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.
No comments:
Post a Comment