July 29, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Supreme Court yesterday declared that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian public universities was not discriminatory under the 1992 Constitution. In a unanimous decision, the court held that the policy had rather made it possible for more qualified students to gain admission to public universities under the current 10 per cent quota allocated to foreign students, adding, ÒFull fee-paying policy must continue.Ó It also affirmed that 28 per cent of the total revenue of public universities was generated from fees collected from fee-paying students, pointing out that those students were currently subsidising the education of non-fee paying students. The court, accordingly dismissed an action filed by the Federation of Youth Associations of Ghana (FEDYAG) against the public universities and the Attorney-General which sought a declaration that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian public universities was unconstitutional and discriminatory under the Constitution. The FEDYAG instituted the action through its lawyer, Mr Dennis Ofosuapea, claiming that the public universities had been ÒsellingÓ spaces to people based on their economic status and not their intellectual abilities. The public universities, represented by Mr Ace Anan Ankomah and Mr Kwesi Fynn, however, argued that admissions were generally based on how much subvention the government made available to them each year, adding that it was over and above the quota determined by government subventions, that spaces were made available to foreign students, Ghanaian nationals resident abroad and Ghanaian students who had qualified but did not receive admission because they could not be covered by the government subvention. They also argued that the money earned from the full-fee paying students constituted 28 per cent of their overall income and that that money had gone to support non-fee paying students and provided scholarships for students from deprived senior high schools. The panel of nine judges, headed by Mr Justice W.A. Atuguba, declared that the full-fee paying policy was justified and achieved a constitutionally valid purpose because it was one of the means by which the universities had been able to offer education to others. The ruling, read on behalf of the panel by Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyirah, disagreed with the plaintiff and, accordingly, averred that the plaintiff did not understand how the fee-paying system worked. It also held that the plaintiff could not substantiate its claims that the fee-paying policy was discriminatory and not transparent. According to the court, the universities were able to fully articulate and justify with statistics how the fee-paying system worked and also justified that admissions were purely based on merit and not ability to pay. The court further stated that the fee-paying policy was not unprecedented, since it was practised in other African countries and world-wide. It stated that apart from bare assertions made by the plaintiff, it failed to offer any further proof of its case, adding that although Article 25 of the Constitution demanded same or equal chances for educational advancement to Ghanaians, it recognised inherent limitations based on the capacity of the student and the availability of educational facilities. The ultimate object of Article 25, according to the court, was free education by gradual introduction, holding that under Article 38, educational objectives could only be implemented by Òthe availability of resourcesÓ. The court was of the view that the reality was that education came with costs, such as in infrastructure, pointing out that Ghana could not provide free tertiary education in the shortest time possible. It, therefore, suggested the award of more grants, insurance and adequate student loans to enable more students to access university education. The President of the panel, Mr Justice Atuguba, congratulated the FEDYAG on instituting the action and said the fact that its action had failed did not mean it had not served the country well. Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sofia Akuffo, Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Bawku MP's case - Supreme Court rules on appeal in October
July 27, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Supreme Court will, on October 26, 2011, review its decision on whether or not it has the jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande.The court had, in October 2010 and in a 6-3 majority decision, ruled that it had the jurisdiction to hear an appeal challenging the eligibility of Mr Sakande as an MP.The court had overturned counsel for the MPÕs argument that electoral disputes ended at the Court of Appeal and for that reason the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of AppealÕs decision that a suit brought against the MP by a cattle farmer, Mr Sumaila Biebel, was an electoral dispute.Mr Biebel had, in March 2009, filed a suit at the High Court challenging the eligibility of the MP on the grounds that the MP held both British and Burkinabe passports.The High Court, in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High CourtÕs decision, counsel for the MP appealed, resulting in the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, declaring that Mr Biebel should have gone by an electoral petition, since the matter bordered on electoral dispute.Under the law, all matters relating to electoral disputes are to be heard as electoral petitions and those petitions are to be heard 21 days after results have been declared. At its sitting in Accra yesterday, the Supreme Court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, directed the Attorney-GeneralÕs Department to file its written submissions to the MPÕs application on or before July 29, 2011 following the failure of the department to file an address, although it was a party in the suit.Other members of the panel were Justices S.A. Brobbey, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Annin Yeboah, P. Baffoe-Bonnie, B.T. Aryeetey, G.S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo.The court gave Mr Biebel up to October 14, 2011 to file his response to the A-GÕs response, while ruling on the matter would be delivered on October 26, 2011.Moving his application for review, counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, argued that the highest court of the land had no jurisdiction to entertain Mr BiebelÕs suit because the suit was an electoral dispute clothed in constitutionalism.According to counsel, the Supreme CourtÕs decision in October 2010 did not take into consideration the position of the law on electoral disputes, as well as its own numerous decisions on electoral disputes.
THE Supreme Court will, on October 26, 2011, review its decision on whether or not it has the jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande.The court had, in October 2010 and in a 6-3 majority decision, ruled that it had the jurisdiction to hear an appeal challenging the eligibility of Mr Sakande as an MP.The court had overturned counsel for the MPÕs argument that electoral disputes ended at the Court of Appeal and for that reason the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of AppealÕs decision that a suit brought against the MP by a cattle farmer, Mr Sumaila Biebel, was an electoral dispute.Mr Biebel had, in March 2009, filed a suit at the High Court challenging the eligibility of the MP on the grounds that the MP held both British and Burkinabe passports.The High Court, in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High CourtÕs decision, counsel for the MP appealed, resulting in the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, declaring that Mr Biebel should have gone by an electoral petition, since the matter bordered on electoral dispute.Under the law, all matters relating to electoral disputes are to be heard as electoral petitions and those petitions are to be heard 21 days after results have been declared. At its sitting in Accra yesterday, the Supreme Court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, directed the Attorney-GeneralÕs Department to file its written submissions to the MPÕs application on or before July 29, 2011 following the failure of the department to file an address, although it was a party in the suit.Other members of the panel were Justices S.A. Brobbey, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Annin Yeboah, P. Baffoe-Bonnie, B.T. Aryeetey, G.S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo.The court gave Mr Biebel up to October 14, 2011 to file his response to the A-GÕs response, while ruling on the matter would be delivered on October 26, 2011.Moving his application for review, counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, argued that the highest court of the land had no jurisdiction to entertain Mr BiebelÕs suit because the suit was an electoral dispute clothed in constitutionalism.According to counsel, the Supreme CourtÕs decision in October 2010 did not take into consideration the position of the law on electoral disputes, as well as its own numerous decisions on electoral disputes.
Court denies EOCO's appeal for stay
July 20, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) suffered another setback yesterday when the Human Rights Court dismissed its application for stay of execution of the courtÕs order to pay GH¢59,000 in damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).EOCOÕs first setback was on May 13, 2011 when the same court declared that it had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity, and, accordingly, ordered EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December last year.Dissatisfied with the courtÕs ruling, EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.Counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone for the appeal under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.On July 5, 2011, counsel had argued that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.Opposing his opponentÕs application, counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.He further argued that EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because it was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple its operations.Counsel explained that EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the office was not financially resourced.In a terse ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Uuter Paul Dery, upheld counsel for the GFAÕs preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules. In its appeal, EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple its functions.It is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCOÕs assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises. It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body, adding that the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.
THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) suffered another setback yesterday when the Human Rights Court dismissed its application for stay of execution of the courtÕs order to pay GH¢59,000 in damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).EOCOÕs first setback was on May 13, 2011 when the same court declared that it had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity, and, accordingly, ordered EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December last year.Dissatisfied with the courtÕs ruling, EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.Counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone for the appeal under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.On July 5, 2011, counsel had argued that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.Opposing his opponentÕs application, counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.He further argued that EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because it was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple its operations.Counsel explained that EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the office was not financially resourced.In a terse ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Uuter Paul Dery, upheld counsel for the GFAÕs preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules. In its appeal, EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple its functions.It is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCOÕs assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises. It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body, adding that the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.
Bawku MP appeals against High Court decision
July 19, 2011 (Centre Spread)
THE Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, has appealed against a High CourtÕs decision which directed that the state could recall a witness in his nationality trial if it wished to do so.According to lawyers for the MP, it was wrong for the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, to direct the prosecution on how to conduct its trial.The court had, on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed ÒambiguityÓ arising from the MPÕs evidence and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his British nationality status.Lead counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, is arguing that it was wrong for the court to direct the prosecution to recall a witness months after the prosecution had closed its case and especially when it had not made such a request.According to the defence, the trial judge assumed the role of a lawyer when he directed the prosecution to recall a witness if it so wished.Meanwhile, the defence team has filed for stay of proceedings at the lower court pending the determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.At the Court of Appeal sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said the prosecution had not filed its affidavit in opposition to the MPÕs application because he had been out of the jurisdiction.He also raised a preliminary objection to the motion for stay of proceedings and stated that the defence should have filed for stay of proceedings at the High Court and not the Court of Appeal, as stated in Section 28 of C.I. 19.However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke, with Justices F. Kusi-Appiah and Dennis Adjei as panel members, drew Mr WireduÕs attention to Section 27 of C.I. 19 and stated that the High Court could not stay its own proceedings.According to the court, the section Mr Wiredu quoted referred only to stay of execution of a courtÕs order and not stay of proceedings. Mr Wiredu conceded.The court then dismissed his preliminary objection and gave the prosecution 10 days to file its affidavit in opposition.On June 8, 2011, the High Court, after giving the prosecution the opportunity to recall a witness, however, refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, Mr Justice Quist devoted a major part of his ruling to explain why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MPÕs claims, citing authorities.Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Kulendi, in his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his clientÕs defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but he was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
THE Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, has appealed against a High CourtÕs decision which directed that the state could recall a witness in his nationality trial if it wished to do so.According to lawyers for the MP, it was wrong for the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, to direct the prosecution on how to conduct its trial.The court had, on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed ÒambiguityÓ arising from the MPÕs evidence and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his British nationality status.Lead counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, is arguing that it was wrong for the court to direct the prosecution to recall a witness months after the prosecution had closed its case and especially when it had not made such a request.According to the defence, the trial judge assumed the role of a lawyer when he directed the prosecution to recall a witness if it so wished.Meanwhile, the defence team has filed for stay of proceedings at the lower court pending the determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.At the Court of Appeal sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said the prosecution had not filed its affidavit in opposition to the MPÕs application because he had been out of the jurisdiction.He also raised a preliminary objection to the motion for stay of proceedings and stated that the defence should have filed for stay of proceedings at the High Court and not the Court of Appeal, as stated in Section 28 of C.I. 19.However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke, with Justices F. Kusi-Appiah and Dennis Adjei as panel members, drew Mr WireduÕs attention to Section 27 of C.I. 19 and stated that the High Court could not stay its own proceedings.According to the court, the section Mr Wiredu quoted referred only to stay of execution of a courtÕs order and not stay of proceedings. Mr Wiredu conceded.The court then dismissed his preliminary objection and gave the prosecution 10 days to file its affidavit in opposition.On June 8, 2011, the High Court, after giving the prosecution the opportunity to recall a witness, however, refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, Mr Justice Quist devoted a major part of his ruling to explain why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MPÕs claims, citing authorities.Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Kulendi, in his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his clientÕs defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but he was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
Monday, July 18, 2011
PNC Court case - Dr Mahama, others acquitted
Friday, July 15, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six other executives of the party were yesterday acquitted and discharged of a contempt of court charge.
The other executives are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Chairman; Bernard Mornah, General Secretary; Attik Mohammed, Policy Analyst of the PNC; Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held a different view and accordingly awarded costs of GH¢5,000 against the applicants.
Giving its ruling on the matter, the court was of the view that the conduct of Dr Mahama and the other executives did not constitute contempt of court.
According to the court, the word “party members” in the lower court’s ruling was not referable to Dr Mahama and the other respondents because the preceding words in the said ruling clearly referred to the applicants.
It said it would be improper to stop Dr Mahama and the other respondents from carrying out their duties as executives of the party, since that would be in violation of the Political Parties Act.
Reacting to the court’s ruling, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said he would apply for a copy of the ruling, study it and advise his clients accordingly.
He was of the view that the costs awarded against his clients were harsh, adding, “The costs will further deepen the internal crisis within the party.”
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to the applicants, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
However, the respondents raised preliminary legal objection and argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed. But on May 12, 2011, the court dismissed the preliminary objection and moved to hear the contempt application.
It arrived at yesterday's decision after hearing both parties in the case.
THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six other executives of the party were yesterday acquitted and discharged of a contempt of court charge.
The other executives are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Chairman; Bernard Mornah, General Secretary; Attik Mohammed, Policy Analyst of the PNC; Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held a different view and accordingly awarded costs of GH¢5,000 against the applicants.
Giving its ruling on the matter, the court was of the view that the conduct of Dr Mahama and the other executives did not constitute contempt of court.
According to the court, the word “party members” in the lower court’s ruling was not referable to Dr Mahama and the other respondents because the preceding words in the said ruling clearly referred to the applicants.
It said it would be improper to stop Dr Mahama and the other respondents from carrying out their duties as executives of the party, since that would be in violation of the Political Parties Act.
Reacting to the court’s ruling, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said he would apply for a copy of the ruling, study it and advise his clients accordingly.
He was of the view that the costs awarded against his clients were harsh, adding, “The costs will further deepen the internal crisis within the party.”
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to the applicants, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
However, the respondents raised preliminary legal objection and argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed. But on May 12, 2011, the court dismissed the preliminary objection and moved to hear the contempt application.
It arrived at yesterday's decision after hearing both parties in the case.
Madina rioters case adjourned
July 12, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE case involving 20 people who were allegedly involved in a violent clash between the police and a section of the youth at Madina Zongo Junction in Accra on May 17, 2011 has been adjourned.
The clash, which bordered on a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land, resulted in the injury of eight people, including two policemen.
The Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, adjourned the case to August 10, 2011 following a plea from the prosecution for a short adjournment.
A Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr Kofi Blagodzi, informed the court that a committee set up by the government to investigate the riots had completed its work and submitted its report.
According to him, he was yet to receive briefing on the findings of the committee and, therefore, prayed the court for a short adjournment.
The accused persons are Abdul Hamid, Adam Mohammed, Alidue Hamidu, Bala Camal, James Fadama, Anas Matire, Abubakar Alhassan, Salifu Haridu, Tahiru Kadri and Monsuro Musah.
The rest are Musah Abubakar, Tibriru Masawudu, Musah Mahmoud, Tahiru Ali, Zibrim Abubakar, Ibrahim Alhassan, Aminu Salifu, Baki Salifu, Jerry Mc-Mills Gomelessio and Mohammed Raffi.
They were each charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting with weapons, causing unlawful damage and assault on public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and are currently on bail.
On May 17, 2011, the Madina Zongo Junction area was thrown into chaos when the police fired tear gas, rubber and live ammunition to disperse angry youth protesting the take-over of a parcel of land by the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools.
According to the demonstrators, the land was the only available space in the area for public activities, including political rallies, church crusades and Islamic festivities.
The land in question has been a subject of litigation between the Baptist Church and some members of the community for close to 17 years.
However, the issuance of a writ of possession by an Accra High Court for the church to take over the land, which a bailiff served on the people occupying the land to vacate the place within two weeks, sparked the riot.
Some kiosks and food vending tables in the Zongo community were destroyed, while at the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools glass windows were shattered by the stone-throwing youth.
According to the prosecution, the police managed to restore order, but two policemen sustained injuries in the process.
THE case involving 20 people who were allegedly involved in a violent clash between the police and a section of the youth at Madina Zongo Junction in Accra on May 17, 2011 has been adjourned.
The clash, which bordered on a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land, resulted in the injury of eight people, including two policemen.
The Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, adjourned the case to August 10, 2011 following a plea from the prosecution for a short adjournment.
A Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr Kofi Blagodzi, informed the court that a committee set up by the government to investigate the riots had completed its work and submitted its report.
According to him, he was yet to receive briefing on the findings of the committee and, therefore, prayed the court for a short adjournment.
The accused persons are Abdul Hamid, Adam Mohammed, Alidue Hamidu, Bala Camal, James Fadama, Anas Matire, Abubakar Alhassan, Salifu Haridu, Tahiru Kadri and Monsuro Musah.
The rest are Musah Abubakar, Tibriru Masawudu, Musah Mahmoud, Tahiru Ali, Zibrim Abubakar, Ibrahim Alhassan, Aminu Salifu, Baki Salifu, Jerry Mc-Mills Gomelessio and Mohammed Raffi.
They were each charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting with weapons, causing unlawful damage and assault on public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and are currently on bail.
On May 17, 2011, the Madina Zongo Junction area was thrown into chaos when the police fired tear gas, rubber and live ammunition to disperse angry youth protesting the take-over of a parcel of land by the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools.
According to the demonstrators, the land was the only available space in the area for public activities, including political rallies, church crusades and Islamic festivities.
The land in question has been a subject of litigation between the Baptist Church and some members of the community for close to 17 years.
However, the issuance of a writ of possession by an Accra High Court for the church to take over the land, which a bailiff served on the people occupying the land to vacate the place within two weeks, sparked the riot.
Some kiosks and food vending tables in the Zongo community were destroyed, while at the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools glass windows were shattered by the stone-throwing youth.
According to the prosecution, the police managed to restore order, but two policemen sustained injuries in the process.
Judge unhappy with absence of AMA boss
Thursday, July 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday expressed its dissatisfaction at the absence of the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, who, together with another person, has been cited for contempt in two different contempt applications.
According to the trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, although the court’s clerk had informed him (judge) that Mr Vanderpuije was in the court earlier before leaving for an official assignment, it was unacceptable for him to be absent.
He reminded counsel for the AMA that the contempt application was a quasi-criminal matter for which reason he directed Mr Vanderpuije to be personally present in court until the matter was determined.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, took note of the judge’s position and explained that Mr Vanderpuije did not act out of disrespect for the court.
In the first contempt application, Mr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing the payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.??????
Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
Meanwhile, Mr Vanderpuije has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and Mr Yankah.
He also filed another application praying the court to stay its June 8, 2011 order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
At the court’s hearing in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AAG was short served with Mr Vanderpuije’s application and ,for that reason, filed its affidavit in opposition yesterday morning.
Following the new development, the court adjourned the matter to July 15, 2011 to enable the AAG to serve the AMA with its affidavit in opposition.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije’s) security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije’s office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait. The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, “Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.”
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
Mr Vanderpuije denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday expressed its dissatisfaction at the absence of the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, who, together with another person, has been cited for contempt in two different contempt applications.
According to the trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, although the court’s clerk had informed him (judge) that Mr Vanderpuije was in the court earlier before leaving for an official assignment, it was unacceptable for him to be absent.
He reminded counsel for the AMA that the contempt application was a quasi-criminal matter for which reason he directed Mr Vanderpuije to be personally present in court until the matter was determined.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, took note of the judge’s position and explained that Mr Vanderpuije did not act out of disrespect for the court.
In the first contempt application, Mr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing the payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.??????
Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
Meanwhile, Mr Vanderpuije has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and Mr Yankah.
He also filed another application praying the court to stay its June 8, 2011 order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
At the court’s hearing in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AAG was short served with Mr Vanderpuije’s application and ,for that reason, filed its affidavit in opposition yesterday morning.
Following the new development, the court adjourned the matter to July 15, 2011 to enable the AAG to serve the AMA with its affidavit in opposition.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije’s) security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije’s office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait. The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, “Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.”
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
Mr Vanderpuije denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
EOCO Files For Stay Of Execution
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 (Front Page)
The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed for a stay of execution of a court order which directed it to pay GH¢59,000 being damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).
The Human Rights Court on May 13, 2011 declared that the EOCO had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity.
It accordingly ordered the EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.
It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of the fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December, last year.
Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.
Before counsel for the EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, could move the motion for stay of execution at the court’s sitting yesterday, counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that the EOCO should have come under Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.
He explained that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
Opposing his colleague’s application, Dr Anderson argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
He further argued that the EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because the EOCO was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple EOCO’s operations.
Counsel explained that the EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the EOCO was not financially resourced.
In its appeal, the EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple the function of the EOCO which was on government subvention.
The EOCO is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.
On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCO’s assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises.
It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.
It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body.
It said the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.
The court further contended that the state could be said to have financial interest in an institution when the state funded the running of that institution and expected dividend from it.
It also declared that the court order obtained by EOCO and the subsequent seizure of the GFA's documents and computers were illegal and wrong.
Besides, the court held that EOCO had violated the GFA's right to privacy, property and work.
The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed for a stay of execution of a court order which directed it to pay GH¢59,000 being damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).
The Human Rights Court on May 13, 2011 declared that the EOCO had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity.
It accordingly ordered the EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.
It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of the fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December, last year.
Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.
Before counsel for the EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, could move the motion for stay of execution at the court’s sitting yesterday, counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that the EOCO should have come under Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.
He explained that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
Opposing his colleague’s application, Dr Anderson argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
He further argued that the EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because the EOCO was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple EOCO’s operations.
Counsel explained that the EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the EOCO was not financially resourced.
In its appeal, the EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple the function of the EOCO which was on government subvention.
The EOCO is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.
On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCO’s assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises.
It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.
It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body.
It said the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.
The court further contended that the state could be said to have financial interest in an institution when the state funded the running of that institution and expected dividend from it.
It also declared that the court order obtained by EOCO and the subsequent seizure of the GFA's documents and computers were illegal and wrong.
Besides, the court held that EOCO had violated the GFA's right to privacy, property and work.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Tsikata Pursues Appeal Against Conviction
July 5, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
The Court of Appeal Monday directed its registrar to furnish the state with the record of proceedings at the Fast Track High Court which convicted Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, a former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).
The state is also expected to be served with exhibits of the trial of Mr Tsikata, who was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in June, 2008, for wilfully causing financial loss to the state and misapplying public property.
Mr Tsikata, who was released in December, 2008, under presidential pardon, filed an appeal against his conviction saying the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence on record.
At the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Merley Wood, informed the court that the court on the last adjourned date ordered that mistakes in the record of proceedings at the lower court be corrected but that had not been done yet.
Mr Tsikata, whose lawyer was absent, explained that there were no mistakes in the record of proceedings; rather the court had on May 27, 2010, ordered that the font sizes of the record of proceedings be emboldened.
He also stated that the record of proceedings did not come with exhibits.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke and supported by Mr Justice K. N. Aduama-Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, accordingly directed the registrar to serve the state with the records of proceedings and exhibits.
A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata was found guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public property and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
The former chief executive of the GNPC was charged in 2002 with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state through a loan he guaranteed for Valley Farms, a private cocoa-producing company, on behalf of the GNPC, and another count of misapplying GH¢2,000 in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991, but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted a recognisance bail.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata had gone to the court without his lawyer who, he said, was outside the jurisdiction on the day of his incarceration, and had sought to take a date for the hearing of a fresh motion on notice to take further evidence that he had filed at the court.
The motion sought an order granting leave for the defence to call further evidence in the case but the court, presided over by Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, convicted him.
In the grounds of appeal, Mr Tsikata contended that the trial judge erred in law in deciding that financial loss had been caused simply because payment of monies had been made by the GNPC.
According to him, the trial judge erred in law in deciding that there was no provision for indemnity from Valley Farms for the guarantee when the express terms of the guarantee agreement gave GNPC a right of subrogation over the assets of Valley Farms.
It said the trial judge erred in law in deciding that because the said investment in Valley Farms was outside the objects of GNPC, on her interpretation of the statute setting up GNPC, financial loss had thereby been caused to the state.
According to the appellant, the trial judge showed manifest bias against him in the conduct of the trial and particularly in relation to her decision to proceed to give judgement when no notice had been served on him to the effect that judgement would be given on that fateful day.
He said the trial judge manifested her determination to give a biased judgement by striking out an application by his counsel to introduce further evidence from admissions made by the Attorney-General during a Supreme Court proceeding that there was no dispute about the viability of the evidence when his counsel had written to the court to explain his absence and requested a date for the hearing of the application.
He said the trial judge also erred in disregarding evidence from the prosecution itself that made it clear that the project in relation to which the charges had been brought was a profitable investment which would have yielded benefits to the nation and the GNPC.
The appellant argued that the trial judge again erred in claiming that an investment in a cocoa project was unrelated to the business of the government when there was uncontested evidence that funding from the export of cocoa was critical to the responsibility of GNPC to import crude oil for the country.
He noted that the trial judge again erred in holding that the he had admitted in a caution statement that he authorised the GNPC Head of Finance to effect the payment in the charge sheet.
According to Mr Tsikata, the trial judge further erred in failing to appreciate the role that Merchant Bank played as the trustee of GNPC resources.
The Court of Appeal Monday directed its registrar to furnish the state with the record of proceedings at the Fast Track High Court which convicted Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, a former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).
The state is also expected to be served with exhibits of the trial of Mr Tsikata, who was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in June, 2008, for wilfully causing financial loss to the state and misapplying public property.
Mr Tsikata, who was released in December, 2008, under presidential pardon, filed an appeal against his conviction saying the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence on record.
At the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Merley Wood, informed the court that the court on the last adjourned date ordered that mistakes in the record of proceedings at the lower court be corrected but that had not been done yet.
Mr Tsikata, whose lawyer was absent, explained that there were no mistakes in the record of proceedings; rather the court had on May 27, 2010, ordered that the font sizes of the record of proceedings be emboldened.
He also stated that the record of proceedings did not come with exhibits.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke and supported by Mr Justice K. N. Aduama-Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, accordingly directed the registrar to serve the state with the records of proceedings and exhibits.
A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata was found guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public property and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
The former chief executive of the GNPC was charged in 2002 with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state through a loan he guaranteed for Valley Farms, a private cocoa-producing company, on behalf of the GNPC, and another count of misapplying GH¢2,000 in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991, but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted a recognisance bail.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata had gone to the court without his lawyer who, he said, was outside the jurisdiction on the day of his incarceration, and had sought to take a date for the hearing of a fresh motion on notice to take further evidence that he had filed at the court.
The motion sought an order granting leave for the defence to call further evidence in the case but the court, presided over by Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, convicted him.
In the grounds of appeal, Mr Tsikata contended that the trial judge erred in law in deciding that financial loss had been caused simply because payment of monies had been made by the GNPC.
According to him, the trial judge erred in law in deciding that there was no provision for indemnity from Valley Farms for the guarantee when the express terms of the guarantee agreement gave GNPC a right of subrogation over the assets of Valley Farms.
It said the trial judge erred in law in deciding that because the said investment in Valley Farms was outside the objects of GNPC, on her interpretation of the statute setting up GNPC, financial loss had thereby been caused to the state.
According to the appellant, the trial judge showed manifest bias against him in the conduct of the trial and particularly in relation to her decision to proceed to give judgement when no notice had been served on him to the effect that judgement would be given on that fateful day.
He said the trial judge manifested her determination to give a biased judgement by striking out an application by his counsel to introduce further evidence from admissions made by the Attorney-General during a Supreme Court proceeding that there was no dispute about the viability of the evidence when his counsel had written to the court to explain his absence and requested a date for the hearing of the application.
He said the trial judge also erred in disregarding evidence from the prosecution itself that made it clear that the project in relation to which the charges had been brought was a profitable investment which would have yielded benefits to the nation and the GNPC.
The appellant argued that the trial judge again erred in claiming that an investment in a cocoa project was unrelated to the business of the government when there was uncontested evidence that funding from the export of cocoa was critical to the responsibility of GNPC to import crude oil for the country.
He noted that the trial judge again erred in holding that the he had admitted in a caution statement that he authorised the GNPC Head of Finance to effect the payment in the charge sheet.
According to Mr Tsikata, the trial judge further erred in failing to appreciate the role that Merchant Bank played as the trustee of GNPC resources.
Ghana @ 50 Ruling, State Appeals Against Mpiani, Wereko-Brobbey
Tuesday, July 5,2011 (Lead Story)
HEARING of the state’s appeal against the acquittal and discharge of a former Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani, and Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, of all charges of wilfully causing financial loss to the state began at the Court of Appeal yesterday.
The case was, however, adjourned indefinitely because Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process filed by the state.
Consequently, the court directed its registrar to serve appeal processes on Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani.
The two former officials of the defunct Ghana@50 Secretariat were discharged by the Accra Fast Track High Court on August 11, 2010 on the grounds that due process was not followed to warrant their prosecution.
Dissatisfied with their discharge, the state filed an appeal but it emerged at the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.
Dr Wereko-Brobby has, however, been served with the appeal process.
Counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobby, Mr Akoto Ampaw, drew the court’s attention to the fact that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.
He, therefore, stated that it was important that the issue was resolved before hearing of the appeal could proceed.
Following counsel’s submission, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Canyon, with Mr Justice K. N. Aduama Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei as the other members, accordingly directed the registrar of the court to serve Mr Mpiani with the relevant documents on the case.
A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the substantive appeal.
Among the grounds of appeal filed by the state are that the trial judge erred in law when he concluded that before adverse findings or reports were deemed to be judgements of the High Court, the constitutional arrangements under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution precluded the Attorney-General from initiating prosecution against persons affected adversely by the findings or reports of commissions of inquiry, whose conclusion was clearly a gross misdirection on the powers of the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
It said the judge, having confused himself on the issues as to ‘public inquiries developing into criminal trials’ and ‘public inquiries forming the basis of criminal trials’, erroneously concluded that the prosecutions in the High Court of persons against whom adverse findings were made by the commissions established under Constitutional Instrument (C.I) 36 of 2002 were in contravention of Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
The trial judge, it said, having misinformed himself that all persons who appeared before the Ghana@50 Commission of Inquiry were called as witnesses, failed to appreciate the legal distinction between a person called by a commission of inquiry ‘as a subject of inquiry or as having been in anyway implicated/concerned in the matter under inquiry’ and ‘as witness’ under Article 282 and 283 of the 1992 Constitution respectively, and thereby came to the wrong conclusion that the respondents were compellable witnesses whose incriminatory evidence was not used in any criminal or civil proceedings against them under Section 10 of C.I 61, rather than finding that the respondents were either subjects of inquiry or persons who were otherwise implicated/concerned in the matter before the Ghana@50 Inquiry within the meaning of Article 282 of the 1992 Constitution and on the strength of the evidence before him.
It said the trial judge misinformed himself on the import of Sections 8 and 9 of the Commission of Inquiry (Ghana@50) Instrument, 2009 (C.I 61) of 2009 relating to privilege, indemnity and immunities of persons appearing before the commission when he held that the criminal proceedings subsequently instituted against the respondents at the High Court after the commission’s work were wrong in law.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, also known as Tarzan, the former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana@50 Secretariat, and Mr Mpiani, Chairman of the National Planning Committee (NPC) for Ghana@50, were charged with four counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
They pleaded not guilty and were each admitted to GH¢35 million on their own recognisance bail.
A Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, in his ruling, upheld the motion of the defence that under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution, the accused persons were entitled to an appeal at the Court of Appeal because the Ghana @50 Commission of Inquiry which recommended the prosecution of the two had the powers of the High Court.
According to the court, although the law mandated the Attorney-General (A-G) to prosecute, the A-G must ensure that due process of the law was adhered to, adding that the arguments put forward by the prosecution that the accused persons misappropriated Ghana @50 property at Trassaco Valley were not part of the charges before the court.
It said Article 282 (61)(2a) and (62) of the Constitution made it unlawful for the prosecution to charge the accused persons who appeared before the Commission of Enquiry as witnesses with any criminal offence.
It accordingly advised that any time the state wanted to prosecute people considered to have misappropriated state resources, it could resort to other investigative agencies and not a Commission of Enquiry.
The facts of the case were that Parliament approved $31.80 million, equivalent to GH¢29.31 million, for the celebration of Ghana@50 from January to December 2007 and the holding of the African Union Summit.
The prosecution said the amount was made up of a first tranche of GH¢18.29 million, which was approved by Parliament on July 20, 2006, and a second tranche, which was a loan of GH¢11.02 million, contracted from the Fidelity Bank and approved by Parliament.
It said aside from those sums approved by Parliament, huge sums of money appeared to have been spent on the celebrations, adding that more than a year after the celebrations, many projects remained uncompleted and the government was saddled with huge debts.
The prosecution said it was against that background that the Commission of Enquiry was set up by President John Evans Atta Mills into activities of Ghana@50 Secretariat and the entire celebration.
According to the prosecution, the Commission found out that although Parliament had approved GH¢29.31 million for the celebration, GH¢97,776,338.44 was spent on it, out of which GH¢75,569,563.34 was directly spent by the Secretariat and the NPC.
The Secretariat and NPC, therefore, spent about GH¢46,999,563 in excess of the amount approved by Parliament for the celebration, the prosecution said.
It further stated that the Commission of Enquiry also found out that contrary to Articles 176 and 178 of the 1992 Constitution, the Secretariat and NPC used all the internally generated funds, totalling GH¢19,352,498.00, without approval from Parliament.
HEARING of the state’s appeal against the acquittal and discharge of a former Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani, and Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, of all charges of wilfully causing financial loss to the state began at the Court of Appeal yesterday.
The case was, however, adjourned indefinitely because Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process filed by the state.
Consequently, the court directed its registrar to serve appeal processes on Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani.
The two former officials of the defunct Ghana@50 Secretariat were discharged by the Accra Fast Track High Court on August 11, 2010 on the grounds that due process was not followed to warrant their prosecution.
Dissatisfied with their discharge, the state filed an appeal but it emerged at the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.
Dr Wereko-Brobby has, however, been served with the appeal process.
Counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobby, Mr Akoto Ampaw, drew the court’s attention to the fact that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.
He, therefore, stated that it was important that the issue was resolved before hearing of the appeal could proceed.
Following counsel’s submission, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Canyon, with Mr Justice K. N. Aduama Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei as the other members, accordingly directed the registrar of the court to serve Mr Mpiani with the relevant documents on the case.
A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the substantive appeal.
Among the grounds of appeal filed by the state are that the trial judge erred in law when he concluded that before adverse findings or reports were deemed to be judgements of the High Court, the constitutional arrangements under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution precluded the Attorney-General from initiating prosecution against persons affected adversely by the findings or reports of commissions of inquiry, whose conclusion was clearly a gross misdirection on the powers of the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
It said the judge, having confused himself on the issues as to ‘public inquiries developing into criminal trials’ and ‘public inquiries forming the basis of criminal trials’, erroneously concluded that the prosecutions in the High Court of persons against whom adverse findings were made by the commissions established under Constitutional Instrument (C.I) 36 of 2002 were in contravention of Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
The trial judge, it said, having misinformed himself that all persons who appeared before the Ghana@50 Commission of Inquiry were called as witnesses, failed to appreciate the legal distinction between a person called by a commission of inquiry ‘as a subject of inquiry or as having been in anyway implicated/concerned in the matter under inquiry’ and ‘as witness’ under Article 282 and 283 of the 1992 Constitution respectively, and thereby came to the wrong conclusion that the respondents were compellable witnesses whose incriminatory evidence was not used in any criminal or civil proceedings against them under Section 10 of C.I 61, rather than finding that the respondents were either subjects of inquiry or persons who were otherwise implicated/concerned in the matter before the Ghana@50 Inquiry within the meaning of Article 282 of the 1992 Constitution and on the strength of the evidence before him.
It said the trial judge misinformed himself on the import of Sections 8 and 9 of the Commission of Inquiry (Ghana@50) Instrument, 2009 (C.I 61) of 2009 relating to privilege, indemnity and immunities of persons appearing before the commission when he held that the criminal proceedings subsequently instituted against the respondents at the High Court after the commission’s work were wrong in law.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, also known as Tarzan, the former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana@50 Secretariat, and Mr Mpiani, Chairman of the National Planning Committee (NPC) for Ghana@50, were charged with four counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
They pleaded not guilty and were each admitted to GH¢35 million on their own recognisance bail.
A Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, in his ruling, upheld the motion of the defence that under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution, the accused persons were entitled to an appeal at the Court of Appeal because the Ghana @50 Commission of Inquiry which recommended the prosecution of the two had the powers of the High Court.
According to the court, although the law mandated the Attorney-General (A-G) to prosecute, the A-G must ensure that due process of the law was adhered to, adding that the arguments put forward by the prosecution that the accused persons misappropriated Ghana @50 property at Trassaco Valley were not part of the charges before the court.
It said Article 282 (61)(2a) and (62) of the Constitution made it unlawful for the prosecution to charge the accused persons who appeared before the Commission of Enquiry as witnesses with any criminal offence.
It accordingly advised that any time the state wanted to prosecute people considered to have misappropriated state resources, it could resort to other investigative agencies and not a Commission of Enquiry.
The facts of the case were that Parliament approved $31.80 million, equivalent to GH¢29.31 million, for the celebration of Ghana@50 from January to December 2007 and the holding of the African Union Summit.
The prosecution said the amount was made up of a first tranche of GH¢18.29 million, which was approved by Parliament on July 20, 2006, and a second tranche, which was a loan of GH¢11.02 million, contracted from the Fidelity Bank and approved by Parliament.
It said aside from those sums approved by Parliament, huge sums of money appeared to have been spent on the celebrations, adding that more than a year after the celebrations, many projects remained uncompleted and the government was saddled with huge debts.
The prosecution said it was against that background that the Commission of Enquiry was set up by President John Evans Atta Mills into activities of Ghana@50 Secretariat and the entire celebration.
According to the prosecution, the Commission found out that although Parliament had approved GH¢29.31 million for the celebration, GH¢97,776,338.44 was spent on it, out of which GH¢75,569,563.34 was directly spent by the Secretariat and the NPC.
The Secretariat and NPC, therefore, spent about GH¢46,999,563 in excess of the amount approved by Parliament for the celebration, the prosecution said.
It further stated that the Commission of Enquiry also found out that contrary to Articles 176 and 178 of the 1992 Constitution, the Secretariat and NPC used all the internally generated funds, totalling GH¢19,352,498.00, without approval from Parliament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)