and copied to the Greater Accra Regional Minister, the Greater Accra Regional Police Commander, the Security Advisor to the President at the Castle, Osu, and the National Security Co-ordinator.
Nii Oto-Ga’s allegation, which was widely circulated in the media and on the Internet, meant and was understood to mean that the Ga Mantse was a fraudster, a forger and dishonest man with criminal tendencies.
Following the defendant’s inability to substantiate the allegation and his further failure to withdraw and apologise, the Ga Mantse filed a suit at the Fast Track High Court, claiming GH¢6 million in general damages for libel, costs and other relief the court might deem fit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice E. A. Asante, however, declined to award the GH¢6 million general damages sought by the Ga Mantse and rather awarded GH¢500,000.
It said it took into account the stature of the Ga Mantse in society and the effect the defamatory remarks would have on him.
The court, after taking evidence from parties in the case, held that the defendant had failed to substantiate the allegation he had levelled against the Ga Mantse.
It was also of the view that the defendant deliberately and recklessly made the malicious statement without taking into consideration whether it was true or false.
The court was of the view that Nii Oto-Ga had made the malicious statement in a deliberate and calculated attempt to cause maximum damage in order to hurt the Ga Mantse’s reputation.
Citing authorities to buttress its decision, it held that the plaintiff was able to lead ample evidence to prove that the defendant had been given fair and ample opportunity to retract and apologise to the Ga Mantse for the defamatory statement but the defendant refused to do so.
It further stated that the Ga Mantse had been able to prove that the defendant treated his demand for an apology and a retraction with contempt.
AMA cited for contempt
Thursday, June 2, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, and another person have been cited for contempt of court for allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
The AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf the AAG by its lawyer and which is praying the court to cite Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, will be moved at the Accra Fast Track on June 7, 2011.
According to counsel for the AAG, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, the AMA had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims, but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before him (trial judge).
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Mr Eddie Sam, denied his learned friend’s claims and said he was not aware of any such action by the AMA.
He advised counsel for the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if he was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
The Presiding Judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, reiterated his call on both parties to respect the court’s decision.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed that the AAG failed to comply with Section 127 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) which required the AAG to serve the AMA with notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the substantive suit, the AAG has accused the AMA of increasing the special rates on billboards by more than 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
It 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.
A writ filed on behalf of the AAG by Ankomah Mensah and Associates, legal practitioners, is 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 requests the court to order that the excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion, among others.
THE Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, and another person have been cited for contempt of court for allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
The AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf the AAG by its lawyer and which is praying the court to cite Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, will be moved at the Accra Fast Track on June 7, 2011.
According to counsel for the AAG, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, the AMA had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims, but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before him (trial judge).
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Mr Eddie Sam, denied his learned friend’s claims and said he was not aware of any such action by the AMA.
He advised counsel for the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if he was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
The Presiding Judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, reiterated his call on both parties to respect the court’s decision.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed that the AAG failed to comply with Section 127 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) which required the AAG to serve the AMA with notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the substantive suit, the AAG has accused the AMA of increasing the special rates on billboards by more than 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
It 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.
A writ filed on behalf of the AAG by Ankomah Mensah and Associates, legal practitioners, is 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 requests the court to order that the excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion, among others.
Issa Mobilla's case - AG's Dept. directed to appoint new prosecutor
May 28, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court has directed the Attorney-General's Department to appoint a new prosecutor to handle the case involving three soldiers alleged to have murdered Alhaji Issa Mobilla.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logo, gave the directive following the failure of the prosecutor in charge of the case to appear before the court for the second time within a month to handle the case.
The prosecutor is believed to be indisposed.
At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka said it was unfortunate that the prosecutor did not appear to do the case.
Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and murder of Alhaji Mobilla, a former Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
A third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
Counsel for the accused, Mr Thaddeus Sory, said his clients had been in custody for almost half a decade and it appeared the state was not interested in trying them.
He informed the court that he would apply for the accused persons to be discharged if a prosecutor did not appear before the court on the next adjourned date.
Mr Justice Logo urged counsel to instead apply for bail on the next adjourned date.
Hearing continues on June 9, 2011.
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.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court has directed the Attorney-General's Department to appoint a new prosecutor to handle the case involving three soldiers alleged to have murdered Alhaji Issa Mobilla.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logo, gave the directive following the failure of the prosecutor in charge of the case to appear before the court for the second time within a month to handle the case.
The prosecutor is believed to be indisposed.
At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka said it was unfortunate that the prosecutor did not appear to do the case.
Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and murder of Alhaji Mobilla, a former Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
A third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
Counsel for the accused, Mr Thaddeus Sory, said his clients had been in custody for almost half a decade and it appeared the state was not interested in trying them.
He informed the court that he would apply for the accused persons to be discharged if a prosecutor did not appear before the court on the next adjourned date.
Mr Justice Logo urged counsel to instead apply for bail on the next adjourned date.
Hearing continues on June 9, 2011.
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.
Supreme Court dismisses CENCORD's motion
May 27, 2011 (Front Page)
THE Supreme Court on May 26, 2011 threw out a motion filed by the Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD) to restrain a member of the Council of State, Mr J.H. Owusu-Acheampong, from holding himself as the Campaign Manager for President J.E.A. Mills in his contest for the 2012 flag-bearer slot of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
"The applicant has not shown that Mr Owusu-Achempong has threatened to act or is acting in his new position. These are prerequisites for the grant of interim injunction," the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, declared after counsel for CENCORD had failed to convince the court to grant the application for injunction.
"There is no clear articulation of thought. In the circumstance, we find it difficult to grant the application for interim injunction. The application is, accordingly, dismissed," the court held in a unanimous decision.
Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Professor Justice F.K. Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Ms Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
Counsel for CENCORD, Mr Dennis Ofosu-Appiah Ofosuapea, had earlier been subjected to a barrage of questions from panel members when he moved the motion.
In the substantive suit, CENCORD is challenging the President's decision to appoint Mr Owusu-Acheampong as his Campaign Manager for the NDC flag-bearer contest for Election 2012.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the suit on a latter date.
The applicant, who joined the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice along with the President and Mr Owusu-Acheampong in the suit, is claiming that the appointment of Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the acceptance of same by him "are acts that are inconsistent with or in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more particularly articles 2 (1) (b); 3 (4) (a); 41 (b) and 89 (1) (2) (c) thereof".
The plaintiff, who is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is also praying the court to grant an order prohibiting any sitting President from deploying members of the Council of State for partisan undertakings.
Moving his motion for interim injunction, counsel argued that Mr Owusu-Acheampong could not act in partisan politics because he was elected member of the Council of State.
According to him, Mr Owusu-Acheampong's acceptance of President Mills's appointment amounted to annoyance.
Counsel had earlier been granted leave by the court to move his motion, although it was of the view he should have filed for an interlocutory, and not interim, injunction.
Mr Justice Atuguba questioned counsel whether or not a sitting President could be sued, to which Mr Ofosuapea replied in the affirmative, adding that the President could be sued as a substantive President and not in an acting position.
It could be adduced from the questions from panel members that they were dissatisfied with the way and manner Mr Ofosuapea articulated his case.
They were particularly disappointed at his virtually giving them the same answers which implied that the President had breached the Constitution.
The panel members, after deliberating among themselves, unanimously dismissed counsel's application.
No costs were awarded.
THE Supreme Court on May 26, 2011 threw out a motion filed by the Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD) to restrain a member of the Council of State, Mr J.H. Owusu-Acheampong, from holding himself as the Campaign Manager for President J.E.A. Mills in his contest for the 2012 flag-bearer slot of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
"The applicant has not shown that Mr Owusu-Achempong has threatened to act or is acting in his new position. These are prerequisites for the grant of interim injunction," the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, declared after counsel for CENCORD had failed to convince the court to grant the application for injunction.
"There is no clear articulation of thought. In the circumstance, we find it difficult to grant the application for interim injunction. The application is, accordingly, dismissed," the court held in a unanimous decision.
Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Professor Justice F.K. Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Ms Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
Counsel for CENCORD, Mr Dennis Ofosu-Appiah Ofosuapea, had earlier been subjected to a barrage of questions from panel members when he moved the motion.
In the substantive suit, CENCORD is challenging the President's decision to appoint Mr Owusu-Acheampong as his Campaign Manager for the NDC flag-bearer contest for Election 2012.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the suit on a latter date.
The applicant, who joined the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice along with the President and Mr Owusu-Acheampong in the suit, is claiming that the appointment of Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the acceptance of same by him "are acts that are inconsistent with or in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more particularly articles 2 (1) (b); 3 (4) (a); 41 (b) and 89 (1) (2) (c) thereof".
The plaintiff, who is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is also praying the court to grant an order prohibiting any sitting President from deploying members of the Council of State for partisan undertakings.
Moving his motion for interim injunction, counsel argued that Mr Owusu-Acheampong could not act in partisan politics because he was elected member of the Council of State.
According to him, Mr Owusu-Acheampong's acceptance of President Mills's appointment amounted to annoyance.
Counsel had earlier been granted leave by the court to move his motion, although it was of the view he should have filed for an interlocutory, and not interim, injunction.
Mr Justice Atuguba questioned counsel whether or not a sitting President could be sued, to which Mr Ofosuapea replied in the affirmative, adding that the President could be sued as a substantive President and not in an acting position.
It could be adduced from the questions from panel members that they were dissatisfied with the way and manner Mr Ofosuapea articulated his case.
They were particularly disappointed at his virtually giving them the same answers which implied that the President had breached the Constitution.
The panel members, after deliberating among themselves, unanimously dismissed counsel's application.
No costs were awarded.
CENCORD drags EC to court for contempt
May 25, 2011 (Centre Spread)
A civil rights organisation, the Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD), has dragged the Electoral Commission (EC), its Chairman, Dr K. Afari-Djan, and his commissioners to the Supreme Court on contempt charges.
According to CENCORD, the EC had failed to comply with a Supreme Court order which gave the nod to more than 13,586, remand and convicted prisoners in the country to exercise their franchise.
The Supreme Court had, in a unanimous decision on March 23, 2010, given prisoners the right to vote and accordingly directed the EC to come up with a Constitutional Instrument (CI) to create the legal framework to facilitate the inclusion of prisoners on the voters register for the next general election.
“This order is to be carried out as soon as practicable and, in any case, within not more than 12 calendar months from today March 23, 2010,” the court held.
However, according to CENCORD, it had conducted a number of checks at the Attorney-General’s Office, the Assembly Press, as well as EC offices, and all pointed to the fact that the EC, its Chairman and its commissioners had to date not complied with the court order.
The plaintiff is, therefore, praying the Supreme Court to cite the EC, Dr Afari-Djan and six commissioners of the EC — Mr David Kangah, Mr Kwadwo Safo Kantanka, Ms Pauline Adobea Dadzawa, Mr Ebenezer Aggrey-Fynn, Ms Rebecca Kabuki Adjalo and Sa-Adatu Maida — for contempt of court.
It is also praying the court to imprison the respondents without giving them any option of a fine, as well as declare them not eligible for election or appointment to any public office for 10 years, beginning with the date of the expiration of the term of imprisonment.
According to the plaintiff, the respondents deserved to be imprisoned because they had “demonstrated a calculated threat to sink the constitutional order to death, having committed a high crime under Clause 4 of Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution and thus must be punished”.
He further argued that the respondents had no respect for the supreme laws as they knew their responsibilities and yet failed to act.
A date is yet to be fixed for the motion to be moved by counsel for the applicant, Mr Dennis Ofosu-Appiah Ofosuapea.
On March 23, 2010, the Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, upheld an application filed on behalf of remand and convicted prisoners by two legal practitioners, Mr Ahumah Ocansey and Mr Kojo Graham, of the Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (CHURCIL).
The two had, in separate suits which were consolidated by the court on November 12, 2009, prayed the court to declare as null and void sections of PNDC Law 284 which barred remand and convicted prisoners from voting.
Joined in the suit were the Attorney-General and the EC.
The A-G's Department had opposed the suit on the grounds that the relief being sought by the two lawyers was against the public interest, while the EC had prayed the court to exclude it from the suit.
The court, however, disagreed.
In a three-and-a-half-hour ruling, the court, which had Dr Justice S.K. Date-Bah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse and Mr Justice Annin Yeboah as its members, ruled that the 1992 Constitution, per Article 42, grants all citizens of Ghana who are 18 years and above and are of sound mind the right to be registered to enable them to vote in all public elections and referenda.
"This right extends or includes all convicted prisoners, irrespective of the provisions of Section 7 (5) of the Representation of the People's Law, 1992, (PNDC Law 284) which imposes a residency requirement or qualification under which convicted prisoners were deemed disqualified," it said.
It, therefore, declared as void Section 7 (5) of PNDC Law 284, since it was inconsistent with Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution.
It further stated that to avoid chaos and hasty decisions, it was imperative for the EC to come up with rules and regulations to regulate the registration exercise.
"This is to ensure that such an exercise is efficiently and effectively managed, controlled and directed to operationalise the registration of prisoners to enable them to vote in future elections and referenda, such as will ensure harmonious interface with the Prisons Service Act 1972, NRCD 46, and all the other relevant stakeholders," the court held among others.
Meanwhile, Mr Ofosuapea has petitioned the President to instruct the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to cause the immediate arrest of the respondents for having contravened Article 24 of the 1992 Constitution.
He also called for the immediate removal of the respondents from office to stand trial.
A civil rights organisation, the Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD), has dragged the Electoral Commission (EC), its Chairman, Dr K. Afari-Djan, and his commissioners to the Supreme Court on contempt charges.
According to CENCORD, the EC had failed to comply with a Supreme Court order which gave the nod to more than 13,586, remand and convicted prisoners in the country to exercise their franchise.
The Supreme Court had, in a unanimous decision on March 23, 2010, given prisoners the right to vote and accordingly directed the EC to come up with a Constitutional Instrument (CI) to create the legal framework to facilitate the inclusion of prisoners on the voters register for the next general election.
“This order is to be carried out as soon as practicable and, in any case, within not more than 12 calendar months from today March 23, 2010,” the court held.
However, according to CENCORD, it had conducted a number of checks at the Attorney-General’s Office, the Assembly Press, as well as EC offices, and all pointed to the fact that the EC, its Chairman and its commissioners had to date not complied with the court order.
The plaintiff is, therefore, praying the Supreme Court to cite the EC, Dr Afari-Djan and six commissioners of the EC — Mr David Kangah, Mr Kwadwo Safo Kantanka, Ms Pauline Adobea Dadzawa, Mr Ebenezer Aggrey-Fynn, Ms Rebecca Kabuki Adjalo and Sa-Adatu Maida — for contempt of court.
It is also praying the court to imprison the respondents without giving them any option of a fine, as well as declare them not eligible for election or appointment to any public office for 10 years, beginning with the date of the expiration of the term of imprisonment.
According to the plaintiff, the respondents deserved to be imprisoned because they had “demonstrated a calculated threat to sink the constitutional order to death, having committed a high crime under Clause 4 of Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution and thus must be punished”.
He further argued that the respondents had no respect for the supreme laws as they knew their responsibilities and yet failed to act.
A date is yet to be fixed for the motion to be moved by counsel for the applicant, Mr Dennis Ofosu-Appiah Ofosuapea.
On March 23, 2010, the Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, upheld an application filed on behalf of remand and convicted prisoners by two legal practitioners, Mr Ahumah Ocansey and Mr Kojo Graham, of the Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (CHURCIL).
The two had, in separate suits which were consolidated by the court on November 12, 2009, prayed the court to declare as null and void sections of PNDC Law 284 which barred remand and convicted prisoners from voting.
Joined in the suit were the Attorney-General and the EC.
The A-G's Department had opposed the suit on the grounds that the relief being sought by the two lawyers was against the public interest, while the EC had prayed the court to exclude it from the suit.
The court, however, disagreed.
In a three-and-a-half-hour ruling, the court, which had Dr Justice S.K. Date-Bah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse and Mr Justice Annin Yeboah as its members, ruled that the 1992 Constitution, per Article 42, grants all citizens of Ghana who are 18 years and above and are of sound mind the right to be registered to enable them to vote in all public elections and referenda.
"This right extends or includes all convicted prisoners, irrespective of the provisions of Section 7 (5) of the Representation of the People's Law, 1992, (PNDC Law 284) which imposes a residency requirement or qualification under which convicted prisoners were deemed disqualified," it said.
It, therefore, declared as void Section 7 (5) of PNDC Law 284, since it was inconsistent with Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution.
It further stated that to avoid chaos and hasty decisions, it was imperative for the EC to come up with rules and regulations to regulate the registration exercise.
"This is to ensure that such an exercise is efficiently and effectively managed, controlled and directed to operationalise the registration of prisoners to enable them to vote in future elections and referenda, such as will ensure harmonious interface with the Prisons Service Act 1972, NRCD 46, and all the other relevant stakeholders," the court held among others.
Meanwhile, Mr Ofosuapea has petitioned the President to instruct the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to cause the immediate arrest of the respondents for having contravened Article 24 of the 1992 Constitution.
He also called for the immediate removal of the respondents from office to stand trial.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Bawku MP's case - Counsel opposes move to cast doubt on client
May 25, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
COUNSEL for the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central who is standing trial over his nationality status yesterday opposed moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence.
According to Mr Yonny Kulendi, it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) and other agencies.
A Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, had urged the MP, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the NSS Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
He argued that the MP was not a member of staff of the bodies to which the letter was copied to warrant him to answer questions on it, adding that the document was, in any case, labelled ‘Confidential’.
The bodies to which the letter was copied were the Attorney-General’s office and the Police Service.
Mr Kulendi, who kept referring to the document as the “thing”, in apparent reference to Mr Wiredu’s earlier description of it, argued that the prosecution was acting improperly by calling on his client to identify the document.
“The ‘thing’ was concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice were shut on the prosecution,” counsel argued, in apparent reference to the prosecution closing its case, only to turn around and urge his client to authenticate a document when his client had opened his defence to prove to the world he was not a British citizen.
Mr Kulendi, therefore, prayed the court not to endorse what he termed “unlawful, improper and unwarranted” attempts by the prosecution to request the MP to identify a document with which he (the MP) had nothing to do.
According to him, the prosecution was coming through a “chimney and not a window” because it had ample time to do its case but failed to prove anything against his client and was now making false allegations.
He also accused the prosecution of using state resources to fabricate stories against his client and questioned how the court was going to allow the defence to cross-examine staff of the Commonwealth and British Home Office who were alleged to have been signatories to a document which contradicted his client’s defence.
“The court will be creating prejudice against us if it accepts the documents into evidence. It will create the impression that we forged our documents,” Mr Kulendi argued and, accordingly, prayed the court not to countenance the prosecution’s attempt to subvert justice.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
He explained that the prosecution could not have direct access to the British High Commission and so had to contact the NSS to do checks on its behalf.
According to him, the documents tendered by the MP were forged and further described the stamp on the renunciation document as “Kokompe stamp”.
Mr Kulendi opposed Mr Wiredu’s description, after which Mr Wiredu renamed it “Made-in-Ghana stamp”.
Mr Wiredu further argued that the British Home Office had also stated that the MP’s name was still in the database of British citizens as of November 3, 2010, but Mr Kulendi argued that that assertion was a fabrication from the state in an attempt to subvert justice.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, fixed June 8, 2011 as the date for ruling on the matter.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
COUNSEL for the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central who is standing trial over his nationality status yesterday opposed moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence.
According to Mr Yonny Kulendi, it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) and other agencies.
A Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, had urged the MP, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the NSS Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
He argued that the MP was not a member of staff of the bodies to which the letter was copied to warrant him to answer questions on it, adding that the document was, in any case, labelled ‘Confidential’.
The bodies to which the letter was copied were the Attorney-General’s office and the Police Service.
Mr Kulendi, who kept referring to the document as the “thing”, in apparent reference to Mr Wiredu’s earlier description of it, argued that the prosecution was acting improperly by calling on his client to identify the document.
“The ‘thing’ was concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice were shut on the prosecution,” counsel argued, in apparent reference to the prosecution closing its case, only to turn around and urge his client to authenticate a document when his client had opened his defence to prove to the world he was not a British citizen.
Mr Kulendi, therefore, prayed the court not to endorse what he termed “unlawful, improper and unwarranted” attempts by the prosecution to request the MP to identify a document with which he (the MP) had nothing to do.
According to him, the prosecution was coming through a “chimney and not a window” because it had ample time to do its case but failed to prove anything against his client and was now making false allegations.
He also accused the prosecution of using state resources to fabricate stories against his client and questioned how the court was going to allow the defence to cross-examine staff of the Commonwealth and British Home Office who were alleged to have been signatories to a document which contradicted his client’s defence.
“The court will be creating prejudice against us if it accepts the documents into evidence. It will create the impression that we forged our documents,” Mr Kulendi argued and, accordingly, prayed the court not to countenance the prosecution’s attempt to subvert justice.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
He explained that the prosecution could not have direct access to the British High Commission and so had to contact the NSS to do checks on its behalf.
According to him, the documents tendered by the MP were forged and further described the stamp on the renunciation document as “Kokompe stamp”.
Mr Kulendi opposed Mr Wiredu’s description, after which Mr Wiredu renamed it “Made-in-Ghana stamp”.
Mr Wiredu further argued that the British Home Office had also stated that the MP’s name was still in the database of British citizens as of November 3, 2010, but Mr Kulendi argued that that assertion was a fabrication from the state in an attempt to subvert justice.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, fixed June 8, 2011 as the date for ruling on the matter.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
EOCO wants court order to dispose Sima's assets
May 20, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed a motion on notice at the Accra Fast Track High Court, praying the court to give it the permission to confiscate and dispose of assets of Sima Ibrahim, Chief Executive Officer of Exopa Modelling Agency, who was jailed in March this year, for drug offences.
Sima was sentenced to 15 years on March 3, 2011, after he was found guilty on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs concealed in four tubers of yam.
The motion was expected to be moved yesterday but the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, directed the EOCO to furnish it with the record of proceedings of March 3, 2011.
Consequently, the motion is expected to be moved on June 21, 2011.
Earlier, counsel for Sima, Dr Dominic Ayine, raised a preliminary objection and said the EOCO should have come under PNDCL 328 and not Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code as it had done.
However, the court drew counsel's attention to the fact that it was too early for counsel to be making such argument.
EOCO's action formed part of the Narcotics Control Board's (NACOB’s) plans to confiscate and sell assets of convicted drug dealers to the public.
With the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010 (Act 804) recently passed as its backbone, NACOB’s action is intended to prevent some individuals linked to convicted drug dealers from supporting those convicts while they serve their sentences.
The Daily Graphic issue of May 13, 2011 listed 24 properties belonging to Sima, including buildings, a number of vehicles, bank accounts, both local and foreign, cash in foreign and local currencies, digital cameras, laptops, as well as pistols and shotguns.
The properties include the EXOPA Modelling School, situated behind the Trade Fair Centre at La; a house numbered 1233 at Tema Community 10; shareholding and assets in the EXOPA Modelling School; a Range Rover, a Land Rover, a BMW and Opel vehicles, credit cards, as well as German, Belgian and Togolese passports.
THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed a motion on notice at the Accra Fast Track High Court, praying the court to give it the permission to confiscate and dispose of assets of Sima Ibrahim, Chief Executive Officer of Exopa Modelling Agency, who was jailed in March this year, for drug offences.
Sima was sentenced to 15 years on March 3, 2011, after he was found guilty on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs concealed in four tubers of yam.
The motion was expected to be moved yesterday but the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, directed the EOCO to furnish it with the record of proceedings of March 3, 2011.
Consequently, the motion is expected to be moved on June 21, 2011.
Earlier, counsel for Sima, Dr Dominic Ayine, raised a preliminary objection and said the EOCO should have come under PNDCL 328 and not Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code as it had done.
However, the court drew counsel's attention to the fact that it was too early for counsel to be making such argument.
EOCO's action formed part of the Narcotics Control Board's (NACOB’s) plans to confiscate and sell assets of convicted drug dealers to the public.
With the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010 (Act 804) recently passed as its backbone, NACOB’s action is intended to prevent some individuals linked to convicted drug dealers from supporting those convicts while they serve their sentences.
The Daily Graphic issue of May 13, 2011 listed 24 properties belonging to Sima, including buildings, a number of vehicles, bank accounts, both local and foreign, cash in foreign and local currencies, digital cameras, laptops, as well as pistols and shotguns.
The properties include the EXOPA Modelling School, situated behind the Trade Fair Centre at La; a house numbered 1233 at Tema Community 10; shareholding and assets in the EXOPA Modelling School; a Range Rover, a Land Rover, a BMW and Opel vehicles, credit cards, as well as German, Belgian and Togolese passports.
Armed robber jailed 25 years
May 19, 2011 (Page 3)
AN unemployed man has been sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra Circuit Court for robbing Reverend Harry Insaidoo of the Assemblies of God Church and his wife.
Emmanuel Karikari was found guilty on two counts of robbery and sentenced accordingly by the court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, a High Court judge who sat with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge.
The convict committed the offence at the North Kaneshie Assemblies of God premises on February 28, 2009 after Rev Insaidoo had picked up his wife at the airport.
According to the court, the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove the convict’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“The accused was arrested in a similar robbery incident when his accomplices had fled. It hardly needs to be said that the accused person is a notorious gangster and member of the criminal world who deserves a deterrent sentence. I will, therefore, impose the maximum sentence I am capable of,” the judge held.
Karikari and two other accomplices currently on the run trailed Rev Insaidoo and his wife from the airport, held a gun over the head of the church’s caretaker, struck him several times with the butt of the gun and in the process robbed the Reverend and his wife.
The convict and his accomplices assaulted Rev Insaidoo to the extent that his wife had to hurl herself on him to prevent the robbers from shooting her husband.
Karikari and his accomplices robbed the two of a new laptop, a camera, a banking card, a passport, more than £10,000 meant for other people, clothes, among other valuable items.
Based on information that some suspects had been picked for robbery-related offences, Rev Insaidoo and his wife were invited by the Dansoman Police to attend an identification parade on April 2, 2009 which resulted in the Reverend and his wife identifying Karikari as one of the assailants who had brutally assaulted him.
According to the court, the convict did not give any defence that would cast any reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case, adding, “The terse statement he gave to the police on arrest and his evidence in court about an invitation to join a taxi by a friend about 1 a.m. appear to have been fabricated. I do not find his story reasonably probable.”
It further held that the prosecution was able to prove that a towel and a lighter belonging to Mrs Insaidoo were among the items recovered from the convict during a police swoop.
“On the whole, I find the evidence against the accused person overwhelming. Robbery is a serious offence and carries a minimum of 10 years or more and where it involves the use of violence, the perpetrators deserve a deterrent sentence,” the court held.
AN unemployed man has been sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra Circuit Court for robbing Reverend Harry Insaidoo of the Assemblies of God Church and his wife.
Emmanuel Karikari was found guilty on two counts of robbery and sentenced accordingly by the court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, a High Court judge who sat with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge.
The convict committed the offence at the North Kaneshie Assemblies of God premises on February 28, 2009 after Rev Insaidoo had picked up his wife at the airport.
According to the court, the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove the convict’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“The accused was arrested in a similar robbery incident when his accomplices had fled. It hardly needs to be said that the accused person is a notorious gangster and member of the criminal world who deserves a deterrent sentence. I will, therefore, impose the maximum sentence I am capable of,” the judge held.
Karikari and two other accomplices currently on the run trailed Rev Insaidoo and his wife from the airport, held a gun over the head of the church’s caretaker, struck him several times with the butt of the gun and in the process robbed the Reverend and his wife.
The convict and his accomplices assaulted Rev Insaidoo to the extent that his wife had to hurl herself on him to prevent the robbers from shooting her husband.
Karikari and his accomplices robbed the two of a new laptop, a camera, a banking card, a passport, more than £10,000 meant for other people, clothes, among other valuable items.
Based on information that some suspects had been picked for robbery-related offences, Rev Insaidoo and his wife were invited by the Dansoman Police to attend an identification parade on April 2, 2009 which resulted in the Reverend and his wife identifying Karikari as one of the assailants who had brutally assaulted him.
According to the court, the convict did not give any defence that would cast any reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case, adding, “The terse statement he gave to the police on arrest and his evidence in court about an invitation to join a taxi by a friend about 1 a.m. appear to have been fabricated. I do not find his story reasonably probable.”
It further held that the prosecution was able to prove that a towel and a lighter belonging to Mrs Insaidoo were among the items recovered from the convict during a police swoop.
“On the whole, I find the evidence against the accused person overwhelming. Robbery is a serious offence and carries a minimum of 10 years or more and where it involves the use of violence, the perpetrators deserve a deterrent sentence,” the court held.
tiGO House promotion - STOP IT! • Fast Track High Court orders
May 18, 2011 (Lead Story)
MILLICOM Ghana Limited, operators of the tiGO mobile telecommunication brand, yesterday suffered a huge setback when the Accra Fast Track High Court restrained it from continuing with its house promotion.
The court, on March 31, 2011, had granted an interim injunction halting the mobile operator from continuing with the promotion in which its customers are rewarded with a house each for three consecutive months after entering a draw.
The order for injunction, which was filed against tiGO by the National Lottery Authority (NLA), lasted 10 days.
However, tiGO breached the terms of settlement it entered into with the NLA, which in effect required it not to continue with the promotion.
Following its breach of the settlement, the NLA went back to court and prayed it to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain tiGO from further organising any promotion until the final determination of the substantive suit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge who sat with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, granted the NLA’s request and, accordingly, restrained tiGO from promoting, sponsoring and advertising the ongoing promotion campaign until the final determination of the suit.
The NLA was given a week to give an undertaking to pay any damages to be assessed by the court to tiGO should the NLA’s legal action against tiGO fail at the end of the trial.
There was no order as to costs against Millicom Ghana Limited.
The directors of Millicom Ghana risk being dragged to court for contempt should the company continue to run the promotion, in spite of the court order.
In arguing its case, the defendant stated that the promotion it was organising was neither a lottery nor a game of chance and that the plaintiff’s application for injunction had been brought in bad faith and should be dismissed.
It also challenged the capacity of the plaintiff to institute the action against it, with the reason that it was only the Attorney-General who was empowered by Article 88 (4) of the 1992 Constitution to prosecute all offences in the name of the Republic.
In its ruling, however, the court held that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), enjoined the plaintiff to regulate, supervise, conduct and manage national lotto and provide for related matters and if a body or person was usurping the powers of the plaintiff, nothing prevented it from ventilating its rights in a court of law.
It further submitted that it was satisfied that after studying the arguments for both parties, there were serious triable issues for the court to look into.
The issues it set out for trial included whether or not the promotion by the defendant was a game of chance and a lottery.
In the substantive suit, the NLA has argued that it is the only body mandated by the National Lotto Act (Act 722) to regulate, supervise and manage national lotto, as well as ensure the enforcement of laws relating to national lotto.
It is, therefore, praying the court to declare that the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ is not a promotional campaign but, in fact and in law, a lottery which is prohibited by Section 4 of the Lotto Act.
The plaintiff is also asking the court to declare that tiGO’s operation of lottery without the requisite statutory licence is illegal and unlawful because the defendant has failed to comply with the Lotto Act.
It is also urging the court to declare that the value or cost of the tiGO services required to be utilised or bought by customers as a precondition to participate in the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ represents a consideration which is required by the defendant to enable qualifying customers to participate in the draw to win prizes or reward.
The NLA is further praying the court to grant a “declaration that the defendant has committed a crime, as provided by the National Lotto Act of 2006, Act 722 and the Gaming Act of 2006, Act 721, by engaging in lottery and or games of chance without a statutory licence”.
At the end of the trial, the NLA also expects the court to grant an order directed at the defendant to account for the value of all proceeds and payments received by the defendant from participating subscribers and entrants from the start of the purported promotion till the date of its cessation.
The NLA is requesting for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its agents from promoting, sponsoring and marketing the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ or any other form of lottery in association with third parties without the requisite licences.
MILLICOM Ghana Limited, operators of the tiGO mobile telecommunication brand, yesterday suffered a huge setback when the Accra Fast Track High Court restrained it from continuing with its house promotion.
The court, on March 31, 2011, had granted an interim injunction halting the mobile operator from continuing with the promotion in which its customers are rewarded with a house each for three consecutive months after entering a draw.
The order for injunction, which was filed against tiGO by the National Lottery Authority (NLA), lasted 10 days.
However, tiGO breached the terms of settlement it entered into with the NLA, which in effect required it not to continue with the promotion.
Following its breach of the settlement, the NLA went back to court and prayed it to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain tiGO from further organising any promotion until the final determination of the substantive suit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge who sat with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, granted the NLA’s request and, accordingly, restrained tiGO from promoting, sponsoring and advertising the ongoing promotion campaign until the final determination of the suit.
The NLA was given a week to give an undertaking to pay any damages to be assessed by the court to tiGO should the NLA’s legal action against tiGO fail at the end of the trial.
There was no order as to costs against Millicom Ghana Limited.
The directors of Millicom Ghana risk being dragged to court for contempt should the company continue to run the promotion, in spite of the court order.
In arguing its case, the defendant stated that the promotion it was organising was neither a lottery nor a game of chance and that the plaintiff’s application for injunction had been brought in bad faith and should be dismissed.
It also challenged the capacity of the plaintiff to institute the action against it, with the reason that it was only the Attorney-General who was empowered by Article 88 (4) of the 1992 Constitution to prosecute all offences in the name of the Republic.
In its ruling, however, the court held that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), enjoined the plaintiff to regulate, supervise, conduct and manage national lotto and provide for related matters and if a body or person was usurping the powers of the plaintiff, nothing prevented it from ventilating its rights in a court of law.
It further submitted that it was satisfied that after studying the arguments for both parties, there were serious triable issues for the court to look into.
The issues it set out for trial included whether or not the promotion by the defendant was a game of chance and a lottery.
In the substantive suit, the NLA has argued that it is the only body mandated by the National Lotto Act (Act 722) to regulate, supervise and manage national lotto, as well as ensure the enforcement of laws relating to national lotto.
It is, therefore, praying the court to declare that the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ is not a promotional campaign but, in fact and in law, a lottery which is prohibited by Section 4 of the Lotto Act.
The plaintiff is also asking the court to declare that tiGO’s operation of lottery without the requisite statutory licence is illegal and unlawful because the defendant has failed to comply with the Lotto Act.
It is also urging the court to declare that the value or cost of the tiGO services required to be utilised or bought by customers as a precondition to participate in the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ represents a consideration which is required by the defendant to enable qualifying customers to participate in the draw to win prizes or reward.
The NLA is further praying the court to grant a “declaration that the defendant has committed a crime, as provided by the National Lotto Act of 2006, Act 722 and the Gaming Act of 2006, Act 721, by engaging in lottery and or games of chance without a statutory licence”.
At the end of the trial, the NLA also expects the court to grant an order directed at the defendant to account for the value of all proceeds and payments received by the defendant from participating subscribers and entrants from the start of the purported promotion till the date of its cessation.
The NLA is requesting for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its agents from promoting, sponsoring and marketing the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ or any other form of lottery in association with third parties without the requisite licences.
President dragged to court
May 17, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE President's decision to appoint a member of the Council of State, Mr J. H. Owusu-Acheampong, as his Campaign Manager for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) flag-bearer contest for Election 2012 has been challenged at the Supreme Court.
The Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD) has dragged President J.E.A. Mills, Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to court, claiming that the appointment of Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the acceptance of same by him "are acts that are inconsistent with or in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more particularly articles 2 (1) (b); 3 (4) (a); 41 (b) and 89 (1) (2) (c) thereof".
The plaintiff, who is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is also praying the court to grant an order prohibiting any sitting President from deploying members of the Council of State for partisan undertakings, as well as an injunction against Mr Owusu-Acheampong from holding himself out as Campaign Manger or Chairman of the President's campaign in the NDC flag-bearer contest as long as he remained a member of the Council of State.
CENCORD has also filed a motion for interim injunction praying the Supreme Court to restrain Mr Owusu-Acheampong from holding himself as the Campaign Manager of President Mills until all issues raised in the substantive case had been determined by the Supreme Court.
In the motion for interim injunction, the plaintiff contended that Mr Owusu-Acheampong had no intention of desisting from "execution of the unlawful act imposed on him by the sitting President", unless expressly restrained by the Supreme Court.
According to the plaintiff, it had brought the action against the defendants in its capacity as a corporate body whose constitutional duty enjoined it, at all times, to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law as of the Republic.
A legal practitioner, Mr Dennis Owusu-Appiah Ofosuapea, swore an affidavit in support and stated that he had the consent of CENCORD to depose to the affidavit.
The statement of the plaintiff's case, filed at 10.25 a.m. yesterday, stated, among other things, that the President had, on May 5, 2011, appointed Mr Owusu-Acheampong, who had been elected into office in 2009 by the people of the Brong Ahafo Region to represent the region on the Council of State, as his Campaign Manager.
According to the plaintiff, Mr Owusu-Acheampong had acted in that capacity and had since been directing the affairs of the campaign team in a bid to ensure that President Mills won the flag-bearer position of the NDC at the congress slated for Sunyani from July 8 to 11, 2011.
The plaintiff argued that members of the Council of State had the constitutional mandate to counsel the President in the performance of his duties.
"Appointment of a member of the Council of State to manage and or chair the President's political ambition to bear the flag of his political party is not one of the numerous duties of the President under the 1992 Constitution and or any known law in the Republic," the statement of case spelt out.
It further submitted that since Mr Owusu-Acheampong represented the Brong Ahafo Region and not any particular political party, becoming the President's chairman in "a manner that puts him in active NDC political affairs defeats his representation and thereby creates a potential disaffection among the people he is supposed to represent, some of whom are of different political persuasions or none at all".
The plaintiff further contended that members of the Council of State could not be partisan under the current constitutional dispensation, as they were to remain politically neutral in order to counsel the President to truly represent the best interest of the nation for the good of all.
THE President's decision to appoint a member of the Council of State, Mr J. H. Owusu-Acheampong, as his Campaign Manager for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) flag-bearer contest for Election 2012 has been challenged at the Supreme Court.
The Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD) has dragged President J.E.A. Mills, Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to court, claiming that the appointment of Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the acceptance of same by him "are acts that are inconsistent with or in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more particularly articles 2 (1) (b); 3 (4) (a); 41 (b) and 89 (1) (2) (c) thereof".
The plaintiff, who is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is also praying the court to grant an order prohibiting any sitting President from deploying members of the Council of State for partisan undertakings, as well as an injunction against Mr Owusu-Acheampong from holding himself out as Campaign Manger or Chairman of the President's campaign in the NDC flag-bearer contest as long as he remained a member of the Council of State.
CENCORD has also filed a motion for interim injunction praying the Supreme Court to restrain Mr Owusu-Acheampong from holding himself as the Campaign Manager of President Mills until all issues raised in the substantive case had been determined by the Supreme Court.
In the motion for interim injunction, the plaintiff contended that Mr Owusu-Acheampong had no intention of desisting from "execution of the unlawful act imposed on him by the sitting President", unless expressly restrained by the Supreme Court.
According to the plaintiff, it had brought the action against the defendants in its capacity as a corporate body whose constitutional duty enjoined it, at all times, to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law as of the Republic.
A legal practitioner, Mr Dennis Owusu-Appiah Ofosuapea, swore an affidavit in support and stated that he had the consent of CENCORD to depose to the affidavit.
The statement of the plaintiff's case, filed at 10.25 a.m. yesterday, stated, among other things, that the President had, on May 5, 2011, appointed Mr Owusu-Acheampong, who had been elected into office in 2009 by the people of the Brong Ahafo Region to represent the region on the Council of State, as his Campaign Manager.
According to the plaintiff, Mr Owusu-Acheampong had acted in that capacity and had since been directing the affairs of the campaign team in a bid to ensure that President Mills won the flag-bearer position of the NDC at the congress slated for Sunyani from July 8 to 11, 2011.
The plaintiff argued that members of the Council of State had the constitutional mandate to counsel the President in the performance of his duties.
"Appointment of a member of the Council of State to manage and or chair the President's political ambition to bear the flag of his political party is not one of the numerous duties of the President under the 1992 Constitution and or any known law in the Republic," the statement of case spelt out.
It further submitted that since Mr Owusu-Acheampong represented the Brong Ahafo Region and not any particular political party, becoming the President's chairman in "a manner that puts him in active NDC political affairs defeats his representation and thereby creates a potential disaffection among the people he is supposed to represent, some of whom are of different political persuasions or none at all".
The plaintiff further contended that members of the Council of State could not be partisan under the current constitutional dispensation, as they were to remain politically neutral in order to counsel the President to truly represent the best interest of the nation for the good of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)