Ghanair case adjourned

June 1, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE case involving five persons accused of causing financial loss related to the sale of Ghana Airways and the operations of Ghana International Airline (GIA) was yesterday adjourned because the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is out of the country.
The matter was, accordingly, adjourned to June 21, 2010, by which time she would have arrived to respond to an application filed by counsel for the accused persons which is praying the Financial Division of the High Court to refer their request for relevant documents on the case to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
The accused persons — Dr Richard Anane, a former Minister of Transport; Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, a former Chief of Staff and Minister for Presidential Affairs; Dr Anthony Akoto Osei, a former Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; Mr Sammy Crabbe, a former Greater Accra Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and Prof George Gyan-Baffour — variously face 22 counts of causing financial loss to the state, defrauding by false pretences, conspiracy to deceive public officers, deceit of public officer, misappropriation of public funds, opening an offshore account without authorisation from the Bank of Ghana (BoG), conspiracy to commit stealing and stealing.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, has granted them self-recognisance bail.
At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, an Assistant State Attorney, Mr Kwame Amoako, told the court that the DPP, Ms Gertrude Aikins, was in Uganda on a national assignment, for which reason the prosecution would need an adjournment.
The court also granted a request by Mr Sam Okudzeto, counsel for Prof Gyan-Baffour, to grant his client permission to receive medical treatment in the United States of America (USA) from June 5, 2010 to June 25, 2010.
All the accused persons were present and, as usual, their family members and sympathisers thronged the court premises in their numbers to give them support.
Counsel for the accused persons have filed applications requesting for relevant documents to aid their defence, under Article 19 (2e) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “a person charged with criminal offence shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”.
But the State has opposed the application on the grounds that sections 163 and 181 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 (Act 30) do not allow accused persons who are standing trial summarily to have access to such documents.
Following the State's opposition, lawyers for the accused are praying the court to refer their request for an order directed at the Attorney-General to furnish them with all documents and exhibits the prosecution intends to rely on during the trial to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
According to the lawyers, Act 30, which the State relied on, clearly contravened Article 19 (2e) of the 1992 Constitution, which they described as being "supreme to all laws of the land".
According to the accused persons, all documents, including letters, technical evaluations and reports, business plans, press releases, Cabinet memos, memoranda of understanding (MoU), shareholders’ agreement, tenancy agreements, among a host of others, were what the prosecution intended to rely on during the trial and it was important that they had access to those documents in order to have a fair trial, as enshrined in the Constitution.
The lawyers have argued that the Constitution compelled the Attorney-General to provide the accused persons with appropriate documents to facilitate their defence and further argued that the apparent conflict between the prosecution and the defence needed to be handled by the Supreme Court.
Issues intended to be referred to the Supreme Court are whether or not within the plain, natural and practical meaning of Article 19 (1) and (2e) of the Constitution, an accused person in a criminal trial, whether charged summarily or by indictment, is entitled to a disclosure of copies of statements made to police by persons who will and may be called to testify as prosecution witnesses and copies of documents and exhibits which are to be offered in evidence by the prosecution before trial, among others.