Osei-Adjei has no case to answer - Counsel

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

COUNSEL for Akwasi Osei-Adjei, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs who is standing trial with another for allegedly causing financial loss to the state resulting from importation of rice from India, has argued that the state failed to make a case against his client to warrant the court to order him to open his defence.
In a written “submission of no case” filed on Osei-Adjei’s behalf by his lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, yesterday, the defence argued that the prosecution’s assertion that Osei-Adjei and the former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Charles Daniel Gyimah, did not heed to the Public Procurement Act was false and out of place.
Osei-Adjei and Gyimah have been accused of wilfully causing financial loss to the state for allegedly acting together to steal 2,997 bags of rice, valued at US$1,408,590.
However, lawyers for the accused persons have argued that diplomatic efforts embarked upon by the accused persons to solve the food shortage in the country have been “criminalised”.
The two have been charged with eight counts of conspiracy, contravention of provisions of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663), using public office for profit, stealing and wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have been admitted to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000 with two sureties each to be justified.
According to Mr Dame, the Public Procurement Act did not apply in this case because public funds were not used to procure the rice.
The written address also stated that Osei-Adjei could not have stolen the rice because he and Gyimah had not been involved in the packaging, transportation and discharge of the rice.
It argued that the accused persons did not have access to the warehouse where the rice had been kept, adding that there was also no evidence on record to suggest that the rice had been diverted by the accused persons on the high seas.
The written address also pointed out that all the prosecution witnesses had informed the court during their testimonies that they (prosecution witnesses) had not seen the accused persons divert the rice.
The defence further argued that the government had kept the rice at the warehouse for seven months before releasing it to the NIB, pointing out that the delay in the release of the rice had led to the spoilage of some of it, thereby reducing its value.
It said the decision to keep the rice at the warehouse for seven months had nothing to do with the accused persons and, therefore, if any loss had resulted from the sale of the rice, that loss could not be linked to the accused persons.
It further argued that the accused persons had not been involved in the sale of the rice to cause any financial loss to the state.
The defence submitted further that the NIB had bought the rice and paid for it and, therefore, it belonged to the bank and not the government.
According to the written address, the accused persons did not have a hand in the storage of the rice which had resulted in a large chunk of it going bad due to poor storage.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Bright Mensah, directed counsel for Gyimah to file his written address on or before December 31, 2010, while the prosecution was directed to file its written address on or before January 26, 2011.
The prosecution called 17 witnesses in the trial which began in October 2009.
Hearing continues on January 26, 2011.