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.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Asamoah-Boateng's case adjourned to April 20
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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'
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.
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
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.
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.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Expired corned beef supplier before court
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Accused persons in Ya-Na's murder case freed
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Judge stopped from hearing Mobilla's case
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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'
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)