Bawku MP appeals against High Court decision

July 19, 2011 (Centre Spread)

THE Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, has appealed against a High CourtÕs decision which directed that the state could recall a witness in his nationality trial if it wished to do so.According to lawyers for the MP, it was wrong for the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, to direct the prosecution on how to conduct its trial.The court had, on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed ÒambiguityÓ arising from the MPÕs evidence and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his British nationality status.Lead counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, is arguing that it was wrong for the court to direct the prosecution to recall a witness months after the prosecution had closed its case and especially when it had not made such a request.According to the defence, the trial judge assumed the role of a lawyer when he directed the prosecution to recall a witness if it so wished.Meanwhile, the defence team has filed for stay of proceedings at the lower court pending the determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.At the Court of Appeal sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said the prosecution had not filed its affidavit in opposition to the MPÕs application because he had been out of the jurisdiction.He also raised a preliminary objection to the motion for stay of proceedings and stated that the defence should have filed for stay of proceedings at the High Court and not the Court of Appeal, as stated in Section 28 of C.I. 19.However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke, with Justices F. Kusi-Appiah and Dennis Adjei as panel members, drew Mr WireduÕs attention to Section 27 of C.I. 19 and stated that the High Court could not stay its own proceedings.According to the court, the section Mr Wiredu quoted referred only to stay of execution of a courtÕs order and not stay of proceedings. Mr Wiredu conceded.The court then dismissed his preliminary objection and gave the prosecution 10 days to file its affidavit in opposition.On June 8, 2011, the High Court, after giving the prosecution the opportunity to recall a witness, however, refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, Mr Justice Quist devoted a major part of his ruling to explain why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MPÕs claims, citing authorities.Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Kulendi, in his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his clientÕs defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but he was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.