Mabel Aku Baneseh's World

Jomoro youth protest - Over intended relocation of gas processing plant

2012-02-13T15:13:00.000Z

Friday, February 10, 2012 (Page 28 Lead)

TENSION is looming in the Jomoro District of the Western Region following reports of a possible relocation of an $850 million gas processing plant from Donmunlini to Atuabo in the Ellembele District.
The youth in the area are up in arms against moves by the authorities to relocate the gas plant from Donmunlini to Atuabo and argue that the decision is premature and hasty; but the government shares a different view.
“The Board of Ghana National Gas Company is yet to take a definite position on the siting of the project but Atuabo is likely and best site for now,” said the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Ghana National Gas Company, Dr George Sipa-Adjah Yankey, in an interview with the Daily Graphic.
He said the government would consider national interest over emotional sentiments and cited the security of the plant as one of the reasons the plant needed to be sited at Atuabo.
According to him, preliminary studies conducted by Synopec, a Chinese company, indicated that the country would save millions of dollars if the plant was sited at Atuabo and not the originally designated town of Domunlinu.
The youth of Jomoro, in a strong-worded statement to traditional rulers in the Western Nzema Traditional Council, government officials and other stakeholders, have indicated their intention to move to the Castle in their numbers to protest the decision to relocate the gas processing plant.
According to the youth, farmers in the original designated area had lost large tracts of farmlands but they have not been paid any compensation.
They said it was, therefore, painful for the area to be sidelined at the last hour, especially when they had lost virtually all their farmlands; their main source of livelihood.
Reacting to their concerns, Dr Yankey denied allegations that he was one of the officials championing the relocation of the project and gave the assurance that his outfit had taken steps to compensate affected farmers.
He said the Land Valuation Board had been tasked to do crop numeration and put value on commercial trees which were felled in order to pave way for the payment of compensation to affected farmers.
He also gave the assurance that petrochemical industries would be built on the acquired land to create jobs for people in the area.
Dr Yankey said construction works on the plant which would be fed with gas from the Jubilee Oilfields are expected to be completed this year.
Currently, road survey for the laying of the onshore pipeline has been completed while engineering studies of the structure of the onshore pipeline would be completed in a couple of weeks after which pipes would be ordered.
The chief executive officer further explained that tenders had been received from prospective companies interested in manufacturing the gas processing plant and added that a company would be selected to manufacture the plant before the middle of next month.
A Deputy Minister of Energy, Mr Emmanuel Kofi-Armah Buah, who was also accused of manipulating the relocation of the project, denied any wrongdoing.
“I have no power to divert the project,” he explained and further disclosed that the Jomoro District had not been abandoned because a fertilizer plant would be set up to provide jobs for people in that area.
He said the Volta River Authority (VRA) would provide a $600 million 500 megawatts power plant at Bonyere in the Jomoro District.

POLICE TO QUIZ OSAFO-MAAFO - For his role in the Woyome saga

2012-02-08T21:40:00.000Z

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 (LEAD STORY)

THE Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service has officially invited a former Minister of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP), Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, to answer questions in connection with the circumstances that led to the payment of GH¢51.2 million in judgement debt to Alfred Agbesi Woyome, a businessman.
This brings to five the number of persons who have been formally invited by the CID to help the police in their investigations into the payment of the money to Woyome.
Woyome is currently on remand with a Chief State Attorney, Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh, and the Director of Legal Services at the MOFEP, Paul Asimenu. Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, the wife of Nerquaye-Tetteh, into whose account Woyome deposited GH¢400,000, is on bail.
A sixth official, a former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, under whose tenure the judgement debt was awarded to Woyome, has also indicated her willingness to assist the CID to unravel the truth.
The CID’s invitation was extended through Mr Osafo-Maafo’s lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, on Monday to inform his client to report at the CID Headquarters at 11 a.m. yesterday.
However, the meeting could not take place because CID officials cancelled it at the last hour because of other engagements.
According to Mr Dame, “We were on our way to the CID office when, in the middle of the trip, I received a call from an official who said the meeting had been cancelled.”
An official at the CID Headquarters confirmed Mr Dame’s testimony and explained that the invitation had been cancelled at the last hour because the CID had other equally important engagements.
“We will invite him in due course,” the official said, but did not state the specific date or time for the invitation.
Mr Dame, in an interview with the Daily Graphic, said his client was waiting to receive a new date from the police.
He stated that the developments debunked claims that Mr Osafo-Maafo was evading the police.
“We are willing and prepared to assist the police to expose any wrongdoing by any public officer connected with fraudulent payments to Woyome,” Mr Dame said.
He said his client was also ready to prove that the decisive action he took in cancelling the procurement process initiated while he was in office resulted in the “state enormously saving public funds” which would have been lost.
Counsel further stated that his client should receive commendation, instead of condemnation, for acting in a way to save the state millions of dollars which would have been lost.
Woyome is standing trial at the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court for allegedly defrauding the state to the tune of GH¢51.2 million.
He is alleged to have put in false claims to defraud the state to the tune of GH¢51.2 million, with the active connivance and assistance of Nerquaye-Tetteh and Asimenu.
The three were remanded to reappear on February 13, 2012.
Woyome pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and corrupting a public officer.
Nerquaye-Tetteh was charged with two counts of conspiracy and corruption of a public officer. He pleaded not guilty to the offence, while his wife faced one count of abetment of crime.
Asimenu, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of crime.
Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, who is alleged to have allowed Woyome to pay GH¢400,000 into her bank account, is currently on GH¢500,000 bail.

Woyome's case against EOCO adjourned

2012-02-08T21:35:00.002Z

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 (Front Page)

THE suit instituted against the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) by a businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, over its handling of investigations into the payment of GH¢51.2 million to him has been adjourned.
The Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, adjourned the case to February 13, 2012 to enable EOCO to serve its defence in the matter to Woyome’s lawyers.
Although EOCO has completed its investigations and indicted Woyome and some present and past government officials, the court will go ahead and hear the case on its merit.
Woyome, who is currently on remand, is questioning the mandate of EOCO to investigate the matter.
His argument is that EOCO has no mandate to investigate the judgement of a court.
He is consequently seeking an injunction to stop EOCO from continuing with the investigations, which has been completed and an interim report dated February 1, 2012 submitted to President J. E. A. Mills.
Woyome’s lawyers are also challenging EOCO’s action to freeze their client’s bank accounts.
Woyome is currently on remand with a Chief State Attorney, Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh, and the Director of Legal Services at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Paul Asimenu. Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, the wife of Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh, into whose account Woyome deposited GH¢400,000, is on GH¢500,000 bail.
Woyome is standing trial at the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court for defrauding the state to the tune of GH¢51.2 million.
He is alleged to have put in false claims to defraud the state to the tune of GH¢51.2 million, with the active connivance and assistance of Nerquaye-Tetteh and Asimenu. The three were remanded to reappear on February 13, 2012.
Woyome pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretence and corrupting a public officer, while Nerquaye-Tetteh is charged with two counts of conspiracy and corruption of a public officer. He pleaded not guilty to the offence, while his wife faced one count of abetment of crime.
Asimenu, on the other hand, had pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of crime.

New charges against Mawuenyegah

2012-02-08T21:30:00.000Z

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 (Front page)

FRESH charges have been preferred against a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, for her alleged role in 1,020 grammes of cocaine turning into sodium bicarbonate.
DSP Tehoda, who was granted bail by the Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court on January 30, 2012, had her freedom once again curtailed when the Accra Circuit Court remanded her in custody to reappear on February 20, 2012.
She is facing a new charge of abetment of crime, to wit, undertaking an activity relating to narcotic drugs, contrary to Section 56 (c) and 3 (2) of PNDCL 236 Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990.
The particulars of offence said “between July 21, 2011 and December 13, 2011 in the Greater Accra Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did abet one Nana Ama Martins to swap a cocaine exhibit weighing 1,020 grammes into sodium bicarbonate”.
DSP Tehoda was initially charged with one count of abetment of crime of stealing of cocaine under Section 20 (1) of Act 29/60 and Section 56 (a) of PNDCL 236.
The Human Rights Court, in granting bail to her, said the charge was misleading because there was no law which charged individuals for “loss of cocaine”.
The prosecution, led by a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, substituted the old charge with a new one, thereby rendering her bail null and void.
DSP Tehoda, who reported to court from her home, looked bewildered when the court refused to grant her bail, although her lawyers had prayed it to grant her bail.
The facts of the case were that following the Vice-President‘s directive on December 4, 2011, the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) launched investigations into the missing cocaine which was tendered in evidence in Circuit Court One on September 27, 2011 and was admitted with objection in evidence for the court in the case involving Nana Ama Martins.
On the following day, September 28, 2011, the defence team objected to the exhibit, claiming it was not cocaine.
According to the prosecution, it would lead fresh evidence to prove that an uncle of Nana Ama Martins’s, called Yankah, and a sister of hers, Serwah Gyaabah, had told a witness in the case that they (Yankah and Serwah) managed to turn the cocaine into soda with the help of DSP Tehoda after the judge and his court clerk had refused to take GH¢4,000 and GH¢1,000, respectively, as bribe.
According to the prosecution, there was another witness to confirm the role played by DSP Tehoda and the others to turn the cocaine into sodium bicarbonate.
It further stated that DSP Tehoda assisted Nana Martins’s family to get a buyer to sell her house in order to raise GH¢10,000 to pay legal fees and other expenses. DSP Tehoda was also said to have invited Nana Martins’s lawyer to her office three times to pay off his legal fees.
The prosecution alleged that DSP Tehoda informed the lawyer that she, with the connivance of others, had managed to swap the cocaine and that at the trial he should request for a re-testing, which was done.
It said evidence would be led to show that DSP Tehoda jubilated in her office after the narcotic drug found on Nana Martins had tested positive for soda.
Mr Wiredu prayed the court to remand DSP Tehoda on the grounds that she was facing a different charge.
Counsel for DSP Tehoda, Mr E. A. Vordoagu, did not take kindly to the turn of events and said the prosecution had introduced fresh facts which did not form part of the charge sheet.
He said a close study of the recounted facts demonstrated that the prosecution was alleging that the so-called cocaine exhibit was swapped in court, adding that it was now public knowledge that the BNI report did not disclose where the swapping took place.
Counsel argued that the charge preferred against his client would fail due to doubts created, adding that “the facts cannot be substantiated in material aspect. The facts are all hearsay”.
He further argued that the charge sheet was an afterthought just to scuttle the bail that had been granted, adding, “The prosecution is desperate and bent on persecuting the DSP.”
He described the prosecution’s action as “malicious” and accordingly prayed the court to grant his client bail.
However, the trial judge, Ms Audrey Korcuvie-Tay, said DSP Tehoda’s offence was narcotic related and for that reason her hands were tied by the law.
She, accordingly, refused her bail and remanded her to reappear February 20, 2012.

COURT REMANDS WOYOME - And 2 others for defrauding the State

2012-02-08T21:26:00.000Z

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 (Lead story)

THE Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court on Monday, February 6, 2012 defied loud drum beats and war songs and remanded into police custody Alfred Agbesi Woyome and two others for allegedly defrauding the state to the tune of GH¢51.2 million.
The two are a Chief State Attorney, Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh, and the Director of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP), Paul Asimenu.
A third accused person, Mr Nerquaye-Tetteh’s wife, Mrs Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, into whose account Woyome paid GH¢400,000, was granted bail in the sum of GH¢500,000 with two sureties. She was also ordered to report herself to the police twice a week.
,The trial judge, Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, ignored the loud drumming, singing of war songs and hurling of curses which filtered into his courtroom and refused a bail application from lawyers for the accused persons.
Woyome, who looked pensive and sober, intermittently shook his head while he was in the dock. He also tapped his feet, as if to ward off stress, while he was on his feet with the others for almost two hours.
A large crowd besieged the court premises and chanted war songs, with the belief that that conduct might save Woyome, but on hearing that Woyome had been remanded, the noise ended immediately.
Woyome, who wore a white linen shirt with black and white embroidery, was remanded together with Nerquaye-Tetteh and Asimenu to reappear on February 13, 2012.
Woyome, who has been in the news for the wrong reasons, pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretence and corrupting a public officer.
Nerquaye-Tetteh was charged with two counts of conspiracy and corruption of a public officer. He pleaded not guilty to the offence, while his wife faced one count of abetment of crime.
Asimenu, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of crime.
Armed policemen sent the four accused persons to the packed courtroom at 2.02 p.m. to face the charges. Immediately they entered, a thick crowd outside began beating drums and sang on top of their voices. They were virtually screaming as if they intended to abruptly end proceedings with their noise.
However, their noise-making gradually subdued as hearing progressed. A thick crowd also gathered outside the court premises, as passers-by stopped to catch a glimpse of Woyome.
At exactly 3:27 p.m., 17 minutes after court proceedings had ended, armed policemen led the accused persons out of the courtroom. Photojournalists found it difficult to take photographs of the accused persons as policemen virtually made it impossible for them to do so.
The four, who were treated like high-profile dignitaries, were whisked away in waiting vehicles, amidst the sounding of sirens.
Earlier, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Cynthia Lamptey, had prayed the court to remand the accused because investigations were ongoing to unravel what led to the GH¢51.2 million fraud.
Presenting the facts of the case, Ms Lamptey informed the court that in 2009 Woyome made false representation to the then Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, stating that he had a contract with the government of Ghana regarding the construction of sports stadia for CAN 2008 but that the contract had unlawfully been abrogated.
According to the prosecution, Woyome subsequently filed a writ at the High Court, claiming he was owed GH¢41 million and interest of GH¢10.2 million, bringing the total to GH¢51.2 million.
The prosecution said moneys paid were GH¢17.9 million in February 2010, GH¢10 million on January 27, 2011, GH¢10 million on April 18, 2011 and GH¢14.1 million on September 12, 2011
It said investigations showed that the government did not owe Woyome any money, while Nerquaye-Tetteh failed to go to court to defend the action Woyome had instituted against the state.
It further pointed out that Woyome transferred GH¢400,000 into Mrs Nerquaye-Tetteh’s account. Investigations also revealed that as a director of Legal Services, Asimenu had written opinions and quoted wrong figures, as well as given information, which created conditions for Woyome to be paid money which was not due him (Woyome).
Applying for bail, Mr Robertson Kpatsa, counsel for Woyome, said the facts presented by the prosecution were not entirely true.
He argued that the money paid to Woyome was the result of a judgement debt he had obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Kpatsa said his client would defend himself to prove his innocence and prayed the court to grant his client bail because he was a Ghanaian businessman and had families in Ghana.
According to counsel, Woyome had substantial and credible sureties who would stand in for him when granted bail.
For his part, counsel for Nerquaye-Tetteh and his wife, Mr Addo Atuah, prayed the court to grant his clients bail with the reason that what the prosecution had said was grossly at variance with what had happened.
Mr Atuah informed the court that Mrs Nerquaye-Tetteh was a nursing mother who had been granted police enquiry bail and, accordingly, prayed the court to grant her bail, since she would co-operate with the police.
He also argued that it was not Nerquaye-Tetteh’s fault that the state lost the case which had led to Woyome being granted judgement debt.
Counsel for Asimenu, Mr Kwame Akuffo, argued that holding an opinion was not ground enough for criminal indictment in reference to the state’s argument that Asimenu had written opinions which served as grounds for Woyome to defraud the state.

WOYOME IS HOT - In police grip for questioning

2012-02-08T21:18:00.000Z

Saturday, February 4, 2012 (Lead Story)

A businessman, Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome, was On Friday, February 3, 2012, arrested by the police for questioning in connection with his alleged receipt of GH¢51.2 million judgement debt by fraudulent means.
His arrest, according to a Deputy Minister of Information, Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, followed a directive by President John Evans Atta Mills as part of a series of actions to deal with the Woyome judgement debt saga.
The interim report released by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) on Thursday concluded that Mr Woyome was not entitled to the GH¢51,283,480.59 that had been paid to him by the government for the abrogation of contracts in respect of the construction of stadia for the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations (CAN 2008).
It said Mr Woyome manipulated documents and information, and riding on the negligence and/or complicity of public officials, managed to receive money which he was clearly not entitled to.
Barely 24 hours after the report was made public, sources said Woyome was picked up for questioning by armed policemen in traffic around 1 p.m.
The Head of Operations at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, Chief Superintendent Frank Kwofie, confirmed Mr Woyome's arrest.
He said it was true that Woyome had been picked up for questioning but declined to give further details. He also declined to say whether or not other persons implicated in the EOCO report would be picked up for questioning.
Mr Woyome’s lawyers were frantically trying to secure bail for him as of 6 p.m.
The entrance to the Police Headquarters was a silent statement of a “no-go area”, as armoured vehicles blocked the place, while scores of armed policemen in helmet patrolled the pavements near the headquarters.
Another group of armed men was spotted sitting in an armoured vehicle, while reporters and members of the public were refused entry to the premises which, until 1 p.m. yesterday, had been opened to the public.
Armed men kept an eye on reporters who had earlier been politely turned away. Only the lawyers for Woyome were allowed entry.
The National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Dr Kwabena Adjei, was spotted entering the Police Headquarters in a Toyota Land Cruiser at 3.44 p.m.
Some Woyome sympathisers expressed disappointment at his arrest.
Asked why they were there, they said they had gathered to give moral support to the businessman.
Passers-by looked towards the Police Headquarters as if it was possible to catch a glimpse of Mr Woyome.
A taxi driver loudly informed a colleague driver who was driving in the opposite direction that he had heard Woyome was in the police building for fraud.
Vehicles were searched and drivers interviewed before they were allowed entry onto the premises. Others were turned away.
Scores of Woyome sympathisers who had earlier trooped to the Police Headquarters to demand his release were thrown out.
A crowd gathered at a nearby bus stop and waited for new developments. They stood at bay to avoid being picked by the police who had earlier arrested a few people who had thronged the Police Headquarters a few minutes after Mr Woyome had been picked up.

DSP Mawuenyegah"s trial - A-G BUNGLES CASE

2012-02-08T21:13:00.000Z

February 1, 2012 (Lead Story)

THE Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court on January 31, 2012 granted bail to Deputy Superintendent of Police Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda on the grounds that the charge against her was flawed.
According to the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah, “the particulars of offence accompanying the statement of offence are alien to the law and I, therefore, do not see why her rights must be curtailed”.
Ignoring an earlier move by the prosecution to introduce fresh evidence to convince the court to refuse Mrs Tehoda bail, the judge upheld a bail application from counsel for Mrs Tehoda and granted her bail in the sum of GH¢100,000, with two sureties.
Counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr E. A.Vordoagu, had prayed the court to grant his client bail because the charge preferred against her was incompetent, vexatious and without merit.
After standing the case down for three hours to enable the prosecution to file its affidavit in opposition to the defence team’s bail application, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, emerged, accusing Mrs Tehoda’s husband and her uncle, who is also a policeman, of using crude methods to secure her release.
Those allegations did not deter the judge from scrutinising the charge sheet and the particulars of offence, which eventually led to the granting of bail to the accused person.
Mrs Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga, has been charged with one count of abetment of stealing cocaine under Section 20 (1) of Act 29/60 and Section 56 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990, PNDCL 236.
But the particulars of offence stated, “Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, Police Officer, between 21st July, 2011 and December 2011 in the Greater Accra Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did aid and abet one Nana Ama Martins’ families and other individuals to commit crime, to wit loss of cocaine exhibit.”
That, according to the judge, was misleading, because there was no law which charged individuals for “loss of cocaine”.
He, therefore, held that holding the accused person for abetting crime was misleading and for that reason the court would uphold her human rights and admit her to bail.
Mr Justice Essel-Mensah admitted that although the case was a simple legal matter, it had become topical and sensational and for that reason the court would be very careful in giving its ruling.
The first question the judge posed was: “Has the applicant (Mrs Tehoda) been charged with any narcotic offence?”, to which he (judge) answered that the charge sheet bore no reference to that.
He then argued that although the prosecution had said she had abetted crime by stealing cocaine, the same charge sheet explained that she had contributed to the loss of cocaine exhibit.
The court held that the Criminal and other Offences Act had not enacted such a law.
Based on those inconsistencies and ambiguities in the charge sheet, it held that Mrs Tehoda could not be held any longer in detention.
Contrary to a court order on Tuesday, January 30, 2012 that they should produce the accused person, BNI officials failed to do so, but Mrs Tehoda’s husband and her family members expressed open joy after the court’s ruling yesterday.
They congratulated the defence lawyers, Mr E. A. Vordoagu and Mr Oliver Dzeble, for securing the freedom of their relative.
Mr Vordoagu had argued that the prosecution lumped the charge sheet together, thereby rendering it either mischievous or incompetent.
He further argued that the prosecution was seeking to misdirect the law and stated that the charge preferred against his client was bailable.
According to him, Mrs Tehoda had been kept in custody since December 29, 2011 on flawed charges.
“You do not arrest a person only to fish for evidence to incriminate her. This is dangerous practice and I pray the court to admit her to bail on flexible terms,” he said.
He assured the court that Mrs Tehoda would comply with the court’s orders when granted bail.
Responding, Mr Wiredu pointed out that the accused person was lawfully charged and denied an assertion that defence lawyers had been denied access to her.
Mr Wiredu informed the court that the sister of Nana Martins, the lady who was said to have possessed the cocaine which turned to washing soda, had been directed by Mrs Tehoda’s husband not to co-operate with the police.
He said he had evidence to prove that Mrs Tehoda’s uncle, a sergeant in the Ghana Police Service, was scheming with Mr Tehoda and Nana Martins’s sister to secure Mrs Tehoda’s release.
According to the Chief State Attorney, the three persons were working “furiously to interfere in the process” and for that reason it would be dangerous to grant the accused person bail.
He, therefore, prayed the court to take the seriousness of the offence, as well as accompanying punishment, into consideration and refuse the accused person bail.
Mrs Tehoda had, on January 17, 2012, pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The police handed the accused person over to the BNI on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been rearrested in July 2011.
Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.
BNI Investigations led to the arrest of Mrs Tehoda for her alleged role in the swapping of the cocaine.
The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify Mrs Tehoda’s collaborators.

Supreme Court judge suggests solution to Akuse boundary dispute

2012-02-01T00:01:00.000Z

A Supreme Court judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, today suggested that the solution to the Akuse boundary dispute between the Greater Accra and Eastern Regions could be found in the examination of relevant local government legislations.
He, therefore, directed lawyers for parties in the boundary dispute at the Supreme Court to research into versions of Legislative Instrument from 1954 to date and address the court on it.
He made the suggestion when the matter was called at the court’s sitting in Accra today.
The case, which bordered on whether or not Akuse was part of the Greater Accra or Eastern Region was not heard because one of the panel members was out of the jurisdiction.
It was, therefore, adjourned to February 16, 2012.
There was heated argument between parties in the case outside the court premises after the case was adjourned. The parties, who mostly spoke in the local dialect Krobo swore to deal with each other when they reach the Akuse township.
Akuse has been at the centre of a dispute between the Dangme West District, now the Shai Osudoku District, in the Greater Accra Region and the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region following the decision of the Parliamentary Committee on Subsidiary Legislation set up in 2010 to place the Akuse Electoral Area under the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region, a move which infuriated authorities and residents of the Manya Krobo Traditional Area.

Two individuals are challenging the creation and specification of the new electoral area by the Ministry of Local Government which was gazetted in November 2010.

Mr Charles Mate Kole and Nene Azago Kwesitsu I have sued the EC and the Attorney-General on the grounds that the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument, 2010 (LI 1983) sought to alter boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions.

The two are contending that the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka, Natiriku and Salon Electoral areas (previously part of the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region, as per the specification made by CI 46 of 2004) are now part of the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region.

They are, accordingly, praying the court to declare that that action was in excess of the powers conferred on the Minister of Local Government by sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462).

In a writ filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, the plaintiffs are praying the Supreme Court to declare that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 241 (2) and Article 5 of the Constitution, Parliament acted in excess of its powers by approving, adopting and enacting LI 1983.

They are also praying the highest court of the land to declare as null and void and of no legal effect LI 1983 which eventually altered the boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions, as well as declare as null and void and of no legal effect the second column of LI 1983 which relates to the specification of the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka, Natiriku and Salon Electoral areas as part of the Dangme West District.

The plaintiffs are asking for an order restraining the EC from conducting elections or unit committee elections or exercising its powers to conduct elections in the affected towns pending the hearing and final determination of the merits of the instant action, as well as any further costs the court may deem fit.

The Attorney-General has, however, denied that the Minister of Local Government embarked on an exercise to alter boundaries between the Eastern and the Greater Accra regions.

The defendant is also praying the court to take into consideration the statute and social needs of the community, the economic exigencies of time and other factors, adding, “The Osudoku people need to keep their cultural identity as one people and the law must be used in the sense to further the cause of this unity and not to disintegrate them.”

In relation to this suit, the Chief of Akuse, Nene Teye Titiriku, the Akuse and Amedeka Residents Association and six former assembly members applied to be joined to the suit but the court struck out the names of the six assembly members and, accordingly, joined the names of the two others to the suit filed by Mr Kole and Nene Kwesitsu.

In November 2010, a Parliamentary Sub-Legislating Committee, acting on the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument, 2010 (LI 1983), realigned six electoral areas — Zongo New Town, Akutua, Osukute, Bungalow, Amedeka and Salon — at Akuse, originally part of the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region, to Dangme West in the Greater Accra Region.

Supreme Court adjourns suit against Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey

2012-01-31T23:59:00.000Z

THE Supreme Court could not hear a case brought against Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey over his purchase of a government bungalow because the plaintiffs, Okudzeto Ablakwa and Dr Omane Boamah, were not served with hearing notices.
The court then directed its registrar to serve hearing notices on parties and accordingly adjourned the case sine die.

Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey was present in court.

In November 2011, the court dismissed Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s preliminary objection which argued that the court had no mandate to hear a case brought before it by the applicants in respect of his right to purchase a government bungalow.

The nine-member court, in a unanimous decision, argued that, although, the case passed for a land case, which falls within the domain of the High Court, the plaintiffs were not laying claim to the property in question but rather seeking an interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution regarding the ownership of state property, including Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution.

Presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, the court agreed that it had jurisdiction by law and precedents to hear the case which bordered both on constitutionality and public interest.

Other members of the court were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Baffoe Bonnie, Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo.

In 2008, Mr Ablakwa and Dr. Boamah, Deputy Ministers of Information and Environment, Science and Technology respectively, brought the action against Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman, who was then the Minister of Tourism and National Orientation, seeking a declaration from the court that he had no right to buy the bungalow at No 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge residential area he was occupying at the time.

The plaintiffs had argued that the action of Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey contravened Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) and smacked of cronyism and gross abuse of discretional powers of a public officer.

However, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey raised a preliminary objection, saying the court had no mandate to hear the case.

His argument was that the right procedure was for the plaintiffs to apply to the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), if they thought he was abusing his office by applying to purchase the bungalow.
However, the Supreme Court held otherwise and accordingly dismissed the case.

Court orders BNI to produce DSP Mawuenyegah

2012-01-31T23:56:00.000Z

January 31, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)

The Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court, yesterday ordered the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) to produce Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga at its sitting tomorrow (January 31, 2012).
The court’s order followed the failure of BNI officials to bring the accused person to court as was required by law.
Counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr E. A. Vordoagu informed the court of the frustrations the defence team encountered anytime they visited their client at the BNI cells.
According to him, although, BNI officials had been served with hearing notices, they refused to bring their client to court as well as made it impossible for the defence team to have access to her.
Mrs Tehoda, the Deputy Head of the Commercial Crimes Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, has applied for bail at the Human Rights Court presided over by Mr Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah.
Mrs Tehoda, has been remanded by the Accra Circuit Court on one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine but her lawyers applied for bail on her behalf at the Human Rights Court.
At the Human Rights Court’s sitting in Accra today, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, prayed the court to adjourn the case to Wednesday because he was out of the jurisdiction and upon return was informed his outfit was served with a copy of Mrs Tehoda’s bail application last Friday.
Mr Vordoagu opposed Mr Wiredu’s plea with the court and said the Attorney-General’s office had sufficient notice and for that reason, the court should ignore Mr Wiredu’s plea.
Responding to Mr Vordoagu’s submission, Mr Wiredu argued that the defence team’s bail application was badly written thereby causing the court to dismiss it on Wednesday, January 25, 2012.
The court, after listening to both parties, ordered the BNI to produce Mrs Tehoda tomorrow (January 31, 2012).
Mrs Tehoda on January 17, 2012 pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The police handed the accused person over to the BNI on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Ama Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been re-arrested in July 2011.

Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.

Following that, the Vice-President, Mr John Mahama, tasked the BNI to investigate the incident.

The investigation led to the arrest of the accused for her role in the swapping of the cocaine.

Although, her unit was not investigating Nana Martins for any offence, DSP Mrs Tehoda allegedly went for the suspect on different occasions from CID cells and took her to her office and also arranged a lawyer for her.

The trial circuit court had, in September last year, received the alleged cocaine, weighing 1,020 grammes, as exhibit after it had been tested by the Police Forensic Laboratory.

A day after that, counsel for Nana Martins prayed that the substance be retested because it was not cocaine, as alleged by the police report. The re-testing was done and it turned out to be sodium carbonate.

It was during BNI investigations that it came to light that DSP Mrs Tehoda played a role in the swapping of the cocaine and also assisted Nana Martins to sell her house, all to facilitate the swapping.

The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify the collaborators of DSP Mrs Tehoda.

MEN SLEEP WITH DAUGHTERS - One jailed 10 years, another remanded

2012-01-31T23:53:00.000Z

A 40-year-old man,Emmanuel Kwesi Yevu, who had sexual intercourse with his 13-year-old daughter, claiming he had woken up from a dream in which he had sex with his late wife, was yesterday sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra Circuit Court.

He pleaded guilty to the offence of incest.

In another case of incest, the court remanded 40-year-old Kwesi Mortsi, for having an affair with his 18-year-old daughter for 18 months and aborting her pregnancy for her on three occasions.

Mortsi, however, pleaded not guilty to one count of incest and was remanded to reappear on Februrary 7, 2012.

In the first case, Yevu had told the court that on a particular occasion, he had taken alcohol, slept and dreamt of having sex with his late wife.

When he woke up, he found out that his daughter had placed one of her legs on him and so, unable to control himself, he had sex with her.

Yevu also claimed a spirit entered him and lured him to have sex with his daughter on two occasions gave her medicines to swallow and another to insert in her vagina when she complained to him that she had not menstruated for three months.

There was profuse laughter when Yevu’s brother got up and informed the court that Yevu was oblivious of his offence because he had been charmed spiritually.

He looked directly at the trial judge, Mrs Georgina Mensah-Dastsa, and said “please have mercy on my brother. This one, ibi juju oooh.”

The judge replied “On a lighter note, I have powers but not juju powers. So take your juju story to a juju court.”

Yevu, who appeared not to be in a position to speak found his voice all of a sudden after his brother had humoured the court and stated in Ewe that evil spirits drove him to sleep with his daughter.

He said the spirits entered him thereby making him have frequent dreams of having sexual intercourse with his late wife.

On a particular occasion, he claimed he took in alcohol, slept, dreamt of having sex with his late wife and upon waking up, he found his daughter had laid one of her legs on him.

The facts of the case as presented by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mrs Sarah Acquah said the complainant was the victim’s uncle.

She said the victim had been living with the convict at Omanjor in Accra since the death of victim’s mother.

The prosecution said during October 2011, the victim was sleeping when Yevu forced her and had sex with her on two occasions. After the acts, the victim informed her father that she had not menstruated for the past three months.

Yevu, suspecting the victim was pregnant, gave the victim medicine to swallow and insert some of the medicine into her vagina.

Soon after inserting the medicine, the victim began to complain of abdominal pains and she was rushed to the hospital and a report was made to the Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU) at Odorkor Police station.

The victim was issued with a medical form while her father was arrested by the Police and during interrogation, Yevu admitted the offence.

Mortsi, on the other hand lived at Dansoman in Accra with his daughter, a school drop out and was for the past one and half years subjecting her to sexual abuse.

On January 16, 2012, Mortsi attempted to have sexual intercourse with his daughter but she refused to heed to his moves.

The next day while preparing to leave for work, Mortsi made sexual moves again but the victim refused thereby infuriating Mortsi who seized her bag in the process.

Mortsi’s action infuriated the victim who reported her sexual ordeal to the police.

Mortsi was picked up for questioning and later charged after police had completed investigations into the matter.

Human trafficker jailed 10 years

2012-01-31T23:36:00.002Z

January 28, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)

A trader who trafficked 10 young girls to Nigeria for labour and prostitution has been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court.

Fati Abubakari, who was convicted to five years each on two separate dockets for engaging in human trafficking, was whisked away in a waiting van around 11 am to begin her jail term.

In the first case, she was charged with her former husband for conspiracy and human trafficking.

Her former husband, Bawa Salifu, who was at large during the trial, was, however, acquitted and discharged on two counts of conspiracy and human trafficking.

Fati was, however, convicted on five counts of human trafficking.

In the second case, Fati was charged along with her two sisters, Memuna Abukari and Zinabu Abukari, both traders.

Her sisters were acquitted and discharged on conspiracy and human trafficking charges but the court found Fati guilty and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment.

The court took into consideration the fact that she was a mother of two and that she was a first offender.

It also ordered Fati to return all items she had seized from her victims, as well as pay them their accrued salaries.

Acquitting the other accused persons, the court held that the prosecution failed to lead evidence to prove their guilt.

The facts of the case were that Fati had, in 2007, trafficked her victims from Agbogloshie in Accra and Gushegu in the Northern Region to Nigeria for labour and prostitution.

According to the prosecuion, the complainant in the case was a member of staff of the Regional Advocacy Information and Network System (RAINS), a non-governmental organisation, while the accused persons lived in Ghana and Nigeria.

It said on December 28, 2010, a victim confided in the complainant that about four years ago she and other girls had been recruited by the accused persons from Agbogbloshie and Gushegu and transported to Nigeria under the pretext of securing them jobs.

The victim told the complainant that she and the other girls were made to sell porridge during the day and forced to engage in prostitution during the night.

According to her, the accused persons took all the proceeds from the sale of the porridge and the prostitution, without paying her and her colleagues anything at all.

In the process, one of the girls was forced into marriage, while one of them went through a series of abortions as a result of having unprotected sex with her male customers.

During investigations, it emerged that Fati had been in the trafficking trade for the past 10 years. She denied committing any offence but admitted transporting a number of girls to Nigeria for work.

Judge orders prosecution to start money laundering case

2012-01-31T23:34:00.000Z

January 27, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE judge presiding over the case involving a lawyer and two others allegedly involved in money laundering activities has given the prosecution in the case a one-week ultimatum to start prosecuting the case.
According to Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, the court would advise itself should the prosecution fail to abide by the court’s directive.
Charles Owusu Juanah, a lawyer, Dr. Victor Amoah, an Agronomist and Nana Kwaku Agyei, a miner were first arraigned before the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court on January 19, 2012, charged with two counts of conspiracy and aiding and abetting money laundering activities.
They pleaded not guilty to the offences. Charles and Victor were each granted bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties each, one each to be justified.
Although, Victor managed to meet the bail terms, Charles could not and that prompted his lawyers to plead with the court at its sitting in Accra today to vary the bail terms.
According to one of the defence lawyers for Charles, Mr George Heward-Mills, the accused person had been in custody for two weeks already with his passport confiscated thereby making it impossible for him to leave the jurisdiction.
He said the bail condition was a great burden on his client and accordingly prayed the court to review the bail conditions for Charles.
Following counsel’s plea, the court reviewed the bail terms and granted Charles bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties, one to be justified.
The court directed the accused person to deposit a land title deed worth $2.5 million instead of $4 million with the registrar of the court as justification.
He and the other accused persons were also directed to report daily to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
Nana Kwaku Agyei, who was remanded on the last adjourned date was today granted bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties.
His lawyer, Mr Joseph Turkson, produced a medical report to prove that his client was not well.
An Assistant State Attorney, Mr. Edward Cudjoe, renewed his bail application and prayed the court to grant his client bail on terms he could meet.
The court granted Agyei bail and indicated that the court will review the condition based on his health condition
The accused persons are being accused of allegedly obtaining, through money laundering activities, an amount of $3.5 million.
Juanah, who is alleged to be the principal architect, is said to have collected the $3.5 million from the GT Bank headquarters at about 9:45 p.m. on November 17, 2011 after luring a Dubai-based businessman, Mohammed Shafiq, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Jampur Group, and his agents into the country to establish business dealings in gold.
The prosecution said when Mr Shafiq and his agents arrived in Ghana, they were told that the gold had been lodged in a vault at the SG-SSB Bank and were made to pay $3.5 million before it would be released.
It said the money was lodged in an account at the Abeka branch of the GT Bank and the alleged gold subsequently handed over to the buyers.
The prosecution further stated that when Mr Shafiq and his agents decided to verify the authenticity of 135 kilogrammes of gold after it had been delivered, only 5 kilogrammes was found to be authentic.
It said when Mr Shafiq and his agents complained and threatened to lodge a complaint with the police, Juanah allegedly warned them not to dare, as they would be incarcerated for transacting an illegitimate business as illegal immigrants.
It said Mr Shafiq and his agents quickly left the country for Dubai and were advised to lodge a complaint with the National Security, which referred the matter to EOCO.
According to the prosecution, investigations had so far revealed that Juanah drafted the contract agreement for the transactions, acted as solicitor to both the buyer and the seller, while Amoah, a friend of Juanah and Amoah, acted as consultant to Mr Shafiq and his agent.

DSP Mawuenyegah applies for bail

2012-01-31T23:26:00.000Z

January 26, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)

The interdicted Deputy Head of the Commercial Crimes Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, DSP Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga, has applied for bail at the Human Rights Court.

Mrs Tehoda, who was remanded by the Accra Circuit Court on one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine on January 17, 2012 was not present at the Human Rights Court.

The presiding judge, Mr Justice U. P. Dery, drew counsel’s attention to some technical errors on the docket and accordingly advised counsel to rectify them.

Following that development, the court, could not hear her case due to the technical errors which needed to be rectified by counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr Oliver Dzeble.

Details of the bail application were not made available. A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the bail application.

Mrs Tehoda on January 17, 2012 pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.

The court declined bail application by counsel for the accused.

The accused person was handed over to the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) by the police on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Ama Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been re-arrested in July 2011.

Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.

Following that, the Vice-President, Mr John Mahama, tasked the BNI to investigate the incident.

The investigation led to the arrest of the accused, who was handed over for her role in the swapping of the cocaine.

Although, her unit was not investigating Nana Martins for any offence, DSP Mrs Tehoda allegedly went for the suspect on different occasions from CID cells and took her to her office and also arranged a lawyer for her.

The trial circuit court had, in September last year, received the alleged cocaine, weighing 1,020 grammes, as exhibit after it had been tested by the Police Forensic Laboratory.

A day after that, counsel for Nana Martins prayed that the substance be retested because it was not cocaine, as alleged by the police report. The re-testing was done and it turned out to be sodium carbonate.

It was during BNI investigations that it came to light that DSP Mrs Tehoda played a role in the swapping of the cocaine and also assisted Nana Martins to sell her house, all to facilitate the swapping.

The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify the collaborators of DSP Mrs Tehoda, who was admitted to bail by the Human Rights High Court for the abuse of her constitutional rights.

High court dismisses action

2012-01-31T23:19:00.000Z

January 23, 2012 (Page 3)

THE Accra High Court yesterday dismissed a motion for interlocutory injunction seeking an order to restrain the People’s National Convention (PNC) from organising the party’s delegate congress.
According to the court, the applicants failed to provide independent evidence to substantiate allegations of fraud leveled against the defendants.
It accordingly dismissed the application for interlocutory injunction and awarded cost of GHC 2,000 against Ibrahim Karim, Haruna Abass, Abubakari Sadick Wiyor, Benard Bama-Ame and Michale Anafo who had brought an action against, three executives of the PNC, Dr Edward Mahama, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan and Benard Mornah.
The court’s ruling will now pave the way for the fixing of a new date for the national delegates which was originally scheduled to take place in Sunyani from December 9-11, 2011.
Following a motion for stay of proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal filed by counsel for the defendants, Dr. Somtim Tobiga, the court adjourned the hearing of the substantive case sine die.
In the said appeal, the applicants/appellants are challenging the court’s decision which dismissed their preliminary objection of conflict of interest raised against counsel for the party, Mr James Agalga and four of its leaders, who have been sued by the defendants/appellants.
The defendants/appellants said it was wrong for Mr Agalga to represent the respondents because the party was the victim in the matter and it was unethical for counsel to represent both the victim and the perpetrators of the act against the victim.

However, Mr Agalga responded that the objection was misplaced because the court was not the right forum to ventilate it and also the PNC was an inanimate object which could sue and be sued and behind which was the leadership who acted for it.

In the substantive suit, the are also seeking an order to restrain the PNC, Dr Mahama, Alhaji Ramadan and Mr Mornah from introducing themselves as the Leader, Chairman and General Secretary, respectively, of the party or to grant interviews to the media or participate in any media or public programme in their purported capacities as such.

They are further seeking an order to restrain the respondents from withdrawing or spending any funds from the account of the PNC or soliciting any funds from any person or organisation for the benefit or on behalf of the party.

Two remanded for supplying narcotic drugs

2012-01-31T23:14:00.000Z

January 24, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)

Two persons were on Monday remanded by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly possessing and supplying narcotic drugs.

Hamza Mohammed was charged with one count of possessing 46 wrappers of cocaine and 14 wrappers of heroin, while Kwaku Bagnabu was charged with one count of supplying narcotic drugs.

They both pleaded not guilty to the offence and were remanded to reappear on February 6, 2012.

The case took a twist when Hamza informed the court that he had been forced to mention Bagnabu as his supplier as a result of the torture he had suffered at the hands of the police.

Following Hamza's revelation, counsel for Bagnabu, Mr George Asamani, prayed the court to grant his client bail but it declined and fixed February 6, 2012 as the next adjourned date.

According to Mr Asamani, his client was innocent and was simply being held for keeping papers in his room, adding that “teachers and printing press owners should also be arrested”.

His statement drew a huge laughter from the audience in the courtroom.

The facts of the case, as narrated by Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr Cletus Abadamlora, were that on December 20, 2011, a police highway patrol team from the Police Headquarters stopped a vehicle at La Aplaku on the Aflao road and found wrappers in the vehicle.

According to the prosecution, the patrol team observed that 46 wrappers contained cocaine, while 14 wrappers contained heroin. Test results from the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) proved the police were right.

Hamza mentioned Bagnabu as the supplier of the narcotic drugs during interrogation, thereby resulting in Bagnabu's arrest.

However, during the court's sitting in Accra Monday, Hamza informed the court that Bagnabu had no hand in the crime he (Hamza) was alleged to have committed.

Lawyer Granted Bail For Alleged Money Laundering

2012-01-23T12:04:00.001Z

Friday, January 20, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)

The lawyer accused of aiding money laundering activities, Charles Owusu Juanah, was yesterday granted bail in the sum of $4 million with two sureties, one of which is to be justified.

The Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court also granted bail in the sum of $4 million with two sureties, one of which to be justified, to his alleged accomplice, Victor Amoah.

They were also ordered to report themselves at the offices of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) at 10 a.m. daily.

A third accused person, Nana Kwaku Agyei, was, however, remanded to reappear on January 26, 2012.

Juanah and Amoah, who pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and aiding and abetting money laundering activities, were granted bail after the prosecution had substituted an earlier charge sheet with a new one.

They were initially charged with conspiracy and money laundering. They are being accused of obtaining, through money laundering activities, $3.5 million from a Dubai-based businessman, Mohammed Shafiq, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Jampur Group, and his agents.

At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a large crowd which had thronged the court premises to give support to the accused persons applauded thunderously immediately the trial judge, Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, announced that the two had been granted bail.

The judge, however, brought the crowd to order and warned them not to repeat that act or risk being cited for contempt of court.

Bail was granted to the two after their team of lawyers had prayed the court to grant them bail on the grounds that charges preferred against them were bailable offences.

Lead counsel for Juanah and Amoah, Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, argued that the charges preferred against his clients were flawed and asked, “How can one aid and abet money laundering offences?”

He prayed the court to grant his clients bail for proper investigations to be carried out to determine whether or not his clients were the proper ones to be charged.

Mr Owusu-Fordjour informed the court that his clients were responsible persons who had offices and permanent places of abode and for that reason they would not flout the court’s orders when granted bail.

He also informed the court that his clients had substantial sureties who were willing to stand in for the accused persons, adding that the Constitution deemed the accused persons innocent until proved guilty.

One of the lawyers for Juanah and Amoah, Mr George Heward-Mills, argued that it would be unjust for the court to hold their clients under the circumstance, adding, “If you persist in prayer, the Lord will answer you.”

Counsel for Agyei, Mr Joseph Turkson, prayed the court to grant his client bail under reasonable terms and conditions.

A State Attorney, Mr Edward Cudjoe, on the other hand, disagreed with the defence team and prayed the court to remand the accused persons, since investigations were ongoing.

Juanah, who is alleged to be the principal architect, is said to have collected the $3.5 million from the GT Bank headquarters about 9:45 p.m. on November 17, 2011 after luring Mr Shafiq and his agents into the country to establish business dealings in gold.

The prosecution said when Mr Shafiq and his agents arrived in Ghana, they were told that the gold had been lodged in a vault at the SG-SSB Bank and were made to pay $3.5 million before it would be released.

It said the money was lodged in an account at the Abeka branch of the GT Bank and the alleged gold subsequently handed over to the buyers.

The prosecution further stated that when Mr Shafiq and his agents decided to verify the authenticity of the 135 kilogrammes of gold after it had been delivered, only five kilogrammes was found to be authentic.

It said when Mr Shafiq and his agents complained and threatened to lodge a complaint with the police, Juanah allegedly warned them not to dare, as they would be incarcerated for transacting an illegitimate business as illegal immigrants.

It said Mr Shafiq and his agents quickly left the country for Dubai and were advised to lodge a complaint with the National Security, which referred the matter to EOCO.

According to the prosecution, investigations had so far revealed that Juanah drafted the contract agreement for the transactions and acted as solicitor for both the buyer and the seller, while Amoah, a friend of Juanah and Agyei, acted as consultant to Mr Shafiq and his agents.

Osafo-Maafo Drags EOCO To Court

2012-01-23T11:58:00.000Z

Thursday, January 19,2011 (Page 3 Lead)

A former Minister of State, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, has dragged the Economic and Organised Crimes Office (EOCO) to the Fast Track High Court, challenging EOCO’s decision to invite him to testify in investigations into the payment of GH¢58 million to a businessman, Mr Alfred Woyome.

According to Mr Osafo-Maafo, who was once a Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, public utterances by the President, the Deputy Attorney-General and the EOCO clearly indicated bias and the likelihood that the investigations would be prejudiced against him.

He is, accordingly, praying the court to declare that the purported investigations being undertaken by EOCO into what he termed suspected serious offences, including fraud in the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008, and an invitation to him to assist in investigations were unlawful to the extent that they were issues raised in a report of the Auditor-General duly laid before Parliament.

The plaintiff is further praying the court to declare that the circumstances involving the payment of the colossal sum of GH¢58,095,974.13 to Mr Woyome and the acts and utterances of the President, the Deputy Attorney-General and the EOCO disabled EOCO from acting in a fair and reasonable manner.

Mr Osafo-Maafo, who is also a former Minister of Education, is pleading with the court to declare that the purported investigations being undertaken by EOCO were actuated by bias and prejudice and, therefore, unlawful under the 1992 Constitution.

He is also seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the investigations into the so-called suspected serious offences, including fraud in the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008, as well as other reliefs the court might deem fit.

At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the trial judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibilities as a High Court judge, appealed to parties in the case not to take any steps that would prejudice the outcome of the case.

The matter could not be heard by the court yesterday because counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, had sent a letter and a medical report indicating that he was indisposed.

Counsel for Mr Osafo-Maafo, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, then prayed the court to stop EOCO from continuing with investigations until the final determination of the matter.

The presiding judge advised Mr Dame to file an application for contempt against EOCO but Mr Dame said it would not serve any purpose, since the investigations might be completed before court processes were filed.

Mr Osafo-Maafo was accompanied to the court by a former Deputy Minister of Sports, Mr O. B. Amoah; Mr Kwaku Agyemang-Manu, a former Deputy Minister of Finance, and other sympathisers.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed an application for interlocutory injunction for an order to restrain EOCO and its agents from continuing with investigations into the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008 pending the final determination of the suit.

According to the applicant, who said he received a letter dated January 5, 2012 inviting him to assist in EOCO’s investigations, his suit had a great chance of success and so unless EOCO was restrained by the court, he would suffer irreparable loss.

An affidavit in support of his suit stated that EOCO’s continuous conduct of investigations into the matter was likely to prejudice a fair hearing and determination of the suit and in the process occasion a miscarriage of justice.

An affidavit in support of the substantive suit and deposed to by counsel for Mr Osafo-Maafo stated, among others, that the President’s directive to EOCO was a ruse in furtherance of the President’s agenda to divert attention and calculated at vindicating his prior public pronouncements of wrongdoing and impropriety by key members of the erstwhile New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration.

It said the various public statements of the President, as well as other government functionaries, on the payment of money to Mr Woyome undoubtedly demonstrated the bias and the prejudice of the government and the Office of the Attorney-General, the authority with oversight responsibility for EOCO.

According to the affidavit in support, “Given the ample exhibition of bias and prejudice against key personalities in the erstwhile Kufuor administration, including the plaintiff, the defendant cannot be trusted to carry out any fair or impartial investigations into the relevant issues in controversy.”

It further pointed out that the President’s directive mandating EOCO to carry out the investigations in question was in utter bad faith and in gross contravention of the injunction imposed on all persons in positions of authority by the combined effect of articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with due process and in a manner devoid of prejudice, arbitrariness and capriciousness.

“Indeed, the conduct of the President and the Attorney-General so far flouts the fundamental principle of natural justice underpinning our legal system for a person not to be a judge in his own cause and for that matter ought to be curtailed by this honourable court,” the affidavit in support stated.

It added that the Constitution mandated only Parliament to investigate matters arising out of reports of the Auditor-General.

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

2011-12-27T12:44:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial Contact
Olabisi Soleye
itg Communications for Microsoft Nigeria

'Fee-paying policy legal'

2011-07-28T23:54:00.000+01:00

July 29, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

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

2011-07-28T23:52:00.000+01:00

July 27, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

Court denies EOCO's appeal for stay

2011-07-28T23:49:00.000+01:00

July 20, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

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

Bawku MP appeals against High Court decision

2011-07-28T23:47:00.000+01:00

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.

PNC Court case - Dr Mahama, others acquitted

2011-07-18T16:28:00.002+01:00

Friday, July 15, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

Madina rioters case adjourned

2011-07-18T16:22:00.002+01:00

July 12, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

Judge unhappy with absence of AMA boss

2011-07-18T16:18:00.000+01:00

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.

EOCO Files For Stay Of Execution

2011-07-06T18:04:00.000+01:00

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.

Tsikata Pursues Appeal Against Conviction

2011-07-05T18:22:00.000+01:00

July 5, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-07-05T18:18:00.000+01:00

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.

Court stops govt, CSC from probing director

2011-06-30T20:21:00.000+01:00

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.

AMA Boss Files Appeal Against Contempt Case

2011-06-29T20:11:00.001+01:00

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.

Bawku Central MP's case - Hearing adjourned

2011-06-28T15:01:00.000+01:00

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.

Student remanded for possessing heroin

2011-06-26T21:39:00.000+01:00

June 24, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

Terminator of telephone calls jailed

2011-06-26T21:37:00.000+01:00

June 23, 2011 (Front page)

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

New jury for Mobilla's case

2011-06-26T21:35:00.000+01:00

June 23, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

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

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

2011-06-26T21:32:00.000+01:00

June 22, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

Law lecturers drag AMJG to court

2011-06-26T20:54:00.000+01:00

June 14, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

Jesus Onetouch appeals

2011-06-26T20:48:00.000+01:00

June 11, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

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

Judge withdraws from Vodafone case

2011-06-26T20:43:00.000+01:00

June 10 (Front page)

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

Court indicts Accra Mayor

2011-06-26T20:39:00.000+01:00

June 9, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court grants prosecution leave to recal witness

2011-06-26T20:32:00.000+01:00

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.

Contempt case against AMA boss - Bailiff summoned before court

2011-06-08T16:23:00.000+01:00

June 8, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

The political scene - Court to decide on PNC case

2011-06-08T16:17:00.000+01:00

June 8, 2011 (Front Page)

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

Mzbel and friends remanded • For assaulting police officer

2011-06-08T16:15:00.002+01:00

June 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

Trader abuses mentally retarded person

2011-06-08T16:13:00.001+01:00

June 4, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

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

FARMER SWINDLES ACCOUNTANT • He fraudulently sells school

2011-06-08T16:11:00.002+01:00

June 4, 2011 (Lead Story)

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

Ga Mantse wins defamation case

2011-06-08T16:10:00.001+01:00

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.

AMA cited for contempt

2011-06-08T16:09:00.000+01:00

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.

Issa Mobilla's case - AG's Dept. directed to appoint new prosecutor

2011-06-08T16:03:00.000+01:00

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.

Supreme Court dismisses CENCORD's motion

2011-06-08T16:02:00.000+01:00

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.

CENCORD drags EC to court for contempt

2011-06-08T15:57:00.002+01:00

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.

Bawku MP's case - Counsel opposes move to cast doubt on client

2011-06-01T14:38:00.000+01:00

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.

EOCO wants court order to dispose Sima's assets

2011-06-01T14:21:00.000+01:00

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.

Armed robber jailed 25 years

2011-06-01T13:49:00.000+01:00

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.

tiGO House promotion - STOP IT! • Fast Track High Court orders

2011-06-01T13:26:00.000+01:00

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.

President dragged to court

2011-06-01T13:24:00.000+01:00

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.

PNC Contempt case - Court dismisses application

2011-05-27T17:12:00.002+01:00

May 13, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday dismissed an application filed by the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others which challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against seven leading members of the PNC.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
Challenging the contempt suit brought against them, Dr Mahama and the six other executive members, namely, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban, had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents had prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because it was difficult to identify who the applicant in the suit was.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held that the affidavit, as well as a supplementary affidavit in support of the suit, clearly indicated that Dr Tobiga and the two others were the applicants in the case.
The court held that Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the deponents in the affidavit in support of the contempt application.
It further ruled that Dr Tobiga had clearly indicated in the supplementary affidavit that he had the consent of Jatoh and Gana to depose to the supplementary affidavit on their behalf.
It, therefore, disagreed with the defence team’s argument that Dr Tobiga and the two other deponents were strangers in the case.
After the ruling, counsel for Mr Monah, Mr James Agalga, informed the court that Jatoh and Gana had indicated to him that they wished to withdraw as applicants in the contempt suit.
The trial judge then directed Jatoh and Gana to file an application spelling out their withdrawal from the suit.
Mr Agalga then prayed the court to give the respondents ample time to file their response.
According to counsel, the respondents could not file their affidavit in opposition to the suit because of the preliminary objection they had raised.
Dr Mahama, Alhaji Ramadan, Mr Monah and the other respondents were present in court. Dr Tobiga and the two applicants were also present in court.
Hearing continues on June 6, 2011.

Kosmos to pay fine

2011-05-27T17:11:00.000+01:00

May 11,, 2011 (Front Page)

KOSMOS Energy has agreed to pay a fine of $15 million to the Ghana Government for disclosing data on the Jubilee oil field without the government’s consent.
That followed the peaceful resolution of a dispute between the Government of Ghana and Kosmos.
The fine also includes the company’s spillage of low toxicity crude on the high seas.
According to sources close to the company, Kosmos was expected to raise $500 million through the floating of shares on the US stock market, part of the amount of which would be used to pay the fine, as well as expand the company’s operations in Ghana.
They disclosed that the company had resolved its differences with the government and looked forward to a “long and fruitful relationship with it which will, in the long run, reap benefits for both parties”.
The Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Agyei, confirmed the resolution of the differences but declined to give details, pointing out that “the government will always protect the interest of Ghanaians”.
According to him, Kosmos had publicly disclosed its intention to float its shares, as well as pay the fine, adding, “For that reason, let us leave it at that.”
Kosmos Energy and its partners discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 and they are currently lifting oil from the oil field.
The government has so far been paid US$112,189,575.52, being Ghana’s share of the first lifting of oil from the Jubilee Field.
The money has so far been paid to the Bank of Ghana (BoG) following the first lifting of oil on April 13, 2011.
The amount represented the five per cent royalty portion of the total first lifting of crude oil by all partners for the period.
Kosmos’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) Prospectus filed with the SEC on Thursday, April 14, 2011 stated that it would use proceeds of the IPO to fund capital expenditure.
It further disclosed in the document that it would make a $15 million payment to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) upon the successful completion of the IPO, pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into with the GNPC to resolve past disputes and for general corporate purposes.
The company estimated that its net proceeds from the sale of 30,000,000 common shares in that offering would be approximately $477.7 million, after deducting estimated offering expenses.
Each share is going for $17.
“We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering, available cash and borrowings under our commercial debt facility to fund our capital expenditures and in particular our exploration and appraisal drilling programme and development activities through early 2013, our related operating expenses, to make a $15 million payment to the GNPC upon the successful completion of this offering, pursuant to the settlement agreement we entered into with the GNPC to resolve our past disputes and for general corporate purposes,” it pointed out in its prospectus to the SEC.
“We estimate that we will incur approximately $500 million of capital expenditures for the year ending December 31, 2011. This capital expenditure budget consists of: $175 million for development in Ghana; $225 million for exploration and appraisal in Ghana; $30 million for exploration and appraisal in Cameroon; $30 million for new ventures to expand our licence portfolio (including geological and geophysical expenses), and $40 million in unallocated funds which are available for additional drilling and licensing costs and activities,” it added.
Kosmos further stated that the ultimate amount of capital it would expend might fluctuate materially based on market conditions and the success of its drilling results.
“Our future financial condition and liquidity will be impacted by, among other factors, our level of production of oil and natural gas and the prices we receive from the sale thereof, the success of our exploration and appraisal drilling programme, the number of commercially viable oil and natural gas discoveries made, the quantities of oil and natural gas discovered, the speed with which we can bring such discoveries to production and the actual cost of exploration, appraisal and development of our oil and natural gas assets,” the document added.

Legon students granted bail

2011-05-27T17:09:00.002+01:00

0May 7, 2011 (Front Page)

NINE students of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the University of Ghana, Legon, who are alleged to have molested a suspected laptop thief, Amina Haruna, were yesterday granted bail by the Accra Circuit Court.
The nine — Francis Asiedu Arthur, Mark-Dickson Tornu, Morris Awuregya, Nana Osei Asiamah, Gideon Agyei Ayiridaga, Gabriel Amobila Aboyadana, Godfred Afeatse, Evans Addae Boateng and Obed Banini — were granted bail in the sum of GH¢9,000 each with no sureties.
They each pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, assault by imprisonment, indecent assault and causing unlawful harm and are to reappear in court on May 30, 2011.
The students missed writing their mid-semester examination because they were in court at the time their mates were writing the examination.
Four of their accomplices — Edward Totor, Alexander Aryee, Benedict Boama Brohim and Jason Boama Amponsah — are currently on the run.
Scores of students from the university thronged the court premises to solidarise with the accused persons.
The sympathisers, mostly clad in dark T-shirts and jeans, chanted songs demanding the release of their colleagues.
The student leadership was also present in court and appealed to the sympathisers to remain calm.
Some students and family members of the accused could not hold back their tears, claiming that the accused were innocent or simply victims of circumstance.
Earlier, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr Kofi Blagodzi, presented the facts of the case and did not object to the granting of bail to the accused persons, who looked calm in the dock.
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, stated that the offences allegedly committed by the students were bailable and, accordingly, moved to grant them bail.
According to the facts of the case, the accused, who are all residents of the Annex B (Okponglo) of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the university, were identified by the university authorities on a video tape.
They were first handed over to the Legon Police, who in turn conveyed them to the CID Headquarters for an identification parade.
Soon after the alleged molestation, the university authorities set up a fact-finding committee to investigate the incident.
The prosecution said the committee identified a number of students who were present during the molestation, as seen on the video clips produced, as well as credible eyewitness accounts.

Vaglas Kanco jailed

2011-05-27T17:08:00.001+01:00

May 6, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

THE General Overseer of the Vineyard Chapel International, Bishop Vaglas Kanco, was yesterday sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court for defrauding a British national to the tune of £120,000.
He was also ordered to refund the £120,000 he took from the complainant, Clova Sutherland.
Bishop Kanco had lured the complainant into believing that she would die if she did not allow him to pray over a £120,000 cheque she had issued in the name of her former partner.
“While in incarceration, read Psalm 51,” the trial judge, Mr D.E.K. Daketsey, advised Kanco while he was being handcuffed by a policeman at exactly 12.42 p.m. immediately after judgement had been passed.
Bishop Kanco managed to convince the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name in order for him to pray over it to exorcise the evil intent of the complainant’s partner and return it to her on a later date, but he reneged on his promise and cashed the cheque after he had met the complainant at a crusade organised by the Alive Chapel International Church on March 25, 2003.
The convict was then a guest speaker at the crusade, and during his meeting with the complainant she told him the problems she was going through.
She also informed him that she was to pay £120,000 to her partner, whom Bishop Kanco described as an evil person.
The convict also made Clova to believe that she would die if she issued the cheque directly to her partner.
According to the court, it was abundantly clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the convict took advantage of the emotional and psychological turmoil in which the complainant found herself as a result of the break-up of her 14-year-old relationship.
It held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredient of the charge of defrauding by false pretence levelled against Kanco and further described Kanco’s defence that the money was a gift as “lame, limping and an unpardonable excuse”.
It further held that the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove that the complainant’s partner rejected the £120,000 cheque on the grounds that the amount was short of £32,000 and for that reason it was impossible for the complainant to have issued the £120,000 cheque as a gift, especially at a time she was having financial, emotional and health problems.
It said it was on record that lawyers for the complainant’s partner had written letters demanding that she pay the £152,000 she owed her former partner.
“I am inclined to believe the story of the complainant that the accused person tricked her to re-issue the cheque in his name,” the judge intimated.
According to him, it was also clear from the record that the complainant had made several attempts to reclaim her money, while it was also on record that Kanco dispensed of the services of his lawyer, Mr Yonny Kulendi, when he (the lawyer) advised him (Kanco) to refund the £120,000.
“The court wants to send a strong signal to all those who, under the guise of religious Mumbo Jumbo, deceive unsuspecting persons. Society is now wide awake and the law has extended its hands in all human endeavours,” the judge held.
Kanco, who wore a batik shirt, looked fixedly at the trial judge as he read his judgement and at a point he could not sit when he was advised to do so after the judge had finished reading his judgement.
According to the trial judge, it was not in dispute that Kanco took possession of the cheque and cashed it. He also debunked claims by the convict that he did not know the content of the envelope which contained the cheque until he returned from London after a crusade.
The court asked why Kanco had not collected the first cheque which bore the name of the complainant’s alleged devilish partner to pray over it but rather chose to lure the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name.
Earlier, counsel for the convict, Mr Kissi Agyabeng, had prayed the court to defer sentence and indicated that the complainant was interested in her money and not incarceration.
He, therefore, prayed the court to grant Kanco bail, adding that it was not strange for men of God to be given expensive gifts, including houses and cars.
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said it was improper for defence counsel to pray the court to arrest its judgement, adding that followers of the convict could contribute and indemnify the surety should the convict escape.
Mr Wiredu, therefore, prayed the court to give its judgement.

Mahama, others challenge contempt case

2011-05-27T17:07:00.001+01:00

May 4, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others have challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against them by three members of the party.
According to Dr Mahama and six other executive members of the PNC, the application for contempt brought against them was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the Fast Track High Court.
The other respondents are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
In the said case, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents, Dr Raymond Atuguba, prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because from the records before it, it was difficult to identify who the applicant for the contempt suit was.
According to counsel, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the accused persons in the criminal case before the district magistrate court but in this particular contempt suit only Dr Tobiga was cited as an applicant, arguing that for that reason it was improper for Dr Tobiga and the two others to jointly sign the affidavit in support of the application.
Counsel further argued that assuming without admitting that Dr Tobiga was the applicant in the contempt suit, there was no affidavit in support of his application.
Dr Atuguba, therefore, stressed that the affidavit in support of the contempt application against his clients which was signed by Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana, whom he described as ‘strangers’, was irregular and must, accordingly, be struck out.
He prayed the court not to award costs against Dr Tobiga and the others because steps were underway to resolve the differences between the parties in the case.
Counsel for Dr Tobiga, however, argued that his client acted on behalf of Jatoh and Gana, adding that the averments in the affidavit in support of the contempt suit attested to that.
On the issue of irregularity, counsel argued that it had been cured by Dr Tobiga signing on behalf of the others.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, will rule on the matter on May 12, 2011.

Two missionaries acquitted of defilement charges

2011-05-27T17:06:00.000+01:00

April 30, 2011 (Mirror - Page 27)

TWO missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who were convicted for defiling a 14-year-old girl have been acquitted and discharged by the High Court in Accra.
Omale Ojonugwu Uwa, alias Elder Omale, 25, and Thatayaone Keeng, alias Elder Keeng, 20, were each found guilty on four counts of defilement and were sentenced to 10 years and seven years, respectively.
Omale, a Nigerian, was sentenced to seven years on the charge of conspiracy and 10 years on the charge of defilement, while Keeng, a Motswana, was sentenced to seven years on the charges of conspiracy and defilement.
The two were alleged to have committed the offence at Odorkor, a suburb of Accra, between February and April 2010 and were found guilty and convicted on August 6, 2010.
Dissatisfied with the circuit court’s decision, a legal practitioner, Mr Addo Atuah, filed an appeal on behalf of the two at the High Court in September 2010.
Counsel had argued that the trial court erred in not considering the weight of evidence which inured to the benefit of his clients.
He also argued that it was wrong for the prosecution to have put Omale and Keeng on one charge sheet.
The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, upheld the appeal, quashed the convictions and accordingly acquitted and discharged the missionaries.
The court deferred its reasons to a later date.
The facts of the case were that the missionaries lived in the same house with the complainant and the victim, who was a house help of the complainant.
According to the prosecution, Omale had called the victim to their room in February 2010 and asked if she had kissed or had sex before, to which she said no.
Omale and Keeng were accused of having sex with her in turns and warned her not to tell anyone.
The prosecution claimed the missionaries had bouts of sex with the victim in the months of March and April 2010.
According to it, the complainant later confronted the victim on how she came across a bottle of perfume, to which she explained that Omale had given it to her to remedy her bad body odour.
The circuit court, accordingly, convicted the two after a full trial, but the High Court held otherwise after counsel for the missionaries had pointed out loopholes in the prosecution’s case.

Court cautions AMA, Advertisers

2011-05-27T17:05:00.000+01:00

April 21, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday cautioned the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) not to prejudice a suit over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 which the AAG had brought against the AMA.
According to the AAG, the AMA had, in some cases, increased the special rates on billboards by more than 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
The AAG said the rates, which were published in a gazette notification of April 23, 2010, were 'adversely affecting the business' of advertisers, were unlawful and must therefore be set aside.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, also directed the AMA to serve the AAG with a supplementary affidavit it filed to support its claim that the AAG failed to comply with Section 127 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), which required the AAG to serve the AMA with a notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit.
However, the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and further argued that it had not been served with the defendant’s supplementary affidavit, which prompted the court to direct the AMA to serve the AAG.
The court, on March 28, 2011, restrained the AMA from going ahead with its planned demolition of billboards belonging to the AAG until the final determination of the suit.
A writ filed on behalf of the AAG by Ankomah Mensah and Associates, legal practitioners, on behalf the AAG was praying the court to also give an order of injunction restraining the AMA from removing, touching or altering the AAG's billboards or advertising signs until the final determination of the case.
It further requested the court to order that excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion.
The writ said there was within the industry a convention established as far back as the 1980s by which advertising rates were determined.
That, it said, involved discussions between the association and the AMA before advertising rates were set.
“The plaintiff will show that the defendant (the AMA) has radically deviated from this norm of consulting with all stakeholders in the industry and has fixed very exorbitant rates for billboards for the year 2010 and 2011,” it said.
According to the statement, the rates were threatening to destroy the livelihoods of plaintiff’s members and the advertising industry as a whole.
It said the AAG had written several petitions against the rates so fixed by the AMA and also petitioned the office of the Greater Accra Regional Co-ordinating Council (RCC), as well as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Local Government and Rural Development.
According to the statement, on February 8, 2010, the Parliamentary Committee wrote a letter to the AMA and indicated its decision to mediate between the assembly and the association.
It said in recognition of the need for revenue generation by the assembly, the AAG agreed to pay fees using the previous year's rates pending the resolution of the rate of increment.
“The plaintiff has, through its members who own outdoor signs or billboards, complied with and paid the old rates to the defendant pending the arbitration,” it said.
However, it said, before the Parliamentary Committee’s process to resolve the impasse between the AAG and the AMA, the AMA issued warnings directing AAG members to remove their lawfully acquired billboards or risk getting them pulled down.
The statement said by Section 80 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), any change or increment in any rate or special rate eligible under the law relating to moveable or immovable property in the metropolis required the consent of the Minister of Local Government.
It further argued that the plaintiff would lead evidence to show that the increment in the rates, which was allegedly published in the gazette of April 23, 2010, was without the consent of the Minister of Local Government, as mandated by Section 80 of the act and was therefore void among others.

Asamoah-Boateng's case adjourned to April 20

2011-05-27T17:03:00.001+01:00

April 16, 2011 (Page 19)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday adjourned proceedings in the procurement case against a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, aka Asabee, and eight others to enable the prosecution to produce documents bordering on the case.
Asabee, his wife, Zuleika, Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister at the Ministry; Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, a former Director of Finance and Administration at the Ministry of Information; Dominic Yaw Sampong, a former Chief Director at the Ministry of Information; Kwabena Denkyira, a former Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Yasmin Domua and Prosper Aku of Supreme Procurement Agency Ltd, as well as the company as an entity, are standing trial for allegedly conspiring to contravene the Procurement Act by not following due processes in awarding a contract amounting to GHҐ86,915.85 to Plexiform Ventures for renovation work at the Ministry of Information.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, adjourned the case to April 20, 2011 after he had upheld an objection from counsel for Kofi Asamoah-Boateng and Sampong, Mr Augustine Obour, on the tendering of a single document which formed part of a set of five.
According to Mr Obour, a letter dated November 19, 2008 and signed by Mr Agyekum requesting for the release of funds for the payment of the renovation works formed part of a set of five documents.
He, therefore, argued that it was not proper for the prosecution to seek to tender only one out of the five documents in evidence through its witness, Mr Godfred Agyapong, the Head of Audit at the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Gyambiby, disagreed with Mr Obour on the grounds that the documents attached to the November 19, 2008 letter were irrelevant to the case and for that reason it was not necessary for them to have been brought to court.
Following defence counsel's objection, the court adjourned the case to April 20, 2011 to enable the prosecution to produce those documents.
Asabee and his wife have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and contravention of provisions of the Public Procurement Act.
Sampong is facing six counts of conspiracy, contravention of the Procurement Act, attempt to defraud, altering document and deceit of public officer, while Agyekum has been charged with five counts of conspiracy, contravention of provision, attempt to defraud and deceit of public officer.
Domua, a cousin of Zuleika’s, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit crime.
Kofi Asamoah-Boateng faces six counts of forgery of official document, possession of forged document, forgery and possession of false document, while Denkyira also faces one charge of conspiracy.
Aku has also been charged with four counts of possessing and forgery of document of architects, engineering certificate and false tender document.
All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been granted GHҐ10,000 bail with two sureties each.

Dr Mahama, others dragged to court for contempt

2011-05-27T17:00:00.000+01:00

April 14, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THREE members of the People's National Convention (PNC) have dragged the 2008 flag bearer of the party and six others to court for contempt of court.
The three applicants — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — are praying the court to cite Dr Edward Mahama, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah and Attik Mohammed for contempt of court.
The applicants are further praying the court to also convict Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaba.
According to the applicants, the respondents flouted a district magistrate court order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC party office until the final determination of a case brought against the applicants.
In the said case, the applicants are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the court directed the applicants and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case.
The applicants’ bail was revoked by the court on February 24, 2011 for flouting its order to enter the party office. However, the High Court later quashed that decision after almost two weeks on remand.
The High Court revoked the lower court's order on the grounds that the lower court exceeded its powers.
An affidavit in support of the application for committal for contempt deposed to by three applicants stated, among others, that the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference.
According to the applicants, the respondents committed the contemptuous action on January 18, 2011 which was subsequently captured on national television.
The affidavit in support further stated that the respondents, who are mostly parties in the criminal case, had knowledge of the January 6, 2011 order and for that reason they had mocked the said order.
"The conduct of the respondents, as described herein, amounts to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard of the authority and prestige of this honourable court and brought the administration of justice into disrepute and should be held and punished accordingly for contempt of court as a lesson to others," the affidavit in support stressed.
The application is expected to be moved on April 20, 2011.

Two persons remanded for stealing four taxis

2011-05-27T16:58:00.000+01:00

April 14, 2011 (Back Page)

Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh
TWO persons who allegedly robbed their victims of their taxis at gunpoint were yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra Fast Track High Court.
The accused, Mustapha Ibin Asmiu, a labourer, and Kwame Owusu, alias Nana Kwame, who were charged with conspiracy and four counts of robbery each, pleaded not guilty.
They are to reappear on May 6, 2011.
The accused persons are also alleged to have used tape cords and knives to overpower their victims.
The facts of the case are that between July and August 2010, the Kotobabi District Police Command received a series of complaints from taxi drivers that their cars had been snatched from them at gunpoint.
Consequently, the command intensified its patrols and mounted several road checks to clamp down on the perpetrators of the alleged crimes.
Around 1.45 a.m. on August 9, 2010, a police patrol team on snap check duties, assisted by four neighbourhood watchdog members from Maamobi, intercepted a Daewoo taxi, with registration number GC 3830-09, which had the two accused persons on board.
A search conducted on the accused led to the discovery of tape cords and a toy pistol. They were subsequently arrested.
During interrogation, Asmiu and Owusu confessed to the offence and stated that they had succeeded in stealing four taxis and money amounting to GH¢157 from their victims.
According to the accused persons, their fifth victim was the driver of the taxi on which they had been intercepted.
The two later led the police to recover a Tata Indigo taxi, with registration number GR 7923-09, and a Geo Prism taxi, with registration number GW 6162 U, from Abeka Lapaz and Kotobabi Abavana Down, both suburbs of Accra.
The remaining two taxis were recovered by the police later.

Driver's mate charged with child stealing

2011-05-27T16:56:00.002+01:00

April 13, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

A driver's mate who allegedly kidnapped a 10-year-old girl and detained her for eight months was yesterday arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court.
Daniel Sosu was charged with one count of child stealing.
He pleaded not guilty to the offence and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢80,000 with one surety.
Sosu, who allegedly changed the victim's name to Vida Sosu, is expected to reappear before the court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, on April 19, 2011.
The facts of the case, as narrated by Chief Inspector A. Ahor, are that the victim, who lived with the complainant at Old Fadama in Accra, left home on July 28, 2010 and did not return.
According to the prosecution, all efforts made, including radio announcements, to locate the victim proved futile.
On March 22, 2011, the complainant, who is the victim’s father, received information that she had been traced to a house at Mataheko in Accra.
The complainant, who had lodged a complaint with the police, managed to locate the said house at Mataheko and, on
getting there, he observed that his daughter was under the care of one Afia Ramzy.
The prosecution said the complainant enquired how she (Afia) had come across the victim, to which Afia responded that Sosu was the victim’s father.
The police eventually effected Sosu’s arrest and, upon interrogation, he claimed he had met the victim at Abossey Okai in August 2010 and took her home.
Sosu also informed the police that he had renamed the victim, whose real name is being withheld, Vida Sosu.

Taxi driver remanded for abducting boy, 3

2011-05-27T16:55:00.000+01:00

April 12, 2011 (Page 3)

THE taxi driver who is alleged to have abducted a three-year-old boy, Kwabena Agyei-Henaku, was yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra District Magistrate Court.
Emmanuel Amanor, who was tasked to pick the toddler to and from school, refused to return the little boy home after picking him up from school around 3 p.m. on March 4, 2011.
The plea of the accused person, who is facing a provisional charge of murder, was not taken.
The prosecutor, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr C. Abadamlora, prayed the court to remand the accused person because investigations were ongoing to unravel the mystery surrounding the disappearance of the toddler.
The facts of the case are that the toddler’s grandmother, who was alarmed by Amanor’s delay in returning the boy, called the boy’s mother to inform her that the driver had failed to bring him home.
The prosecution said after several attempts to reach the taxi driver failed, the school was called and it was confirmed that the boy had been picked up at 3 p.m.
Efforts to get the taxi driver on the phone failed and that resulted in the subsequent reporting of the matter to the Adenta Police.
A witness met Amanor at home and confronted him over the whereabouts of the missing boy, but Amanor got furious, claiming that he had sent the child to the parents and drove away.
On March 5, 2011, Little Henaku’s family was able to get Amanor on phone. Amanor then said he was on his way to the Agyei-Henakus home but failed to turn up and even put off his cellular phone.
According to the prosecution, a group of young men at Adenta who knew about Amanor and the missing boy spotted Amanor driving by and chased him with another car to the Association International School where he was eventually caught in traffic.
When Amanor was questioned about the whereabouts of the boy, he explained that he had been involved in an accident and was on his way to the police station to report the accident.
At the police station, Amanor told the police that he had an accident, during which Little Henaku hit his head against the dashboard and that the boy was on admission at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital.
Amanor later changed the story and said an articulated truck had hit the taxi and Little Amanor had broken his neck and died so he (Amanor), out of fear, dropped him into a valley in Larteh in the Eastern Region.
Consequently, Amanor was arrested and sent where he said he had dropped the child but it was only Little Henaku’s schoolbag that was found on the hill.
The prosecution said the chief of the area then organised a search party to look for the toddler’s body in the valley but the search party returned with his school uniform, socks and lunch box.

New judge to sit on Mobilla's case

2011-05-27T16:53:00.000+01:00

April 12, 2011 (Page 3)

A new judge has been appointed to hear the case involving the three soldiers alleged to have murdered Alhaji Issa Mobilla, barely a month after the substantive judge was prohibited from hearing the case.
The new judge, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logo, replaces Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe, a Court of Appeal judge who sat as an additional High Court judge.
The defence and prosecution teams were present in court in Accra yesterday.
However, the accused persons, namely, Cpl Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka, who are in custody, were not brought to court by the security forces. Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and murder.
A third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
The case has been adjourned to May 13, 2011 for hearing.
The Supreme Court, on March 16, 2011, quashed the decision of Mr Justice Dzamefe to continue sitting on the case after the foreman of the seven-member jury had been replaced due to ill-health.
In a unanimous decision, the court, accordingly, prohibited the judge from further hearing the case on the grounds that he lacked the jurisdiction to hear afresh the suit against the accused persons after he was elevated to the Court of Appeal.
The court, presided over by Professor Dr Justice Date-Bah, with Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey and Mr Justice S. Gbadegbe as panel members, held that the trial judge had the authority to hear only part-heard cases and for that reason his decision to hear the case afresh after the foreman of the jurors had been replaced as a result of ill-health was wrong in law.
It, accordingly, upheld a motion filed on behalf of the soldiers by their counsel, Mr Thaddeus Sory, who prayed the court to prohibit the trial judge because he had no mandate.
The three soldiers are alleged to have murdered Alhaji Mobilla, who was the Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
The facts of the case are that Alhaji Mobilla was arrested by the police on December 9, 2004 for allegedly supplying the youth in Tamale with guns to foment trouble.
While he was in custody, the police claimed that they received information that his followers and sympathisers were mobilising to free him. The deceased was consequently transferred from police cells to the Kamina Military Barracks and handed over to the three accused persons.
According to the prosecution, Alhaji Mobilla died in military custody three hours after he had been handed over to the accused persons who were on duty that day.
The chief pathologist’s report revealed that the deceased was sent to the hospital dead and that he died from multiple wounds.

Ya-Na's murder case - STATE FILES APPEAL •Against High Court ruling

2011-05-27T16:49:00.000+01:00

April 9, 2011 (Lead Story)

THE state has appealed against the acquittal and discharge of the 15 people accused of allegedly conspiring to murder the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya Na Yakubu Andani II, in March 2002.
In a notice of appeal filed on April 7, 2011, the state is praying the Court of Appeal to order the re-trial of the 15 people on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he held that the charge of conspiracy to murder failed because the Ya Na’s death had not been positively proved at the trial.
According to the state, the trial judge erred in law in admitting the alleged proceedings of the Wuaku Commission as evidence with which to contradict the conclusive judgement of the adverse findings made by the commission under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
The Fast Track High Court, on March 29, 2011, discharged the 15 people, namely, the former District Chief Executive for Yendi, Mr Mohammed Habib Tijani; Iddrisu Iddi, alias Mbadugu, 76; Alhaji Baba Iddrisu Abdulai, 54; Kwame Alhassan, 53; Mohammadu Abdulai, 57; Saibu Mohammed, 34; Alhassan Mohammed Briamah, 40; Alhassan Ibrahim, Mohammed Mustapha, Sani Moro, Baba Ibrahim, Yakubu Usifu, Ahmed Abukari, Abdul Razak Usifu and Alhassan Braimah.
Each had pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy. A seventh accused person, Zakaria Forest, who had been charged with two counts of conspiracy and murder and is on the run, was also discharged.
In an almost three-hour ruling on a submission of ‘no case’ filed on behalf of the accused persons by their lawyer, Mr Philip Addison, the court held that the prosecution had woefully failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons and it would, therefore, be dangerous to call on them to open their defence.
According to the trial judge, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against each of the accused persons on the grounds that evidence led by the 12 prosecution witnesses had been inconsistent, fabricated stories against the accused persons and were subsequently discredited on cross-examination.
Dissatisfied with the court’s decision, the Attorney-General’s Department filed the notice of appeal and further stated that the trial judge erred in law in admitting the alleged proceedings of the Wuaku Commission as evidence to contradict the evidence of most of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence was consistent with the judgement contained in the Report of the Wuaku Commission against the same accused persons under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
“The learned trial judge erred in law when he made findings of law which were inconsistent with the adverse findings contained in the judgement of the Report of the Wuaku Commission under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution,” the notice of appeal pointed out.
It further argued that the learned trial judge misdirected himself on the law when he held that because the Abudus asserted that they fought a war with the Andanis, it followed that the Andanis who also fought were equally liable and, therefore, the 15 accused persons only participated in the war which led to the death of the Ya Na but could not be found liable for the offences charged upon evidence given by any prosecution witness, who is an Andani.
“The learned trial judge approached the case with a fundamental prejudice and bias against any Andani prosecution witness and so disabled himself from an impartial assessment of the evidence before him, which led him to the erroneous conclusion that the Andani witnesses appeared to him to be telling the whole world that any Abudu was potentially liable for the murder of the Ya Na when, in fact, none of the 14 accused persons was standing trial for the murder of the Ya Na,” it said.
According to the state, the trial judge disabled himself from appreciating the true meaning of the expression “no evidence” as used in Section 271 (Act 30) in arriving at the erroneous conclusion that there was in law no evidence against the accused persons to call upon them to open their defence.
It further argued that the trial judge erred in law in admitting the record of proceedings in the Republic vs Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyamfo case as evidence for purposes of contradicting the evidence of the prosecution witness in the trial of the 15 because the Yidana Sugri trial was inconsistent with Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution and the adverse findings contained in the Report of the Wuaku Commission.
Based on the stated grounds of appeal, the state held that the learned trial judge’s ruling had occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice and for that reason the Court of Appeal should set aside the ruling of the lower court and order a re-trial of the acquitted persons.
The lower court had held, among others, that the prosecution witnesses who testified against the 15 were the same persons who had testified against Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyamfo in 2002 for the murder of the Ya Na. The two were acquitted and discharged in 2003.
The court was of the view that the witnesses, who, from their own testimonies, partook in the war in Dagbon, later turned round as prosecution witnesses to fabricate stories against the discharged persons, adding that “their conflicting statements totally undermine their credibility”.
“The trend of key witnesses was inconsistent. At no time was their evidence the same,” it held, and accordingly agreed with the defence team’s argument that the evidence put forward by the prosecution was “watery, suspicious, dubious and unreliable”.
It also reminded the prosecution that it (prosecution) relied on the Wuaku Commission’s Report to put together the facts of the case, adding, “Investigations do not only mean taking statements and charging persons with offence. Facts should not be forced to feed a pre-conceived notion.”
The court ruled that nowhere was the prosecution able to prove that the accused persons agreed to act together to murder the Ya Na and further pointed out that it was unfortunate for the prosecution to rely on portions of the Wuaku Commission’s Report when it suited it and later turn around to reject it when it did not serve its purpose.
A total of 12 witnesses testified in the case, which began in July 2010.

Osei-Adjei, Gyimah case - Appeal Court orders stay of proceedings

2011-05-27T16:45:00.002+01:00

April 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Court of Appeal yesterday stayed proceedings in the trial of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Akwasi Osei-Adjei, and a former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Mr Daniel Charles Gyimah.
The two have appealed against the Fast Track High Court’s order directed at them to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
Following their appeal, the two filed another motion praying the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings at the lower court, since their appeal had a greater chance of success.
In a unanimous decision, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Yaw Appau, with Mr Justice P.K. Gyaesayor and Mr Justice Dennis Agyei as members, stayed proceedings in the interest of justice.
It gave its ruling 13 minutes after counsel for the accused persons, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, and a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Gyambiby, had argued their cases.
According to the court, the state had nothing to lose if it (court) stayed proceedings at the lower court.
It further pointed out that because of the public interest in the matter, the lower court should speed up the compilation of the record of proceedings to enable the registrar of the Court of Appeal to list the substantive appeal for hearing.
Mr Osei-Adjei and Mr Gyimah, who are each facing two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act, were in court.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000, with two sureties each to be justified.
Earlier, Mr Dame had prayed the court to stay proceedings at the lower court because the two accused persons would suffer irreparable loss if the Court of Appeal did not stay proceedings pending the appeal.
According to Mr Dame, who also argued on behalf of Colonel Alex Johnson (retd), counsel for Mr Gyimah, the appeal had a greater chance of success and for that reason it was only fair for the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings.
Opposing the application, Mr Gyambiby was of the view that the grant of stay of proceedings was not automatic, adding that the applicants had failed to show exceptional circumstances under which their request should be granted.
He also argued that there was no likelihood the appeal would succeed and further pointed out that the trial would be delayed if proceedings were stayed.
Mr Gyambiby, accordingly, prayed the court to dismiss the application for stay of proceedings.
In the substantive appeal, the two are appealing to the Court of Appeal to reverse or set aside part of the lower court’s ruling that they had a case to answer on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
On February 25, 2011, the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court acquitted and discharged the two on six counts of conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, use of public office for profit and stealing.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, however, ordered the two to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
The two are praying the court to set aside the ruling of the lower court and give consequential orders acquitting and discharging them on the two counts.
The grounds of appeal state, among others, that the trial judge placed weight on irrelevant evidence, as well as disregarded the overwhelming evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that there was no use of public funds as defined by the Public Procurement Act.
According to the appellants, the trial judge also disregarded the evidence of the prosecution that the NIB was not a procurement entity which was required to apply the Public Procurement Act.
In its ruling on a “submission of no case” filed on behalf of the accused persons, the lower court was of the view that the prosecution had failed to lead evidence to prove that Osei-Adjei and Gyimah wilfully caused financial loss to the state by allegedly acting together to steal 2,997 bags of rice valued at US$1,408,590.
It also upheld the defence team’s argument that the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused persons used public office for profit, as well as conspired to steal, but directed the two to open their defence on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses and closed its case on November 30, 2010. The trial began in October, 2009.

'CHRAJ can investigate Baba Kamara'

2011-05-27T16:44:00.002+01:00

April 7, 2011 (Front Page)

THE Supreme Court yesterday ruled that private individuals implicated in a bribery scandal alongside public officials could be investigated by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ).
Consequently, the court held that Ghana's Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr Baba Kamara, who has been implicated along with six others in the Mabey and Johnson (M&J) bribery scandal, could be investigated by CHRAJ.
Mr Kamara had challenged the authority of CHRAJ to investigate him on the grounds that he was a private individual at the time the alleged bribery took place.
Following Mr Kamara's objection, CHRAJ, through its lawyer, Mr Thaddeus Sory, took the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
In a unanimous decision, the court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia A.B. Akuffo, held that under Article 218 of the 1992 Constitution, CHRAJ had powers to investigate a private individual implicated alongside public officials.
The court held that where, in an alleged bribery/corruption allegation, a private individual was implicated alongside public officials, that individual could be investigated by CHRAJ.
It was of the view that CHRAJ's mandate would be frustrated if Mr Kamara's views were upheld.
Other members of the panel were Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Professor Justice S.K. Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey.
In a related development, the Court of Appeal, on March 24, 2011, set aside last year's ruling of the Human Rights Court which prohibited CHRAJ from investigating bribery allegations against six former public officers implicated in the M&J bribery scandal.
The court said after carefully examining the video tapes, documents and appeal processes, it found that there was no evidence that the comments made by the then Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Justice Emile Short, could lead to bias.
It was of the view that Mr Justice Short was not synonymous with CHRAJ, noting that even if there was any likelihood of bias shown by him, other commissioners could investigate the allegation.
The six officials are Mr Kwame Peprah, Alhaji Baba Kamara, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor (retd) and Dr Ato Quarshie.
A seventh official, Dr George Sipa Yankey, who was also cited in the scandal, however, prayed the Human Rights Court to order CHRAJ to investigate him, but the court declined his offer.
The latest rulings from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court indicate that Mr Yankey's dreams have been fulfilled.
The seven were said to have been given various sums of money by the British company, Mabey & Johnson, for the award of contracts in favour of the company.

Judges resume sitting in Accra

2011-05-27T16:43:00.000+01:00

April 6, 2011 (Page 3)
JUDGES of the superior and lower courts resumed duty 24 hours after they declined to sit on cases for fear of being attacked by hundreds of youth who staged a demonstration in Accra on Tuesday seeking justice for the murder of the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya Na Yakubu Andani II.
The Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex Opoku-Acheampong, had on Tuesday informed reporters that the judges stayed away from the courtrooms in view of the absence of security personnel at the courts to provide adequate protection against any possible attacks from the demonstrators.
A tour of the courts by the Daily Graphic indicated that the parking lots at the Cocoa Affairs Court, the Supreme and the Fast Track High courts were filled to capacity as of 8.40 a.m., indicating that normal activities had resumed.
Most courtrooms were also filled to capacity as of 9.00 a.m., while judges were seen busily adjudicating over cases.
Some lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed disappointment at the events that happened on Tuesday and expressed the hope that aggrieved persons would follow due process of the law and seek legal redress, instead of demonstrating and disrupting court proceedings, to the detriment of litigants and remand prisoners.
Some members of the public who had travelled long distances to the court premises were happy that normal activities had resumed.
Meanwhile, the trial involving a former Minister of Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, aka Asabee, and seven others resumed at the Fast Track High Court in Accra yesterday.
The prosecution amended aspects of counts one and two which bordered on conspiracy and contravention of the Public Procurement Act.
Following the amendment of the sections, which in effect did not affect the charges levelled against the accused persons over the GH¢86,915.85 contract for renovation works at the Ministry of Information, the defence team requested the court to allow it to recall prosecution witnesses.
The prosecution, however, prayed the court to decline the defence team’s request on the grounds that fresh evidence had not been introduced to warrant the recall of prosecution witnesses.
Ruling on the defence team’s request, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, was of the view that fresh evidence had not been introduced into the case and for that reason the court would not allow the recall of prosecution witnesses.
Hearing continues on April 14, 2011.
Those standing trial are Asabee, his wife, Zuleika Asamoah-Boateng; Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister at the ministry; Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, a former Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Kwabena Denkyira, a former Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Yasmin Domua and Prosper Aku, both of Supreme Procurement Agency Ltd, as well as the company as an entity.
They have been charged with contravening the Procurement Act. Asabee and Zuleika are alleged to have conspired to contravene the act by not following the due process in obtaining a contract amounting to GH¢86,915.85 for renovation works at the Ministry of Information.
All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have all been admitted to bail.

Expired corned beef supplier before court

2011-03-31T17:17:00.000+01:00

March 31, 2011 (Page 3)
THE alleged supplier of expired corned beef, Michael Kissi, was yesterday arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court charged with two counts of selling unwholesome food and deception of consumers.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢30,000 with two sureties.
He is expected to reappear together with the woman from whom he allegedly bought the expired Matador and CB Corned Beef after the woman was alleged to have re-labelled the products as Exeter Corned Beef.
Kissi’s accomplice, Patience Kabla, 36, was first arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court on February 6, 2011 charged with selling unwholesome food and deception of consumers.
Kissi had earlier informed the police that Patience had supplied him with the unwholesome corned beef but he was charged alongside Patience after investigations.
Patience, a Togolese, was arrested by the police on February 2, 2011 for re-labelling Matador and CB Corned Beef which expired in 2008.
However, the new brand sheet attached to the tins showed an expiry date of 2012.
She pleaded not guilty to the two charges and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢25,000 with three sureties to be justified.
According to the prosecution, on January 28, 2011, officials of the Food and Drugs Board (FDB) arrested Kissi, a trader, for selling fake and expired corned beef at the Makola Number One Market in Accra.
Five cartons of the product were seized by the officials for further investigations and they were found to have been re-branded with the Exeter label.
Kissi was later put before court and he promised to assist the police to apprehend the person who had supplied him with the product.
The prosecution said on February 2, 2011, Kissi’s mother, who is a witness in the case, spotted Patience at the Okaishie Market when she (Patience) went there to collect money from her creditors.
Knowing that it was Patience who had supplied the fake corned beef to her son, the woman caused Patience’s arrest.
Kissi later identified Patience as the woman who had supplied him with the fake corned beef.
The prosecution stated that Patience, in her statement to the police, had said she had bought the corned beef in Togo and was prepared to assist the police to arrest the main suppliers.

Lotto receivers lose another legal battle

2011-03-31T17:15:00.000+01:00

March 24, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra High Court yesterday declined to place an interim injunction on the decision of the National Lottery Authority (NLA) to reduce the commission paid to lotto receivers by five per cent.
Executive members of the National Lotto Receivers Union (NLRU) took the NLA to court over a recent decision by the authority to reduce its commission from 25 to 20 per cent.
The executive, representing more than 3,500 members, had prayed the court to restrain the NLA from reducing its commission but the court held a different view and, accordingly, dismissed the application for interim injunction.
According to the court, presided over by Mr Justice F.G. Kobieh, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, the NLA had the legal right to reduce the commission of the applicants.
He said Section 28 of the National Lottery Act, Act 722, empowered the board of directors of the NLA to determine the commission to be paid lotto marketing companies (LMCs).
The court’s decision stemmed from the NLA’s argument that it (NLA) had procured portable lotto ticketing machines to be used by the LMCs.
The NLA had argued that aside from selling lotto coupons, the applicants were making additional money from using the machines to sell cellular phone credit, pay utility bills, transfer money, among others.
That, according to the authority, was good enough to raise additional revenue for the applicants, especially when the receivers would make a lot more money when the NLA fully rolled out its plan to raise the stakes.

Accused persons in Ya-Na's murder case freed

2011-03-30T11:32:00.000+01:00

March 30, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THERE was spontaneous jubilation at the Accra Fast Track High Court when 15 people accused of allegedly conspiring to murder the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya-Na Yakubu Andani II, in March 2002 were acquitted and discharged.
Family members and sympathisers who were in court to witness proceedings shouted in unison when the trial judge, Mr Justice E.K. Ayebi, said, “You have been found not guilty. You are discharged.”
Members of the Andani Gate, who sat at one side of the courtroom far from where those of the Abudu Gate sat, looked unhappy after the court’s decision to acquit and discharge the 15 accused persons.
The discharged persons are a former District Chief Executive for Yendi, Mr Mohammed Habib Tijani; Iddrisu Iddi, 76; Alhaji Baba Iddrisu Abdulai, 54; Kwame Alhassan, 53; Mohammadu Abdulai, 57; Saibu Mohammed, 34; Alhassan Mohammed Briamah, 40; Alhassan Ibrahim, Mohammed Mustapha, Sani Moro, Baba Ibrahim, Yakubu Usifu, Ahmed Abukari, Abdul Razak Usifu and Alhassan Braimah.
Fourteen of the discharged persons who were present in court bowed before the trial judge in unison as a sign of respect and contentment before resuming their seats. Each had pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy.
A seventh accused person, Zakaria Forest, who had been charged with two counts of conspiracy and murder and is on the run, was also discharged.
In an almost three-hour ruling on a submission of ‘no case’ filed on behalf of the accused persons by their lawyer, Mr Philip Addison, the court held that the prosecution had woefully failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons and it would, therefore, be dangerous to call on them to open their defence.
According to the trial judge, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against each of the accused persons on the grounds that evidence led by the 12 prosecution witnesses had been inconsistent, fabricated stories against the accused persons and were subsequently discredited on cross-examination.
The court held that the prosecution also failed to prove that the charred remains of an adult male body were that of the Ya-Na to warrant the prosecution of the accused persons in the first place.
“It was not sufficient for the prosecution to say that the Ya-Na was dead and leave it at that. Even the investigation was not conclusive of the identity of the charred body, nor was a DNA examination conducted to prove that the body was that of the Ya-Na,” it said.
“In law, the death of the Ya-Na must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the absence of a death certificate. If the prosecution failed to prove that the charred remains were the body of the Ya-Na, then the accused persons could not be held liable for the death of the Ya-Na,” the trial judge held.
According to the court, the prosecution witnesses who testified against the 15 were the same persons who testified against Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Jahinfo in 2002 for the murder of the Ya-Na. The two were acquitted and discharged.
The court was of the view that the witnesses, who, from their own testimonies, partook in the war in Dagbon, later turned round as prosecution witnesses to fabricate stories against the discharged persons, adding that “their conflicting statements totally undermine their credibility”.
“The trend of key witnesses was inconsistent. At no time was their evidence the same,” the court held, and accordingly agreed with the defence team’s argument that the evidence put forward by the prosecution was “watery, suspicious, dubious and unreliable”.
It also reminded the prosecution that it (prosecution) relied on the Wuaku Commission’s Report to put together the facts of the case, adding, “Investigations do not only mean taking statements and charging persons with offence. Facts should not be forced to feed a pre-conceived notion.”
The court ruled that nowhere was the prosecution able to prove that the accused persons agreed to act together to murder the Ya-Na and further pointed out that it was unfortunate for the prosecution to rely on portions of the Wuaku Commission’s Report when it suited it and later turn around to reject it when it did not serve its purpose.
“The investigator, from his own words, did not do anything apart from taking statements. He could have retrieved and tendered in guns from the Gbewaa Palace, guns found in the Ya-Na’s car, guns retrieved from Andanis, among others,” the judge held.
According to the court, it was clear from the evidence from the prosecution witnesses that both sides fought a war, adding that “the evidence from the prosecution witnesses, who are Andanis, displayed bias and dishonesty”.
After directing the seven-member jury to enter a ‘not guilty’ verdict in favour of the discharged persons, the trial judge pleaded with the Abudu and Andani gates to peacefully co-exist with each other.
“Look within and resolve your differences. You deserve to live in peace and not in curfews and security patrols. Nurture the peace yourself,” he added, and thanked the media, the prosecution, defence team and court clerks for their service.
Mr Addison expressed his gratitude to the trial judge for what he termed his “erudite ruling” and stated that the judge’s name would be written in gold in the annals of history.
A total of 12 witnesses testified in the case, which began in July 2010.

Osei-Adjei's case adjourned

2011-03-30T11:28:00.000+01:00

March 26, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Financial Division of the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday adjourned the case involving a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Akwasi Osei-Adjei, and another to April 20, 2011.
The court fixed the date after it declined to adjourn the case sine die following Mr Osei-Adjei’s appeal against the court’s order directed at him to open his defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
He is appealing to the Court of Appeal to reverse or set aside part of the lower court’s ruling that he has a case to answer on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
At the High Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for the former Minister, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, prayed the court to adjourn the case sine die to enable his client to pursue his appeal but a Senior State Attorney, Mr Paul Abariga, who sat in for the substantive prosecutor, disagreed with the defence counsel.
According to Mr Abariga, the Court of Appeal was yet to fix a date for the hearing of Mr Osei-Adjei’s appeal and for that reason it would not be prudent for the lower court to adjourn the case sine die.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, accordingly adjourned the case to April 20, 2011.
On February 25, 2011, the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court acquitted and discharged Mr Osei-Adjei on six counts of conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, use of public office for profit and stealing.
Also acquitted was a former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Mr Charles Daniel Gyimah, who faced similar charges with the former minister.
The court, however, ordered Messrs Osei-Adjei and Gyimah to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
A notice of appeal dated Friday, March 18, 2011 is also praying the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings at the Financial Court until the final determination of the appeal.
Mr Osei-Adjei is praying the court to set aside the ruling of the lower court and give consequential orders acquitting and discharging him on the two counts.
The grounds of appeal state, among others, that the trial judge placed weight on irrelevant evidence, as well as disregarded the overwhelming evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that there was no use of public funds as defined by the Public Procurement Act.
According to the appellant, the trial judge also disregarded the evidence of the prosecution that the NIB was not a procurement entity which was required to apply the Public Procurement Act.
In its ruling on a “submission of no case” filed on behalf of the accused persons, the lower court was of the view that the prosecution had failed to lead evidence to prove that Osei-Adjei and Gyimah wilfully caused financial loss to the state by allegedly acting together to steal 2,997 bags of rice valued at US$1,408,590.
It also upheld the defence team’s argument that the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused persons used public office for profit, as well as conspiring to steal, but directed the two to open their defence on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
Osei-Adjei and Gyimah have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000, with two sureties each to be justified.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses and closed its case on November 30, 2010. The trial began in October, 2009.

Six robbers jailed 240 years

2011-03-30T11:25:00.002+01:00

March 23, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

SIX robbers were yesterday handed a total of 240 years in jail with hard labour after they had been convicted for conspiracy, robbery and rape.
The six — Issaka Abubakar, alias Raggah Gyiwah, Hamza Shaibu, Taju Adam, Majid Seidu, Ali Adamu and Charles Ametor — all traders and in their early 20s, were each sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment after they had been found guilty on two counts of conspiracy and robbery by the Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist.
The sentences of the convicts, who were clad in white apparel, are to run concurrently.
They looked gloomy as they were escorted out of the courtroom by prison officers to begin their prison sentences.
The convicts were found to have used offensive weapons to embark on a robbery spree at Pokuase, a suburb of Accra, and in the process entered the complainant’s house, robbed him of valuable items and raped a female member of the house.
Hamza, Taju, Adamu and Ametor took turns to rape that female, while wielding a machete and a gun to keep her silent. The victim managed to identify the four convicts in court during the trial.
Hamza, a cousin of Adamu’s, together with Taju, Majid and Ali, confessed to robbing the complainant at Pokuase at gunpoint on March 11, 2007 and explained the role each of them had played, as well as the amount of money and the items each of them had after the robbery.
The convicts, who had robbed three different households before entering the complainant’s house, took away video decks, 15 cellular phones, unspecified amounts of money, both in local and foreign denominations, a pair of shoes, a pair of trousers, a shirt, a key and gold ornaments belonging to a queen who also lived in the complainant’s house.
According to the trial judge, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the convicts beyond reasonable doubt.
He said there was also abundant evidence to prove that the four, who confessed to committing the robbery, had confessed voluntarily.
Mr Justice Quist said the confession statements of the convicts were by law admissible in court, adding that there was overwhelming evidence to prove that the convicts had acted together to commit the robbery and rape.
The facts of the case were that the six convicts, together with three others who are currently on the run, embarked on a robbery spree at Pokuase with a taxi they had earlier snatched from its owner on March 11, 2007.
The robbers, in the process, broke into the complainant’s house with a pinch bar, took the watchman hostage and tied his hands at the back.
Some of the robbers mounted guard on him while the others entered the house through the kitchen door which they destroyed with cement blocks in order to gain access to the living room.
The convicts and their three accomplices currently on the run held the occupants of the house hostage and managed to ransack the house at gunpoint.
Not satisfied with their booty, four of them decided to take turns to rape the female member of the house. They bolted afterwards, leaving the occupants to their fate.
The convicts were arrested barely a month after that exercise while embarking on another robbery.

Osei-Adjei appeals against ruling

2011-03-30T11:24:00.002+01:00

March 22, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

A former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Akwasi Osei-Adjei, has appealed against the Fast Track High Court’s order directed at him to open his defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
He is appealing to the Court of Appeal to reverse or set aside part of the lower court’s ruling that he has a case to answer on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
On February 25, 2011, the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court acquitted and discharged Mr Osei-Adjei on six counts of conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, use of public office for profit and stealing.
Also acquitted was the former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Mr Charles Daniel Gyimah, who faced similar charges with the former minister.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, however, ordered Messrs Osei-Adjei and Gyimah to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
A notice of appeal filed on Mr Osei-Adjei’s behalf by his lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, at 10.15 a.m. on Friday, March 18, 2011 is also praying the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings at the Financial Court until the final determination of the appeal.
Mr Osei-Adjei is praying the court to set aside the ruling of the lower court and give consequential orders acquitting and discharging him on the two counts.
The grounds of appeal state, among others, that the trial judge placed weight on irrelevant evidence, as well as disregarded the overwhelming evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that there was no use of public funds as defined by the Public Procurement Act.
According to the appellant, the trial judge also disregarded the evidence of the prosecution that the NIB was not a procurement entity which was required to apply the Public Procurement Act.
Meanwhile, the substantive case has been billed for hearing at the Financial Court on Friday, March 25, 2011.
In its ruling on a “submission of no case” filed on behalf of the accused persons, the lower court was of the view that the prosecution had failed to lead evidence to prove that Osei-Adjei and Gyimah wilfully caused financial loss to the state by allegedly acting together to steal 2,997 bags of rice valued at US$1,408,590.
It also upheld the defence team’s argument that the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused persons used public office for profit, as well as conspiring to steal, but directed the two to open their defence on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act.
Osei-Adjei and Gyimah have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000, with two sureties each to be justified.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses and closed its case on November 30, 2010. The trial began in October 2009.

Woman collapses on acquittal of son

2011-03-30T11:22:00.000+01:00

March 18, 2011 (Back page)

THERE was drama at the Accra Circuit Court yesterday when a mother screamed out of excitement and collapsed after her son, who was standing trial for possessing Indian hemp, was discharged by the court.
The woman, believed to be in her early 50s screamed, shouted her son's name and passed out immediately an interpreter had stated in Twi that her son had been discharged and was, therefore, free to go home.
Security officers and persons who had visited the court to hear their cases employed every method to revive her. She became conscious after five minutes.
Her son, Kwabena Ebo, a labourer, who was initially smiling after his discharge, looked worried when his mother passed out.
The woman resumed her seat after she had been revived but stood up barely two minutes after resuming her seat and ran straight towards the trial judge, Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, in an apparent attempt to hug him.
She managed to swerve prison and police officers but a court clerk stopped her midway.
When questioned as to what she was up to, she simply said (in Twi), "My Lord, I was running towards you to hug you for setting my son free. May the Almighty God bless and keep you."
However, the trial judge explained to her that he had released her son based on an advice from the Attorney-General's Office that her son be released for lack of evidence.
The elated mother then resumed her seat, repeatedly saying, "God bless you!" and waited for the necessary documents to be prepared to warrant Ebo’s release.
Ebo, who had been in custody since November 1, 2010, was picked up at Bubuashie, a suburb of Accra, for allegedly possessing 29 wrappers suspected to be Indian hemp.
He consistently maintained his innocence and stated that he was fast asleep when the police entered his kiosk and picked him up.
The docket on his case was subsequently referred to the Attorney-General's Office for advice.
A letter recommending Ebo’s discharge, dated March 11, 2011 and signed by an Assistant State Attorney, Ms Serina P. Seglah, said, "The statement of the investigator and that of the arresting officer are in serious contradiction. The statement of the arresting officer is almost similar to that of the suspect, to the effect that the suspect was arrested inside the kiosk."
According to the letter, the investigator had said in his caution statement that Ebo had been chased and arrested but the arresting officer said Ebo had been arrested in a kiosk.
While arresting officer said he had found a black plastic bag containing a number of dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp around the kiosk, the investigator said the dried leaves had been recovered when a search was conducted on Ebo.
"I have thoroughly studied the evidence available in the docket and come to the conclusion that the suspect is not the owner of the 29 wrappers of dried leaves and that he did not even know that the bag contained cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug," the letter stated.
It further pointed out that it was also clear that more persons had been arrested on that fateful day but their names did not appear on the docket.
"It is my opinion that a charge of possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority, contrary to Section 1 of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act, 1990 PNDCL 236, cannot be sustained against the suspect Kwabena Ebo. In the circumstance, I advise that the suspect Kwabena Ebo be discharged," the letter added.

8 challenge creation of new district electoral area

2011-03-30T11:20:00.002+01:00

March 18, 2011 (Page 35)
Eight individuals in two separate suits are challenging the creation and specification of a new district electoral area by the Ministry of Local Government which was gazetted in November 2010.
In the first suit, Mr Charles Mate Kole and Nene Azago Kwesitsu I have sued the Electoral Commission (EC) and the Attorney-General on the grounds that the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument, 2010 (L.I. 1983) sought to alter boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions.
In the second suit, Stephen Nti Bortey Okane and five others have dragged the EC and the Attorney-General to court over the creation of four additional electoral areas in the Ledzokuku District, in contravention of L.I 1983.
In the suit initiated by Mr Kole and Nene Kwesitsu, the two are contending that the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka, Natiriku and Salon electoral areas (previously part of the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region as per the specification made by C.I. 46 of 2004) are now part of the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region.
They are, accordingly, praying the court to declare that that action was in excess of powers conferred on the Minister of Local Government by sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462).
In a writ filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, the plaintiffs are praying the Supreme Court to declare that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 241 (2) and Article 5 of the Constitution, Parliament acted in excess of its powers by approving, adopting and enacting L. I. 1983.
They are also praying the highest court of the land to declare as null and void and of no legal effect L.I. 1983 which eventually altered the boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions, as well as declare as null and void and of no legal effect the second column of L.I. 1983 which relates to the specification of the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka, Natriku and Salon Electoral areas as part of the Dangme West District.
The plaintiffs are asking for an order restraining the EC from conducting elections or unit committee elections or exercising its powers to conduct elections in the affected towns pending the hearing and final determination of the merits of the instant action, as well as any further costs the court may deem fit.
The Attorney-General has, however, denied the Minister of Local Government embarked on an exercise to alter boundaries between the Eastern and the Greater Accra regions.
The defendant is also praying the court to take into consideration the statute and social needs of the community, economic exigencies of time and other factors, adding that “the Osudoku people need to keep their cultural identity as one people and the law must be used in the sense to further the cause of this unity and not to disintegrate them”.
In relation to this suit, the Chief of Akuse, Nene Teye Titriku, the Akuse and Amedeka Residents Association and six former assembly members applied to be joined to the suit but the court struck out the names of the six assembly members and, accordingly, joined the names of the two others to the suit filed by Mr Kole and Nene Kwesitsu.
The parties were, accordingly, directed to file the issues to be heard. The case was adjourned sine die.
Hearing the suit filed by Mr Bortey against the EC and the Attorney-General, the court struck out the name of a former Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh, who was originally attached to the suit, with the reason that he was not the proper person to have been sued.
The contention of the plaintiffs, who were represented by Mr Ayikoi Otoo, is that the L.I. 1983 is in contravention of Article 11 (7) of the 1992 Constitution and for that reason the court should restrain the EC from holding district and unit level elections in the four disputed areas.
The disputed areas, according to the plaintiffs, in the Ledzokuku District are the Okoigonno Industrial Area, Tabibiano, Ashietey Akombra North and Martey Tsuru Electoral areas because, according to them, Ledzokuku should have had 12 and not 16 electoral areas as per the gazette publishing the new electoral areas.
The court, accordingly, directed the parties to file a memorandum of issues to be discussed on or before April 5, 2011.
Hearing continues on April 5, 2011.

Judge stopped from hearing Mobilla's case

2011-03-17T15:47:00.002Z

March 17, 2011 (Front page)

THE Supreme Court yesterday prohibited the trial judge in the case of the three soldiers who are alleged to have murdered Alhaji Issa Mobilla from further hearing the case.
The court, accordingly, quashed the decision of Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe to continue sitting on the case after the foreman of the seven-member jury had been replaced due to ill-health.
In a unanimous decision, the court, presided over by Professor Dr Justice Date Bah, with Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey and Mr Justice S. Gbadegbe as panel members, held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to hear afresh the suit against the accused persons after he was elevated to the Court of Appeal.
According to the court, the trial judge had the authority to hear only part-heard cases and for that reason his decision to continue hearing the case after the foreman of the jurors had been replaced as a result of ill-health was wrong in law.
It, accordingly, upheld a motion filed on behalf of the soldiers by their counsel, Mr Thaddeus Sory, who prayed the court to prohibit the trial judge because he had no mandate.
According to the applicants, the trial judge’s continuous hearing of the case would be unconstitutional.
The applicants further argued that the trial judge had also exhibited bias against them and for that reason they could not be guaranteed a fair trial.
Two of the soldiers, Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka, who were clad in white shirts were present in court.
The third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
The three have been charged with two counts of conspiracy and murder. Appiah and Modzaka, who are currently in custody, have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Before the ruling, the court enquired from a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, who stood in for the substantive prosecutor in the case, whether or not the Chief Justice had permitted the trial judge to hear the case afresh.
The following transpired between the panel members and Mr Wiredu.
Prof Dr Justice Date Bah: Any basis for him (trial judge) to continue hearing the case?
Mr Wiredu: Yes
Prof Dr Justice Date Bah: Where is the evidence? Refer it to us.
Mr Wiredu: It is in a letter.
Mrs Justice Adinyira: In all your statements of case, there was no reference to any letter from the Chief Justice authorising the trial judge to hear the case afresh. So where are you going to get the letter from?
Mr Wiredu: I concede that the trial judge had no authority from the Chief Justice to start the case afresh. (He stated that after he had groped through the filed documents and realised there was no letter from the Chief Justice authorising the trial judge to hear the case afresh after a new juror had been sworn in.)
Meanwhile, the substantive case at the Fast Track High Court has been adjourned to March 24, 2011.
The three soldiers were alleged to have murdered Alhaji Mobilla, who was the Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
The facts of the case are that Alhaji Mobilla was arrested by the police on December 9, 2004 for allegedly supplying the youth in Tamale with guns to foment trouble.
While he was in custody, the police claimed that they received information that his followers and sympathisers were mobilising to free him. The deceased was consequently transferred from police cells to the Kamina Military Barracks and handed over to the three accused persons.
According to the prosecution, Alhaji Mobilla died in military custody three hours after he had been handed over to the accused persons who were on duty that day.
The chief pathologist’s report revealed that the deceased was sent to the hospital dead and that he died from multiple wounds.

Lottery Authority drags Airtel to court

2011-03-17T15:46:00.000Z

March 16, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE National Lottery Authority (NLA) has dragged Airtel Ghana Limited, a mobile telecommunications network, to court over Airtel’s “freedom to dream” promotion which is currently being run in the media.
Joined in the suit is the National Communications Authority (NCA).
The NLA is praying the Accra Fast Track High Court to grant an interim injunction to restrain Airtel and its agents from promoting, sponsoring and advertising the ongoing purported promotion or engage in a game of chance or lottery in any form.
The writ of summons is also praying the court to order the NCA to exercise its statutory mandate under the National Communications Authority Act of 2008, Act 769, and the Electronics Communications Act, 2008, Act 776, to develop guidelines for marketing promotions by mobile network operators in accordance with international best practices of telecommunications in other jurisdictions in order to protect consumer interest and prevent illegal activity disguised as marketing promotions.
The plaintiff is further praying the court to restrain Airtel and its agents from allowing Airtel’s mobile network platform to be used by third parties to promote, conduct, run and advertise illegal lotteries or games of chance disguised as marketing promotions, including the ongoing “Crack the Safe and Win”.
Under the promotion, which is running from February to the end of March 2011, Airtel subscribers must, among other things, either activate a new SIM card or purchase and load top-up airtime with minimum cash value of GH¢2 or usage of minimum of 50Gp airtime, all within a 24-hour period, to enable participants to win a broad range of cash rewards and a grand draw prize of GH¢400,000.
The NLA is, accordingly, praying the court to declare that Airtel’s “freedom to dream” promotion is not a promotion but, in fact and in law, a lottery which is prohibited by Section 4 of the National Lottery Act of 2006 (Act 722).
It is also urging the court to declare that Airtel’s operation of lottery without the requisite statutory licence is illegal and unlawful because Airtel has failed to comply with the mandatory statutory provision of Section 4 of Act 722.
The NLA is also asking the court to declare that Airtel has committed a crime, as provided by the National Lotto Act and the Gaming Act of 2006, Act 721, by engaging in lottery and or games of chance without a statutory licence.
The plaintiff is praying the court to order Airtel to account for all proceeds and payments it has received from participating subscribers from the start of the promotion till the date of the cessation of the said promotion.
The plaintiff is further praying the court for a permanent injunction to restrain Airtel and its agents from promoting, sponsoring and marketing “freedom to dream” and “crack the safe and win” lottery game, together with other illegal lottery games or games of chance disguised as marketing promotions and now being or about to be implemented, sponsored and promoted.
Under the writ of summons, the NLA is asking for general and special damages, cost and any other relief the court may deem fit.
With regard to the NCA, the NLA is asking the court to declare that it is the statutory function and duty of the NCA to classify communication services provided under the mobile network and, therefore, statutorily bound to determine whether Airtel’s purported promotions could pass as value added services or permissible communications or marketing services under the National Communications Authority Act of 2008, Act 769.
The plaintiff is urging the court to declare that the NCA had the statutory and regulatory authority and responsibility to restrain Airtel from sponsoring and promoting the “freedom to dream” promotion and all other illegal lotteries and or games of chance which are disguised as marketing promotions in order to protect the rights and interests of the millions of consumers who unknowingly participate in illegal lottery.
The NLA is further praying the court to direct the NCA to take regulatory steps to protect the consumer interest of millions of mobile network subscribers who unwittingly participate in the illegal lottery, as well as grant any other relief it deems fit.

Four charged with robbery

2011-03-17T15:42:00.001Z

March 15, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

FOUR persons were yesterday arraigned before the Accra Fast Track High Court charged with conspiracy and robbery.
The four — Wise Grey, Kwabena Richard, Abbas Baba and Paul Owusu, alias School Fees — were remanded till March 28, 2011.
The accused persons were alleged to have acted together to rob a Nigerian businessman of his GH¢150, five laptops, a wristwatch and a vehicle on June 12, 2009.
The four pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and robbery.
Prosecuting, a Senior State Attorney, Mr John Tulasi Ofori, told the court that the accused persons entered the complainant’s residence and robbed him of his items at gunpoint.
Owusu was alleged to have snatched the car keys of the complainant and sped off with his vehicle, but the complainant managed to give them a hot chase, resulting in Owusu’s arrest.
Kwabena, Grey and Abbas, however, managed to escape in a taxi.
According to the prosecution, Owusu led the police to arrest Grey and Kwabena at Nungua, while Abbas was apprehended when he embarked on another robbery expedition.
The prosecutor prayed the court to give a short adjournment because the complainant was out of the jurisdiction.
Before the facts could be read, Owusu raised up his hand and said he had something to tell the court, to which the court obliged.
According to Owusu, he had been in custody for a year and eight months, although he had not committed any crime.
The judge, however, reminded him that investigators alleged that he (Owusu) was part of the robbery and for that reason he should be patient and allow the law to take its course.

Suspected robbers remanded

2011-03-17T15:40:00.000Z

March 12, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

SIX alleged robbers who were among the 28 suspected robbers picked up by the Greater Accra Regional Police Command were yesterday remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Gabriel Kwadwo Agyemang, 20; Ernest Acheampong, 20; Peter Akakpo, 17; Danladi Seidu Grumah, 18; Vincent Agbetoglo, 20, and Robert Tawiah, 17, are alleged to have embarked on a robbery spree at Agbogba, a suburb of Accra, and the Valley View University (VVU) on March 2, 2011 and in the process attacked and robbed a family and students of the university.
They pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and robbery and will reappear on March 23, 2011.
Prosecuting, Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr Agyemang Reindoff told the court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, that around 11.30 p.m. on March 2, 2011 the accused, at gunpoint, attacked a real estate consultant and his family at Agbogba and in the process took away a Toyota Matrix vehicle, valued at GH¢60,000, a 32-inch flat screen television set, valued at GH¢1,000, GH¢1,030 cash and three cellular phones valued at GH¢265.
From the real estate consultant's house, the accused drove the Toyota Matrix to the VVU and robbed students there of various items, including laptops.
The students managed to raise an alarm and in the process Tawiah was arrested. The others, however, escaped.
Tawiah later led the police to arrest his accomplices at their hideout.
According to Mr Agyemang, the six accused persons admitted the offence in their statements to the police and stated that they had sold the items they took from their victims to someone they only named as Gideon at the Kwame Nkrumah Circle in Accra.
The prosecution said efforts were underway to arrest the said Gideon, who is currently on the run.
The court, however, directed that Akakpo and Tawiah be kept in a juvenile facility.
It also directed that the Toyota Matrix retrieved from the six be returned to its owner.

The PNC court case • High Court quashes decision

2011-03-17T15:31:00.000Z

March 11, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday quashed the decision of the Adjabeng District Magistrate’s Court which remanded three executives of the People's National Convention (PNC) into police custody.
According to the High Court, it was wrong in law for the district court to revoke a bail it (district court) had earlier granted to the accused persons because it had no jurisdiction to do so.
The lower court had, on February 24, 2011, remanded Baba G. Seidu and Ahmed Gado who had appeared before it on the grounds that they had flouted the court's order.
On March 3, 2011, it declined to renew its orders that revoked the bail granted to the accused persons and, accordingly, remanded a third accused person, Dr Somtim Tobiga, who was absent on February 24, after revoking his bail.
On February 24, 2011, the presiding District Magistrate, Mrs Faustina Mary Addington, after revoking their bail, had further ordered the agents, assigns and workmen of the accused persons to vacate the premises until the final determination of the case.
However, the Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, after hearing a bail application filed by counsel for the accused persons, indicated that the lower court should have committed the accused persons to the High Court for contempt of court if the court where the accused persons were standing trial for stealing and causing harm felt it had been slighted in any way.
It, accordingly, revoked the lower court’s decision to remand the accused persons and granted them bail in the sum of GH1,000 with a surety each.
The higher court’s bail terms were softer than those of the lower court, which granted a GH¢4,000 bail each to Dr Tobiga and Seidu, with two sureties each, one each to be justified. The lower court had granted Gado a GH¢3,000 bail with two sureties, one to be justified.
The accused persons were absent in court but their family members and sympathisers trooped the courtroom in their numbers to listen to the court’s decision.
They left the courtroom in a cheerful mood after the court had revoked the decision of the district court.
Earlier, counsel for the accused persons had prayed the court to grant the three bail on the grounds that the district court exceeded its mandate when it revoked the bail for the accused persons.
According to counsel, it was wrong for the lower court judge to entertain Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey (retd), who had posed as “holding and watching brief” for the complainants in the case and thereby succeeded in convincing the lower court to do an illegality.
Counsel argued that Capt Effah-Dartey did not have any legal backing to stand before the lower court to demand the incarceration of the accused persons because he was not the prosecutor in the case and also did not have express permission from the Attorney-General to do that.
A representative from the Attorney-General’s Office, Mrs Dora Quaye, said her outfit’s concern was the non-compliance by the accused persons with the lower court’s orders.
She, however, prayed the court to use its discretion in granting bail to the accused persons.
On February 24, 2011, the bail granted to the accused persons had been revoked by the court after Capt Effah-Dartey had informed it that the accused persons had flouted its orders.
According to him, the accused persons were still occupying the PNC's offices, despite the orders of the court made on January 6, 2011 that they should vacate them.
Capt Effah-Dartey, therefore, prayed the court to revoke the bail by sending them back to custody until they complied with the orders of the court.

Court hears PNC bail application tomorrow

2011-03-17T15:25:00.002Z

March 9, 2011 (Centre Spread)
THE Accra Fast-Track High Court will tomorrow hear a bail application filed by three executives of the People's National Convention (PNC) who were remanded in custody by the Adjabeng District Magistrate’s Court on February 14, 2011.
The court last Thursday said it would not renew its orders that revoked the bail granted to three members of the PNC accused of breaking into the party's headquarters.
Baba Ghana Seidu and Ahmed Gado, who appeared before the court on February 24, had their bail revoked because they had flouted the court's order.
On March 3, 2011, a third accused person, Dr Somtim Tobiga, who was absent on February 24, also had his bail revoked.
The presiding magistrate, Mrs Faustina Mary Addington, after revoking their bail, further ordered the agents, assigns and workmen of the accused persons to vacate the premises until the final determination of the case.
According to the court, it had not received from the High Court any application that enjoined the accused persons to flout the orders.
When the matter was called at the High Court in Accra yesterday, a representative of the Attorney-General's Office, Mrs Dora Quaye, informed the court that her outfit was short served with the motion and, therefore, needed a short adjournment in order to study the bail application.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, accordingly adjourned the case to March 10, 2011 to enable the A-G's Office to respond appropriately.
The three executives were absent from court but their relatives and sympathisers thronged the court premises in their numbers.
Dr Tobiga, Seidu and Gado are standing trial on charges of stealing and causing harm.
The magistrate’s court had earlier granted a GH¢4,000 bail each to Dr Tobiga and Seidu.
Gado, the third accused person, who also denied the charges, was granted a GH¢3,000 bail with two sureties, one of whom was to be justified by the court.
The bail was revoked by the court after Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey (retd) had informed it that the accused persons had flouted its orders.
According to him, the accused persons were still occupying the party's offices, despite the orders of the court made on January 6, 2011 that they should vacate them.
Capt. Effah-Dartey, therefore, prayed the court to revoke the bail by sending them back to custody until they complied with the orders of the court.

'Former Director couldn't sanction contract'

2011-03-17T15:24:00.001Z

March 9, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

A prosecution witness in the GH¢86,915.85 contract for renovation works at the Ministry of Information yesterday said a former director, who is also an accused person, did not have the authority to sanction the award of the contract.
According to Mr Godfred Agyapong, the Head of Audit at the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI), Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, who was the Head of Finance and Administration at the Ministry of Information, had ceased to be an employee of the Civil Service as of July 31, 2008 and, therefore, did not have the legal capacity to award the contract on October 16, 2008.
Kofi Asamoah-Boateng is standing trial with a former Minister at the Ministry of Information, Stephen Asamoah-Boateng; Zuleika Asamoah-Boateng, the wife of Mr Asamoah-Boateng; Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister at the ministry; Kwabena Denkyira, a former Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Yasmin Domua and Prosper Aku of Supreme Procurement Agency Ltd, as well as the company as an entity.
They have been charged with contravening the Procurement Act. They are alleged to have conspired to contravene the Procurement Act by not following the due process in obtaining a contract amounting to GH¢86,915.85 for renovation works at the Ministry of Information.
Sampong is facing six counts of conspiracy, contravention of the Procurement Act, attempt to defraud, altering documents and deceit of public officer, while Agyekum has been charged with conspiracy, contravention of provision, attempt to defraud and deceit of public officer.
Domua, a manageress and cousin of Zuleika, is charged with conspiracy to commit crime, after which she was granted a GH¢10,000 bail with two sureties.
Kofi Asamoah-Boateng faces six counts of forgery of official document, possession of forged documents and forgery and possession of false document, while Denkyira faces a charge of conspiracy.
Prosper has also been charged with four counts of possession and forgery of document of architects, an engineering certificate and a false tender document.
All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have all been admitted to bail.
Led by a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Gyambiby, to give his evidence-in-chief, Mr Agyapong said Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, who was then the Director of Finance and Administration at the Ministry of Tourism, could not give the investigative team documents to prove he was legally appointed by the Office of the Head of the Civil Service to head the Finance and Administration Department of the Ministry of Information.
The witness read another letter which quoted Kofi Asamoah-Boateng as retiring from the Civi Service with effect from October 15, 2008 to enable him to contest the Offinso parliamentary seat as an independent candidate.
The defence team had objected to the tendering of three letters, namely, one written by Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng requesting the Head of the Civil Service to renew Kofi’s contract for another year; a response from the then Chief Director at the Office of the Head of the Civil Service, as well as Kofi's letter of resignation, but the court overruled the objection.
According to Mr Agyapong, Kofi Asamoah-Boateng signed the contract letter a day after he had resigned from a position he never had the legal mandate to head.
Hearing continues today.

EXOPA BOSS IN THE CAN • Gets 15 years for trafficking coke

2011-03-17T15:17:00.000Z

Friday, March 4, 2011 (Lead Story)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday sentenced the Chief Executive of Exopa Modelling Agency, Ibrahim Sima, to 15 years’ imprisonment for possessing and attempting to export 4.9 kilogrammes of cocaine concealed in four tubers of yam.
The defence team had expected the court to fix a date for judgement when the case was called but the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, sprang a surprise when he pulled a heavy document around 10:17 a.m. and stated, “This is the judgement of the court.”
Counsel for Sima, Mr James Agalga, who was obviously surprised with the judge’s statement, stood on his feet to enquire whether he had heard the judge correctly, to which the judge replied, “I have received the final addresses of all parties in the case and, therefore, was able to write my judgement.”
In its judgement, which lasted an hour and 20 minutes, the court held that the prosecution was able to prove that the convict had cocaine in his possession, attempted to export the cocaine and knew the content of the four tubers of yam in which he had concealed the cocaine.
Sima, 39, was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on September 7, 2009 after officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) found four tubers of yam containing cocaine in his baggage while he was going through departure formalities to embark on a trip to Germany.
The convict, who stared flat at the trial judge while the latter read his judgement, was convicted on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs without licence.
The sentences are to run concurrently. The court was, however, silent on whether the sentence should begin from the day Sima was arrested. In effect, his sentence takes immediate effect.
There was dead silence in the courtroom after the judge had sentenced the convict, who looked indifferent. He was whisked away immediately after the sentence.
Sima’s family members wept uncontrollably outside the courtroom, while some young men who wore T-shirts with Sima’s picture embossed on them looked pensive and shocked.
Sima’s lawyer, who said he was yet to receive instructions from Sima on what to do next, consoled some of the family members.
The court held that the prosecution was able to prove that Sima, a frequent traveller who travelled 49 times between May 19, 2007 and September 7, 2009, knew all the security procedures at the airport but deliberately dodged NACOB and the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) “to avoid the prying eyes of NACOB/CEPS officials”.
It further held that the convict deliberately put one tuber of yam which did not contain cocaine in his hand luggage to outwit security officials.
It also held that the prosecution was able to prove that Sima freely and without duress admitted ownership of the four tubers of yam, as well as admitting using a knife to cut open, a scraper to scoop and glue to re-seal the yam after stuffing the produce with cocaine.
The trial judge held that Sima admitted ownership of the yams in his statements and that nowhere in the statements which he gave in the presence of his lawyer and independent witnesses did he state that he had confessed under duress.
Touching on Sima’s turn-around defence which stated, among others, that he had admitted ownership of the drugs to avoid being beaten by security officers, the court described the story as “a ruse meant to throw dust in the eyes of the court”.
Also touching on the convict’s testimony that the zip of his bag was tampered with, the court held that that was “usually a subterfuge usually used by suspects who are arrested for possessing cocaine”.
The defence put up “by the accused person does not raise reasonable doubt in my mind. I am fully satisfied with the evidence led by the prosecution. I, therefore, convict the accused person on both counts,” the judge said.
According to the presiding judge, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the convict beyond reasonable doubt, adding that “the prosecution proved that the accused person identified the bag containing the narcotic drugs as his, opened the bag which had a combination key, as well as identified the clothes and tubers of yam containing the cocaine as his”.
Touching on the charge of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority, the court held that it was abundantly clear that the yams were found in Sima’s bag which he (Sima) had admitted belonged to him.
It said it was also clear from the prosecution’s evidence that the convict did not have any licence to export the narcotic drug.
The court also added that it was fully satisfied with the Ghana Standards Board (GSB), which indicated that the substance found on Sima tested positive for cocaine after a field test had been conducted in his (Sima’s) presence on September 7, 2009.
The test also proved that the substance he had stuffed in the tubers of yam tested positive for cocaine.
After his client was convicted on both counts, Mr Agalga prayed the court to tamper justice with mercy because his client was an accomplished businessman who was also a role model to the youth.
He prayed the court to give his client the minimum sentence of 10 years because his client was a first-time offender.
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr George Ofori, who prosecuted the case, also prayed the court to take into account the fact that Sima was a famous person whom the youth looked up to and for that reason it was important for the court to send a sound warning to the youth and posterity that crime did not pay.
“The state is asking for a punitive and deterrent sentence,” Mr Ofori added.

Case against National Security Co-ordinator, A-G • Hearing fixed for March 16

2011-03-17T15:13:00.000Z

March 3, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

HEARING of the case brought against the National Security Co-ordinator and the Attorney-General by 88 former operatives of the National Security Council over the non-payment of their end-of-service benefits has been fixed for March 16, 2011.
The High Court in Accra has, accordingly, directed the plaintiffs to serve the defendants with the necessary documents by the next adjourned date to enable hearing into the case to commence.
Counsel for the defendants, Nana Ato Dadzie, informed the court at its sitting in Accra yesterday that he had noticed that the plaintiffs had applied for application for direction on the issues to be set out for trial but the defendants had not received a copy of that application, as well as a copy of the plaintiffs’ response to his clients’ statement of defence.
He told the court that much as the defendants were committed to an expeditious trial, it was important for due process to be followed, saying that it was the duty of the plaintiffs to ensure that the defendants were duly served with the relevant documents.
The trial judge, Mr Justice E. F. Dzakpasu, accordingly directed the plaintiffs, whose lawyer was absent, to serve the defendants with the relevant documents to pave the way for a speedy trial.
In the substantive matter, the plaintiffs, who served during the previous administration, said their appointment was terminated because they were perceived to be political appointees, but the defendants had stated that the appointment of the plaintiffs was terminated because their services were no longer required and not because they were perceived as political appointees of the previous administration.
In a writ of summons accompanying the statement of claim, the plaintiffs are praying the High Court to declare that they (plaintiffs) were entitled to be paid their end-of-service benefits upon the termination of their appointment, in consonance with conditions governing their employment.
The writ of summons, titled Kenneth Gyan Kesse and 87 others versus the National Security Co-ordinator and the Attorney-General, is also praying the court to order the defendants to pay the plaintiffs their end-of-service benefits.
The statement said all the plaintiffs were Ghanaian citizens and were fully employed as regular staff of the National Security Council Secretariat in Accra and across the country.
It said all the plaintiffs were interviewed, examined and employed under the Securities and Intelligence Agencies Law of 1996.
It further stated that following the 2008 general election, which led to a change in the political administration of the country, their appointment was subsequently terminated and, in partial fulfilment of the conditions governing the termination of appointment, each of them was paid three months' salary.
According to the statement of claim, the plaintiffs petitioned the National Security Co-ordinator for the payment of their end-of-service benefits but the petition was ignored.
It said they then, through their solicitors, wrote letters claiming the payment of their end-of-service benefits but those letters also yielded no results.
It claimed it was obvious that until the court intervened, the defendants had no intention of meeting their demands.
The defendants admitted that the plaintiffs were paid three months' salary in lieu of notice of termination, adding that the said amount represented the full payment due plaintiffs in case of disengagement between the NSC and the plaintiffs.
They said the plaintiffs were not entitled to any end-of-service benefits, as alleged to be in their conditions of service.
The statement of defence further pointed out that the National Security Co-ordinator was not the proper person to be sued in the matter.
The defendants said they would, at the hearing, raise a preliminary legal point that the National Security Co-ordinator was not the proper person or body to be sued in the matter and would pray that the National Security Co-ordinator’s name be struck off the writ.

Osei-Adjei, Gyimah freed on 6 counts • But to open defence on two counts

2011-03-17T15:07:00.000Z

February 26, 2011 (Front Page)

THE Financial Division of the Accra Fast Track High Court, yesterday acquitted and discharged a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Akwasi Osei-Adjei, on six counts of conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, use of public office for profit and stealing.
Also acquitted was the former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Mr Charles Daniel Gyimah, who faced similar charges with the former minister.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, however, ordered the accused persons to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India.
The court was of the view that the prosecution had failed to lead evidence to prove that Osei-Adjei and Gyimah wilfully caused financial loss to the state by allegedly acting together to steal 2,997 bags of rice valued at US$1,408,590.
It also upheld the defence team’s argument that the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused persons used public office for profit, as well as conspiring to steal.
Osei-Adjei and Gyimah have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and have been admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000 with two sureties each to be justified.
Giving its ruling on a “submission of no case” filed on behalf of the accused persons by their lawyers, the court held that the prosecution was able to prove a prima facie case against the accused persons with regard to the two counts of conspiracy to contravene the Procurement Act and contravening the Procurement Act.
The court held that after thoroughly considering arguments canvassed by the prosecution and the defence teams and having applied the principles and evidence on record, the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case on all counts except counts one and two.
Following the court’s directive, the two are expected to answer questions on how and why between April, 2008 and February, 2009, they agreed with Amira Foods Limited in India to procure 300,000 bags of rice for and on behalf of the Ghana Government without following procedures thereby contravening the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
According to the court, it needed answers from Osei-Adjei with regard to the circumstances under which he authorised the then High Commissioner to India to sign the contract for the procurement of the rice.
It further pointed out that Gyimah was also expected to answer questions on the prosecution’s evidence that the Board of Directors of the NIB did not authorise Gyimah to procure the rice.
Mr Justice Mensah extensively cited authorities to buttress a legal point that the fact that an accused person was directed to open his/her defence did not mean that person was guilty of any offence.
The trial judge commended the prosecution and defence teams for exhibiting a high sense of maturity, professionalism and co-operation so far.
Counsel for Osei-Adjei, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, indicated that it was likely he would appeal the decision of the court prompting the trial judge to remind him it was the right of his client to go to the Court of Appeal.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses and closed its case on November 30, 2010.
Hearing continues on March 25, 2011 in the trial which began in October, 2009.

Accused against judge hearing case

2011-03-17T14:51:00.000Z

February 23, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

TWO of the three soldiers who have been accused of murdering Alhaji Issa Mobilla are praying the Supreme Court to prohibit the trial judge from further hearing their case at the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Thaddeus Sory, counsel for Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka, is praying the highest court of the land to prohibit Mr Justice Senyo Dzamefe from presiding over the trial of his clients on the grounds that he does not have the mandate from the Chief Justice to further hear the case.
The matter was adjourned sine die at the Supreme Court yesterday because a representative from the Attorney-General's office told the court that a Chief State Attorney in charge of the case, Ms Penelope Marmattah, was indisposed.
The court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, accordingly adjourned the case and urged parties in the case to liaise with the Registrar of the Supreme Court for a new date.
It also indicated that it would expect a representative from the Attorney-General's office to argue the case of the state, whether or not Ms Marmattah was present on the next adjourned date.
In the substantive motion, the soldiers are praying the court to prohibit the trial judge on the grounds that because he had no mandate, his continuous hearing of the case will be unconstitutional.
According to the applicants, the trial judge had also exhibited bias against them and for that reason they could not be guaranteed a fair trial.
Meanwhile, the substantive case at the Fast Track High Court has been adjourned to March 24, 2011.
Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and murder.
Their alleged accomplice, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run and is being tried in absentia.
The three were alleged to have murdered Alhaji Mobilla, who was the Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
Mr Justice Dzamefe, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, had, on December 7, 2010, directed the prosecution and the defence teams to file their addresses on whether the trial should continue or start afresh following the recovery of the foreman of the seven-member jury who had suffered a stroke in the course of the trial.
The foreman, who had been replaced with another juror, recuperated before the trial resumed and for that reason Ms Marmattah prayed the court to continue hearing the case, but Mr Sory objected to the continuation of the case and prayed the court to start hearing it afresh.
The trial judge was also expected to decide whether or not he would continue hearing the matter, following an objection from Mr Sory who prayed the judge to step aside following his promotion to the Court of Appeal.
According to Mr Sory, the judge had failed to produce any document to prove that the Chief Justice had appointed him (trial judge) to hear the matter afresh.
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 Mobila 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.

••• And many wailed

2011-02-22T15:41:00.000Z

January 21, 2011 (Page 3)

THE scene on the premises of the Cocoa Affairs Court yesterday was akin to a church crusade, as a large number of the members of the Jesus Prophetic Ministry wailed, trembled and cursed perceived “enemies” of their prophet.
Prophet Kofi Yirenkyi, aka Jesus Onetouch, was being taken away to begin a 10-year jail term for defiling his own daughter and, for more than 30 minutes, the crowd stayed within the premises of the Cocoa Affairs Court, wailing, chanting and invoking curses as they simply could not bring themselves to the reality that the ‘Prophet’ had been jailed.
Led by the prophet’s wife, Madam Akosua Agyeiwaa, members of his family and leading members of the church, the crowd was at it for more than 30 minutes, demonstrating their anguish and pain interspersed with a free flow of bitter comments.
The spouse and the followers of Prophet Onetouch, who was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on each count of defilement and incest, wept bitterly and hurled insults on the victim’s mother (who was not present in court) for bringing such mishap on them.
Some of the comments were, “He did not do it.” “God will prove to the world Jesus Onetouch did not commit the crime”; “May God punish those who have brought this mishap to him”; “Oh God, this is too painful”; and “Oh God, why should this happen?”
A woman even turned to the journalists present and warned them to be careful with their coverage since they too might suffer dire consequences.
The convict, who looked calm, kept repeating, “If I am the one who slept with my daughter, may the Almighty God kill me.”
In apparent reference to the police who refused to allow him to talk to the public, Prophet Onetouch said, “So, after convicting me, you will not allow me to talk to journalists?”
Some members of his church were so angry and sad that they lay flat on the floor, weeping bitterly and wondering why that should happen to a man of God.
Some of them had attempted to cause a stir in the court room but the trial judge, Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, was able to stop them on time by warning the first screamer, “If you cannot take the heat, go outside.”
The judge’s warning kept the followers at bay until they left the court room around 9.51 a.m. to freely express how bitter they were.
The incensed crowd, led by Akosua Agyeiwaa, spoke mostly in Twi and fought the policemen for refusing to allow the convict to interact with the large number of journalists who had thronged the court premises to cover the trial.
Akosua Agyeiwaa, who kept asking, “What will happen to my children?”, was held firmly by her friends and family members and urged to control herself but she would not listen.
Her adrenaline level was so high that she was not bothered about the large number of cameramen who had surrounded her to take pictures.
A similar crowd had been very hostile towards journalists in March 2010 when Prophet Onetouch was first arraigned before the court, but yesterday they threw caution to the wind got drowned in their pain.
The police ignored his comments, managed to keep his aggressive wife at bay and drove him off to begin his sentence.
According to the judge, the prosecution was able to prove that the victim was 10 years old, her hymen had been broken, the convict had slept with her on Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays and wiped off the fluid from the sex before beginning his church service on the mentioned days.
The court held that the prosecution had proved the charge of incest against the convict beyond reasonable doubt because the convict himself had stated that the victim was his biological daughter, while the victim had proved to the court that the convict had slept with her several times and wiped off the fluid from their sex with a white handkerchief.

Jesus Onetouch jailed

2011-02-22T15:39:00.000Z

January 21, 2011 (Lead story)

“IF you cannot take the heat, go outside!” were the words of a circuit court judge to an elderly woman who screamed after Prophet Nana Kofi Yirenkyi, alias Jesus Onetouch, had been handed a 10-year prison term for defiling his 10-year-old daughter.
The trial judge, Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, then proceeded to sentence Jesus Onetouch, the Founder and General Overseer of the Jesus Blood Prophetic Ministry to another 10 years’ imprisonment for incest.
The convict, who had been in detention for the past 11 months, will serve the sentences concurrently.
The judgement was met with screams, curses and wailing by the convict’s wife and his family and church members, but the 47-year-old convict looked calm when the judgement was pronounced.
The police had a tough time controlling the family members, who did not take kindly to the police officers’ decision not to allow the convict to grant an interview to journalists. He was whisked away by armed policemen to begin his sentence around 10.02 a.m.
The convict, however, kept on saying, “If I am the one who slept with my daughter, may the Almighty God kill me,” while his lawyer, Mr K. Adomako Acheampong, assured him that he would file an appeal on his behalf.
On entering the courtroom around 9:13 a.m., Jesus Onetouch enquired from his lawyer why there were so many policemen within the court premises, to which his lawyer asked him to be calm and leave everything to God.
The convict, who wore a dark suit, entered into a moment of prayer before the trial judge was ushered into the courtroom to begin reading her judgement.
In her judgement, Mrs Mensah-Datsa said the prosecution had proved the guilt of the convict beyond reasonable doubt, noting that she took into account the fact that the convict was a first offender and father of six children before passing judgement.
According to the judge, the prosecution was able to prove that the victim was 10 years old, her hymen had been broken, the convict had slept with her on Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays and wiped off the fluid from the sex before beginning his church service on those days.
The court held that the prosecution had proved the charge of incest against the convict beyond reasonable doubt because the convict himself had stated that the victim was his biological daughter, while the victim had proved to the court that the convict had slept with her several times and wiped off the fluid from their sex with a white handkerchief.
Touching on the issue of defilement, it held that the prosecution was able to prove that the victim was below 16, two medical doctors had examined her and stated in their report that her hymen was not intact, while the girl was able to prove that she had been defiled by the convict.
It said it found the victim very truthful in her evidence and further pointed out that other witnesses had corroborated her ordeal.
According to the court, other witnesses also corroborated the victim’s evidence that the convict had warned her of serious consequences if she dared reveal her ordeal to anyone, adding that it was also on record that the convict had pleaded with the police to drop the case.
Touching on the defence team’s argument that the victim’s mother, who was also the complainant in the case, had hatched a plan with her family members to destroy the convict, it said it was difficult to accept that argument because the complainant would not hatch such a plot, considering the societal stigmatisation that would come along with such a plot.
Responding to the convict’s evidence that a man named Efo Emma was the one who ha defiled his daughter and that he (convict) had reported the matter to the police, the court held that there was no evidence on record to prove that the convict had lodged a complaint with the police.
It said from the records it was also clear that the victim’s mother never stated anywhere that she was aware her daughter had been defiled by the said Efo Emma who was once a security man at the convict’s house.
The facts of the case were that the 10-year-old victim confessed that the accused person, 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.
It said 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 about a bad behaviour she was exhibiting.
During the interaction with her mother, the victim revealed her ordeal to her mother, which resulted in the woman lodging a complaint with the police.

Tsatsu's case back • Supreme Court says IFC not immune from Judicial process

2011-02-22T15:35:00.000Z

January 19, 2011 (Lead story)

THE Supreme Court yesterday resurrected the nine-year-old legal tussle between the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, and the state when it ruled that the International Financial Corporation (IFC) is not immune from Ghana’s judicial processes.
The immunity or otherwise of the IFC was in contention following Mr Tsikata's request that the corporation be invited to testify in the case in which he had been charged with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms, a private cocoa producing company, and another count of misapplying GH¢2,000 in public property.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata was found guilty and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently but he was pardoned in December 2008 by former President J.A. Kufuor.
Mr Tsikata, however, rejected the pardon, but prison officials refused his request to stay in prison to fight his cause to the end.
At the Supreme Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, in a unanimous decision it held that The Article of the Legislative Notification 9, The International Bank, Fund and Finance Corporation (Immunities and Exchange Contracts) Order 1958 states, “Actions may be brought against the corporation only in a court of competent jurisdiction in the territories of a member in which the corporation has an office, has appointed an agent for the purpose of accepting service or notice of process, or has issued or guaranteed securities."
The court was presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as members.
However, in a 3-2 majority decision, the court held that under the same Legislative Notification, "No action shall, however, be brought by members or persons acting for or deriving claims from members. The property and assets of the corporation shall, wheresoever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from all seizure, attachment or execution before the delivery of final judgement against the corporation.”
For that reason, the court held that the Country Director and the employees of the IFC could not be called to testify at the lower court where Mr Tsikata had been charged with causing financial loss to the state.
According to the court, Mr Tsikata's individual interest could not override that of the public interest and for that reason the Court of Appeal had not been wrong in upholding the decision of the FTC to withdraw its (FTC's) earlier decision inviting the IFC Country Director to testify in Mr Tsikata's trial.
Ms Justice Akuffo, Mr Justice Ansah and Mrs Justice Adinyira held a majority view on the issue of IFC employees’ immunity from the country's judicial processes.
Reading the judgement of the three on that matter, Mrs Justice Adinyira considered the view of Justice Atuguba that the right to fair trial under the Constitution overrode the immunity of IFC directors and officers as “too sweeping”.
According to her, the constitutional rights of the individual must be balanced against the rights of others and the public interest.
She referred to the Vienna Convention as creating international obligations on the country and, therefore, on individual rights and further indicated that it was only on that single issue that she held a different position from that expressed in the judgement of Justice Atuguba.
The position of Justice Atuguba on that second issue of the immunity of the directors and officers of the IFC was supported by Mrs Justice Akoto-Bamfo.
The two were of the view that the Constitution guaranteed the rights and interests of individuals and for that reason the interest of Mr Tsikata overweighed that of the IFC.
The court should have given its judgement on June 25, 2008 but had to adjourn the case sine die following a request to that effect from Mr Tsikata, who had then been sentenced to a five-year jail term.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which had acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
During Mr Tsikata’s defence, he had stated that the IFC had financed a feasibility study which had been conducted on the Valley Farms project and that study had indicated that the project was viable.
He then prayed the Fast Track High Court to issue a subpoena to the IFC Country Director to appear before the court and make available the feasibility study report on the project.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, granted the request and issued the subpoena, but lawyers for the IFC appeared before the court and argued that the IFC and its employees were immune from judicial processes unless they decided to waive that immunity.
Following the IFC’s submissions, the Fast Track High Court withdrew its earlier subpoena, prompting Mr Tsikata to appeal against the decision, but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court.
He then went to the Supreme Court, praying the highest court of the land to decide on the matter.

Bawku Central MP's case adjourned

2011-02-22T15:26:00.002Z

January 18, 2011 (Page 3)

THE trial of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, on his nationality was yesterday adjourned because the prosecutor in the case is indisposed.
A representative from the Attorney-General’s Office informed the court when the matter was called around 11 a.m. that the prosecutor, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, had been rushed to the hospital due to ill-health and for that reason could not make it to court.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, accordingly adjourned the case to January 25, 2011.
The MP, his lawyers and supporters were present in court.
On October 15, 2010, the prosecution prayed the court to give it enough time to verify the authenticity or otherwise of documents produced by the MP to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship.
The court granted the prosecution’s request after it had overruled an objection from counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, who had prayed the court to refuse the request for an adjournment from the prosecution.
Counsel had argued that the prosecution should have thoroughly investigated the case before wasting the taxpayer’s money, the court’s time and his client’s time.
Mr Wiredu had earlier informed the court that his outfit had submitted, through the Police Forensic Laboratory, the documents tendered by the MP to the British High Commission in Accra.
On October 8, 2010, the MP tendered in evidence documents which bordered on correspondence between his United Kingdom lawyers and the British Home Office which led to the eventual approval of his renunciation of his citizenship in September 2008.
Following the tendering of the said documents, Mr Wiredu informed the court that the defence did not give the prosecution the opportunity to verify the authenticity of the documents because the defence had submitted those documents on a short notice.
According to him, the defence did not give the prosecution the chance to verify the documents before cross-examining on it.
Opposing the application, Mr Kulendi said the prayer from the prosecution was unreasonable, unjustifiable and unwarranted because the prosecution was asking the court to cure an omission it (prosecution) had created.
“We have not invited them to do our case for us. If they believe the documents we tendered are defective and do not comply with the law, it is their gain and our loss,” Mr Kulendi stated, pointing out that the prosecution should have silently investigated the documents and addressed the court on it if it later found them to be fake.
Upholding the prosecution’s plea for an adjournment, Mr Justice Quist said it was important for the court to grant the deferment to enable the prosecution to verify the authenticity of the documents for the cross-examination of the witness to continue.
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.

Sisters remanded for human trafficking

2011-02-22T15:20:00.001Z

January 14, 2011
THREE sisters who allegedly trafficked 10 young girls for labour and prostitution in Nigeria were yesterday arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court on conspiracy and human trafficking charges.
Fati Abukari, Memuna Abukari and Zinabu Abukari, all traders, were said to have been in this illegal profession for the past 10 years.
The three were alleged to have, some time in 2007, trafficked their victims from Agbogloshie in Accra and Gushegu in the Northern Region and transported them to Nigeria for labour and prostitution.
The victims are Ayisha Ibrahim, Zara Abukari, Hamama Dokrugu, Amina Ali, Ikema Alhassan, Adiza Fuseini, Fatima Yakubu, Rahimatu Alhassan, Nasara Adams and Ibrahim Ayisha.
The accused persons each pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and human trafficking and each of them was granted bail in the sum of GH¢10,000 with a surety.
The accused persons were taken into custody, waiting to get sureties to bail them out. They are expected to appear before the court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, on January 17, 2011.
Prosecuting, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ms Mary Agbozo, told the court that the complainant in the case was a member of staff of the Regional Advocacy Information and Network System (RAINS), a non-governmental organisation, while the accused persons lived in Ghana and Nigeria.
According to the prosecutor, on December 28, 2010, a victim confided in the complainant that about four years ago she and other girls were recruited by the accused persons from Agbogloshie and Gushegu and transported to Nigeria under the pretext of securing them jobs.
The victim told the complainant that she and the other girls were made to sell porridge during the day and forced to engage in prostitution during the night.
According to her, the accused persons took all the proceeds from the sale of the porridge and the prostitution, without paying her and her colleagues.
In the process, one of the girls was forced into marriage, while one of them went through a series of abortions as a result of having unprotected sex with her male customers.
During investigations, it emerged that the accused persons had been in the trafficking trade for the past 10 years.
They denied committing any offence but admitted transporting a number of girls to Nigeria for work.
Ten of the rescued girls are currently in a safe shelter.

Case of Asabee, eight others adjourned

2011-02-22T14:47:00.002Z

January 13, 2011 (Page 3)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday adjourned the case involving a former Minister for Information, Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, aka Asabee, and eight others over an GH¢86,915.85 contract for renovation works at the ministry following the absence of the prosecutor and a witness in the case.
The court adjourned the case to February 9, 2011 as a result of the absence of Mr Anthony Gyambiby, a Chief State Attorney, and a witness in the case, Mr Samuel Okudzeto-Ablakwa.
Mr Ablakwa was expected to be cross-examined by the defence team but he was absent when the matter was called. No reason was given for his absence.
A representative from the Attorney-General's office who had come to the court to do a case could not explain what had led to Mr Gyambiby’s absence.
Following the development, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, directed that hearing notices should be served on parties in the case to enable them to attend court on the next adjourned date.
The accused persons were present in court.
Mr Asamoah-Boateng and his wife, Zuleika, are standing trial with Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister at the ministry; Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, a former Director of Finance and Administration at the Ministry of Information; Kwabena Denkyira, a former Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Yasmin Domua and Prosper Aku of Supreme Procurement Agency Ltd, as well as the company as an entity, charged with contravening the Procurement Act.
They are alleged to have conspired to contravene the Procurement Act by not following the due process in obtaining a contract amounting to GH¢86,915.85 for renovation works at the Ministry of Information.
Sampong is facing six counts of conspiracy, contravention of the Procurement Act, attempt to defraud, altering documents and deceit of public officer, while Agyekum has been charged with conspiracy, contravention of provision, attempt to defraud and deceit of public officer.
Domua, a manageress and cousin of Zuleika’s, is charged with conspiracy to commit crime, after which she was granted a GH¢10,000 bail with two sureties.
Kofi Asamoah-Boateng faces six counts of forgery of official document, possession of forged documents and forgery and possession of false document, while Denkyira faces a charge of conspiracy.
Prosper has also been charged with four counts of possession and forgery of document of architects, an engineering certificate and a false tender document.
All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have all been admitted to bail.
Mr Ablakwa had, in October 2010, stated in his evidence-in-chief that the accused persons did not comply with procurement procedures before the award of the contract.
He is expected to be cross-examined by defence lawyers on February 9, 2011.

Amina's case adjourned

2011-02-22T14:45:00.000Z

January 7, 2011 (Centre Spread)

THE trial involving Amina Mohammed, the woman at the centre of the rape and robbery case, resumes on January 31, 2011.
The case, which was billed to be heard yesterday, was adjourned because the trial judge, Mrs Patience Mills-Tetteh, is on her annual leave.
Court clerks gave the new date when the accused person, the defence team and the prosecution arrived at the court.
Three witnesses have so far testified in the trial which began in November 2010.
Amina Mohammed has been charged with one count of publishing false news with intent to cause fear and panic.
She has pleaded not guilty and has been granted bail in the sum of GH¢5,000 with a surety.
The facts of Amina’s case are that she granted interviews to radio stations on October 26, 2010 and stated, among other things, that she was among passengers on a bus which was attacked by armed robbers when the bus reached Kintampo and that in the process the robbers ordered a mass rape of female occupants.
She was also quoted as saying that a father was ordered to rape his 14-year-old daughter.
According to the prosecution, investigations revealed that no such incident did occur and that the driver of the said bus reported a case to the Ejisu Police and stated in his statement that his bus had nearly been attacked by robbers at Kubease but he managed to escape, although the windscreen of his vehicle was hit by a bullet.
It further stated that the driver of the bus drove off 30 minutes after reporting the incident, which occurred about 10 p.m. on October 11, 2010.

The Amina Mohammed case - Witness refuses bail but •••

2010-12-23T17:46:00.000Z

Thursday, December 23, 2010 (Page 3)

A young man who said he was on a bus with Amina Mohammed and others when the alleged mass rape and robbery took place in October 2010 yesterday prayed the Accra Circuit Court to refuse him bail.
Michael Frimpong did not give any reason for his request but the presiding judge, Mr Kyei Baffour, declined his weird request and granted him bail in the sum of GH¢10,000 with three sureties.
The accused person, who has pleaded not guilty to one count of deceit of public officer, claimed that on the day of the said robbery, he could not have erection until he was hit with the butt of a gun that made him have sex with a 40-year-old woman.
When the matter was called in Accra yesterday, a State Attorney, Mr Paul A. Abariga, informed the court that the prosecution was not opposed to bail because investigations into the matter had been completed.
However, Michael shocked the court when he indicated he did not need bail. He said he wanted to be held in custody but the court held a different view and accordingly granted him bail.
Counsel for Amina Mohammed, Mr Andy Appiah-Kubi, however, alleged that Michael was a potential witness for Amina and was, therefore, being harassed by the police not to testify for Amina.
His claim has been described as false by Mr Abariga, who argued that it would be most unfortunate for the police to allow a criminal to walk the streets without being made to face the law.
The brief facts of the case were that the accused person went to the premises of a radio station in Achimota and pleaded for airtime to confirm Amina Mohammed’s claim that robbers attacked passengers when they reached Kintampo and that in the process, the robbers ordered a mass rape of female occupants of their bus.
According to the prosecution, the manager of the station did not give Michael the airtime and rather called the police who effected his (Michael’s) arrest.
The prosecution said Michael told the police during investigations that the bus he and Amina travelled on was a green OA bus but investigations later revealed that the said bus was rather an ash Yutong bus.
The prosecution further pointed out that Michael told investigators he had a ticket to prove he was on board the bus but he failed to produce the said ticket.
His case has been adjourned to January 17, 2011.
Meanwhile, Amina Mohammed, the woman at the centre of the rape and robbery story, has been charged with one count of publishing false news with intent to cause fear and panic.
She has pleaded not guilty and has been granted bail in the sum of GH¢5,000 with a surety.
Her trial has been adjourned to January 11, 2011.
The brief facts of Amina’s case were that she granted interviews to radio stations on October 26, 2010 and stated among other things that she was among passengers on a bus which was attacked by armed robbers when they reached Kintampo and that in the process the robbers ordered a mass rape of female occupants.
She was also quoted as saying a father was ordered to rape his 14-year-old daughter.
According to the prosecution, investigations revealed that such incident did not occur and said the driver of the said bus reported a case to the Ejisu Police and stated in his statement that his bus was nearly attacked by robbers at Kubease but he managed to escape although the windscreen of his vehicle was hit by a gunshot.
The prosecution further stated that the driver of the bus drove off 30 minutes after reporting the incident, which occurred at about 10 p.m. on October 11, 2010.