June9, 2011
THE Accra Fast Track High Court on June 8, 2011 granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness in the trial of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed “ambiguity” arising from the evidence of the MP and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his nationality status.
However, the court refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.
Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, devoted a major part of his ruling to why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MP’s claims, citing authorities.
Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, on his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.
After the ruling, the court declined to grant the defence team’s request for a short adjournment to enable it (defence team) to study the ruling for the necessary action to be taken.
Following the court’s refusal to adjourn the matter, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, continued with his cross-examination of the accused person.
During the cross-examination, the MP denied assertions from the prosecution that he had forged his renunciation papers to throw dust in the eyes of the court.
The prosecution has since completed cross-examining the MP.
On May 24, 2011, Mr Kulendi had argued that it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the NSS and other agencies.
Mr Wiredu had urged the MP to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the National Security Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
According to him, the documents were concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice had been shut on the prosecution.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Contempt case against AMA boss - Bailiff summoned before court
June 8, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday directed its registrar to summon a bailiff before it today for it to determine whether or not the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, had been served with two contempt applications pending against him and another.
In the first contempt application, Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Dr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is also a defendant in the second contempt application which accused him of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The Fast Track High Court which is hearing both applications directed the registrar to summon the bailiff to testify as to whether or not he had served the respondents following a claim by counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that the AMA had not been served with both applications.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, said the records before him indicated that the AMA had been served.
Ms Fenteng then prayed the court to summon the bailiff to come and explain where and on whom he had served the documents.
Following the development, the court adjourned proceedings to today.
In the substantive suit, the AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf of the AAG by its lawyer, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, said the respondents had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before the trial judge.
The AMA has denied the AAG's claims and advised the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if it was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed 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 notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited suit against the AMA and Via Afrinity Ghana Limited, a company run by Mr Yankah, the applicant is praying the court to declare that a contract dated December 12, 2009 and titled "Supply of Services Agreement" between the AMA and Via Afrinity Limited was a public procurement service and must, therefore, conform to all requirements laid down in the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
It said the court should also declare that a sole or single sourcing procedure adopted by the AMA in executing the contract without the permission of the Minister of Finance amounted to a violation of the mandatory provision of the PPA.
The applicant is also praying the court to declare as null and void the entire contract on the grounds that it violated Section 35 of the PPA, as well as perpetually restrain Via Afrinity Ghana Limited from exercising any functions or duties conferred by the said contract.
Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited is imploring the court to order Via Afrinity Ghana Limited to refund any or all moneys or payments made to it from public or any funds as a result of the said contract, as well as any other cost the court might deem fit.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday directed its registrar to summon a bailiff before it today for it to determine whether or not the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, had been served with two contempt applications pending against him and another.
In the first contempt application, Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Dr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.
Mr Yankah is also a defendant in the second contempt application which accused him of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.
The Fast Track High Court which is hearing both applications directed the registrar to summon the bailiff to testify as to whether or not he had served the respondents following a claim by counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that the AMA had not been served with both applications.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, said the records before him indicated that the AMA had been served.
Ms Fenteng then prayed the court to summon the bailiff to come and explain where and on whom he had served the documents.
Following the development, the court adjourned proceedings to today.
In the substantive suit, the AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf of the AAG by its lawyer, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, said the respondents had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before the trial judge.
The AMA has denied the AAG's claims and advised the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if it was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed 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 notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited suit against the AMA and Via Afrinity Ghana Limited, a company run by Mr Yankah, the applicant is praying the court to declare that a contract dated December 12, 2009 and titled "Supply of Services Agreement" between the AMA and Via Afrinity Limited was a public procurement service and must, therefore, conform to all requirements laid down in the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
It said the court should also declare that a sole or single sourcing procedure adopted by the AMA in executing the contract without the permission of the Minister of Finance amounted to a violation of the mandatory provision of the PPA.
The applicant is also praying the court to declare as null and void the entire contract on the grounds that it violated Section 35 of the PPA, as well as perpetually restrain Via Afrinity Ghana Limited from exercising any functions or duties conferred by the said contract.
Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited is imploring the court to order Via Afrinity Ghana Limited to refund any or all moneys or payments made to it from public or any funds as a result of the said contract, as well as any other cost the court might deem fit.
The political scene - Court to decide on PNC case
June 8, 2011 (Front Page)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court will, on June 24, 2011, decide whether or not to cite the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others for contempt of court.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
The other respondents, who are all executives of the PNC, are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Mornah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
The respondents had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court, but on May 12, 2011 it dismissed the application and fixed yesterday for hearing the contempt application.
Moving the motion for contempt, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said apart from Dr Mahama and Mr Mornah, the other respondents had not opposed the application for contempt.
He said the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference, thereby mocking the said court order.
According to counsel, the action of the respondents amounted to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard for the authority and prestige of the court and had, therefore, brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Mr Chambers argued that the court’s order was directed at all party members and for that reason the High Court should punish the respondents as a lesson to others.
Opposing the application, counsel for the respondents, Mr James Agalga, described the applicants’ motion as vexatious and without basis in law.
According to counsel, the lower court’s order was directed at the applicants who had earlier broken into the party office, vandalised party property, as well as made away with party property.
He further stated that the lower court’s order was lacking in terms of clarity and was vague where his clients were concerned but precise and clear where Dr Tobiga and the other applicants were concerned.
Mr Agalga, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the contempt application with punitive costs.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court will, on June 24, 2011, decide whether or not to cite the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others for contempt of court.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
The press conference, according to the applicants, was captured on national television.
The other respondents, who are all executives of the PNC, are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Mornah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
The respondents had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court, but on May 12, 2011 it dismissed the application and fixed yesterday for hearing the contempt application.
Moving the motion for contempt, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said apart from Dr Mahama and Mr Mornah, the other respondents had not opposed the application for contempt.
He said the respondents flouted the court's order by forcibly breaking into the party's office to organise a press conference, thereby mocking the said court order.
According to counsel, the action of the respondents amounted to the showing of gross disrespect, disregard for the authority and prestige of the court and had, therefore, brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Mr Chambers argued that the court’s order was directed at all party members and for that reason the High Court should punish the respondents as a lesson to others.
Opposing the application, counsel for the respondents, Mr James Agalga, described the applicants’ motion as vexatious and without basis in law.
According to counsel, the lower court’s order was directed at the applicants who had earlier broken into the party office, vandalised party property, as well as made away with party property.
He further stated that the lower court’s order was lacking in terms of clarity and was vague where his clients were concerned but precise and clear where Dr Tobiga and the other applicants were concerned.
Mr Agalga, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the contempt application with punitive costs.
Mzbel and friends remanded • For assaulting police officer
June 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
A popular female musician, Mzbel, known in private life as Nana Akua Amoah, was yesterday remanded with two others by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Her two accomplices are Maxwell Mensah, a businessman, and Emmanuel Edem Lordzoh, a student.
The three, their family members and followers were thrown into a state of shock when the trial judge, Mr Emmanuel Plange-Brew, decided to remand them until Friday, June 10, 2011.
Mzbel, who wore a dark dress with dark sunglasses to match, was seen making and receiving several phone calls while being instructed by her lawyers before the trial judge entered the courtroom.
She pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Maxwell was charged with four counts of unauthorised parking, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, while Emmanuel was charged with driving without licence.
The two also pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The accused persons were alleged to have committed the offence with a Mitsubishi vehicle, with registration number GR 9470-11, at Tudu in Accra about 12.40 p.m. on June 4, 2011.
Earlier, lead counsel for the accused persons, Mr Addo Atuah, had denied the allegations levelled against his clients and said there was a video recording of the incident and at the appropriate time the court would have the opportunity to arrive at the truth.
He said it was impossible for a frail-looking person like Mzbel to assault a police officer, adding that he would prove the innocence of the accused persons in due course.
Mr Atuah gave the assurance that his clients would avail themselves for trial and that they all had fixed places of abode and were, therefore, in a position to meet the bail conditions.
Prosecuting, Chief Inspector Dora Seiwaah, said the accused persons parked their vehicle at the wrong side of the road on the said date, leading to heavy vehicular traffic.
She said a police officer who was on duty on that stretch of the road decided to investigate the cause of the traffic and, on reaching the Tudu side of the road, he realised that the Mitsubishi vehicle which belonged to Mzbel was the cause of the traffic.
The prosecutor said the police officer observed that the car's ignition was on, while Mzbel and Emmanuel sat in the vehicle.
On seeing the police officer, who asked why the vehicle had been parked in such a haphazard manner, Emmanuel moved to the front seat to move the vehicle from where it was parked.
While the police officer demanded Emmanuel's licence, Maxwell emerged and ordered the police officer to leave the scene.
According to the prosecutor, Maxwell allegedly moved the vehicle and attempted to hit the police officer, who managed to jump onto the bonnet.
Not satisfied, Maxwell allegedly sped off and drove the vehicle in a zigzag manner in his bid to throw the police officer off the bonnet of the vehicle, to the shock of onlookers and other motorists.
A bullion van which was on the scene tracked Mzbel's vehicle until it managed to cross it to stop Maxwell from injuring the police officer.
The policeman then made an attempt to arrest Maxwell, but the policeman was allegedly assaulted by Mzbel, who claimed ownership of the vehicle.
Other police officers and witnesses managed to rescue the police officer from the grip of Mzbel.
Inspector Seiwaah said Mzbel and her alleged accomplices would have been lynched by a mob if she had not been taken from the scene of the incident.
A popular female musician, Mzbel, known in private life as Nana Akua Amoah, was yesterday remanded with two others by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Her two accomplices are Maxwell Mensah, a businessman, and Emmanuel Edem Lordzoh, a student.
The three, their family members and followers were thrown into a state of shock when the trial judge, Mr Emmanuel Plange-Brew, decided to remand them until Friday, June 10, 2011.
Mzbel, who wore a dark dress with dark sunglasses to match, was seen making and receiving several phone calls while being instructed by her lawyers before the trial judge entered the courtroom.
She pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer from executing his duties.
Maxwell was charged with four counts of unauthorised parking, resisting arrest and assault on a police officer, while Emmanuel was charged with driving without licence.
The two also pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The accused persons were alleged to have committed the offence with a Mitsubishi vehicle, with registration number GR 9470-11, at Tudu in Accra about 12.40 p.m. on June 4, 2011.
Earlier, lead counsel for the accused persons, Mr Addo Atuah, had denied the allegations levelled against his clients and said there was a video recording of the incident and at the appropriate time the court would have the opportunity to arrive at the truth.
He said it was impossible for a frail-looking person like Mzbel to assault a police officer, adding that he would prove the innocence of the accused persons in due course.
Mr Atuah gave the assurance that his clients would avail themselves for trial and that they all had fixed places of abode and were, therefore, in a position to meet the bail conditions.
Prosecuting, Chief Inspector Dora Seiwaah, said the accused persons parked their vehicle at the wrong side of the road on the said date, leading to heavy vehicular traffic.
She said a police officer who was on duty on that stretch of the road decided to investigate the cause of the traffic and, on reaching the Tudu side of the road, he realised that the Mitsubishi vehicle which belonged to Mzbel was the cause of the traffic.
The prosecutor said the police officer observed that the car's ignition was on, while Mzbel and Emmanuel sat in the vehicle.
On seeing the police officer, who asked why the vehicle had been parked in such a haphazard manner, Emmanuel moved to the front seat to move the vehicle from where it was parked.
While the police officer demanded Emmanuel's licence, Maxwell emerged and ordered the police officer to leave the scene.
According to the prosecutor, Maxwell allegedly moved the vehicle and attempted to hit the police officer, who managed to jump onto the bonnet.
Not satisfied, Maxwell allegedly sped off and drove the vehicle in a zigzag manner in his bid to throw the police officer off the bonnet of the vehicle, to the shock of onlookers and other motorists.
A bullion van which was on the scene tracked Mzbel's vehicle until it managed to cross it to stop Maxwell from injuring the police officer.
The policeman then made an attempt to arrest Maxwell, but the policeman was allegedly assaulted by Mzbel, who claimed ownership of the vehicle.
Other police officers and witnesses managed to rescue the police officer from the grip of Mzbel.
Inspector Seiwaah said Mzbel and her alleged accomplices would have been lynched by a mob if she had not been taken from the scene of the incident.
Trader abuses mentally retarded person
June 4, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
A trader who allegedly had canal knowledge of a mentally retarded 18-year-old female was yesterday remanded in custody by an Accra Circuit Court.
Frank Owusu, 40, was charged with one count of having canal knowledge of a female idiot.
He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and will reappear on June 15, 2011.
Presenting the facts of the case, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mrs Sarah Acquah, told the court that the complainant is a 59-year-old trader who lived at Dome Pillar Two, a suburb of Accra, with the victim and other family members.
The accused person, on the other hand, live in a kiosk near the victim's house.
Around 8 a.m. on May 18, 2011, the accused person approached the victim at home and lured her to a nearby uncompleted building and forcibly had sex with her.
A witness in the case, who chanced upon the accused person having sex with the victim, raised an alarm, thereby attracting another witness to the scene.
The two witnesses rescued the victim and took her home.
A complaint was subsequently lodged with the police, who issued a form to the victim to seek medical attention.
Owusu was arrested after investigations and charged with the offence.
The accused person admitted in his caution statement that although he had taken the victim to the uncompleted building, he had not had sex her with her.
A trader who allegedly had canal knowledge of a mentally retarded 18-year-old female was yesterday remanded in custody by an Accra Circuit Court.
Frank Owusu, 40, was charged with one count of having canal knowledge of a female idiot.
He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and will reappear on June 15, 2011.
Presenting the facts of the case, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mrs Sarah Acquah, told the court that the complainant is a 59-year-old trader who lived at Dome Pillar Two, a suburb of Accra, with the victim and other family members.
The accused person, on the other hand, live in a kiosk near the victim's house.
Around 8 a.m. on May 18, 2011, the accused person approached the victim at home and lured her to a nearby uncompleted building and forcibly had sex with her.
A witness in the case, who chanced upon the accused person having sex with the victim, raised an alarm, thereby attracting another witness to the scene.
The two witnesses rescued the victim and took her home.
A complaint was subsequently lodged with the police, who issued a form to the victim to seek medical attention.
Owusu was arrested after investigations and charged with the offence.
The accused person admitted in his caution statement that although he had taken the victim to the uncompleted building, he had not had sex her with her.
FARMER SWINDLES ACCOUNTANT • He fraudulently sells school
June 4, 2011 (Lead Story)
A farmer who allegedly impersonated the owner of the Association International School (AIS) and succeeded in defrauding a chartered accountant named Frederick Sappor to the tune of GH¢450,000 and $15,000 has been remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Emmanuel Kwabena Gainfort managed to procure a passport bearing the name of the original owner of the school, Emmanuel George Amoah, to defraud the accountant.
Four other accomplices — Collins Amoateng, Nana Bonsu, Arka and Bismark Osei Danso — are currently on the run.
Gainfort will reappear before the court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, on June 14, 2011.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and defrauding by false pretences.
The facts of the case are that a year ago the complainant wanted a plot of land to buy and, therefore, contacted a number of agents to assist.
The complainant then received a call from Amoateng, who said he had a parcel of land at the Airport Residential Area for sale.
The agent led the complainant to the said land for inspection but the complainant later said he was not in a position to buy it.
However, the complainant's brother-in-law, who is a chartered accountant, later expressed interest in the said land which was situated at the Nursery Section of the AIS.
The chartered accountant then met Gainfort, who introduced himself as the owner of the AIS.
He was able to produce a passport and other documents bearing the name of the owner of the AIS in his bid to convince the accountant to part with money.
The complainant went to the Lands Commission to verify the authenticity of Gainfort's claims and the search there proved that the owner of the school was, indeed, George Emmanuel Amoah.
Satisfied with the outcome of the search, the complainant and his brother-in-law paid the $15,000 and GH¢450,000 to Gainfort and Amoateng.
The complainant, after a few days, went to conduct further inspection on the land and, in the process, met a number of people who said they were potential buyers on inspection.
On realising that his brother in-law had been defrauded, he made strenuous efforts to get in touch with Gainfort, all to no avail.
The complainant conducted further investigations and found out that Gainfort had impersonated the original owner of the AIS.
The complainant, accordingly, lodged a complaint with the police on May 30, 2011, leading to the subsequent arrest of Gainfort at his hideout at Kpando.
Efforts are underway to apprehend the other accused persons.
A farmer who allegedly impersonated the owner of the Association International School (AIS) and succeeded in defrauding a chartered accountant named Frederick Sappor to the tune of GH¢450,000 and $15,000 has been remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
Emmanuel Kwabena Gainfort managed to procure a passport bearing the name of the original owner of the school, Emmanuel George Amoah, to defraud the accountant.
Four other accomplices — Collins Amoateng, Nana Bonsu, Arka and Bismark Osei Danso — are currently on the run.
Gainfort will reappear before the court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, on June 14, 2011.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and defrauding by false pretences.
The facts of the case are that a year ago the complainant wanted a plot of land to buy and, therefore, contacted a number of agents to assist.
The complainant then received a call from Amoateng, who said he had a parcel of land at the Airport Residential Area for sale.
The agent led the complainant to the said land for inspection but the complainant later said he was not in a position to buy it.
However, the complainant's brother-in-law, who is a chartered accountant, later expressed interest in the said land which was situated at the Nursery Section of the AIS.
The chartered accountant then met Gainfort, who introduced himself as the owner of the AIS.
He was able to produce a passport and other documents bearing the name of the owner of the AIS in his bid to convince the accountant to part with money.
The complainant went to the Lands Commission to verify the authenticity of Gainfort's claims and the search there proved that the owner of the school was, indeed, George Emmanuel Amoah.
Satisfied with the outcome of the search, the complainant and his brother-in-law paid the $15,000 and GH¢450,000 to Gainfort and Amoateng.
The complainant, after a few days, went to conduct further inspection on the land and, in the process, met a number of people who said they were potential buyers on inspection.
On realising that his brother in-law had been defrauded, he made strenuous efforts to get in touch with Gainfort, all to no avail.
The complainant conducted further investigations and found out that Gainfort had impersonated the original owner of the AIS.
The complainant, accordingly, lodged a complaint with the police on May 30, 2011, leading to the subsequent arrest of Gainfort at his hideout at Kpando.
Efforts are underway to apprehend the other accused persons.
Ga Mantse wins defamation case
June 3, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday slapped the Dzasetse of the Ga Paramount Stool, Nii Yaote Oto-Ga II, with GH¢500,000 damages for defaming the Ga Mantse, King Tackie Tawiah III.
Nii Oto-Ga, known in private life as Emmanuel Tackie Yarboi, who is a member of the rival faction poised to wrest the Ga Stool from the Ga Mantse, was also ordered to pay GH¢10,000 costs in favour of the Ga Mantse for falsely alleging that the Ga Mantse had forged President J.E.A. Mills’s signature on a document to give the impression that he (Ga Mantse) was the recognised and legitimate occupant of the Ga Stool.
The allegation was made in a press statement signed by Nii Oto-Ga, issued on April 17, 2009 and copied to the Greater Accra Regional Minister, the Greater Accra Regional Police Commander, the Security Advisor to the President at the Castle, Osu, and the National Security Co-ordinator.
Nii Oto-Ga’s allegation, which was widely circulated in the media and on the Internet, meant and was understood to mean that the Ga Mantse was a fraudster, a forger and dishonest man with criminal tendencies.
Following the defendant’s inability to substantiate the allegation and his further failure to withdraw and apologise, the Ga Mantse filed a suit at the Fast Track High Court, claiming GH¢6 million in general damages for libel, costs and other relief the court might deem fit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice E. A. Asante, however, declined to award the GH¢6 million general damages sought by the Ga Mantse and rather awarded GH¢500,000.
It said it took into account the stature of the Ga Mantse in society and the effect the defamatory remarks would have on him.
The court, after taking evidence from parties in the case, held that the defendant had failed to substantiate the allegation he had levelled against the Ga Mantse.
It was also of the view that the defendant deliberately and recklessly made the malicious statement without taking into consideration whether it was true or false.
The court was of the view that Nii Oto-Ga had made the malicious statement in a deliberate and calculated attempt to cause maximum damage in order to hurt the Ga Mantse’s reputation.
Citing authorities to buttress its decision, it held that the plaintiff was able to lead ample evidence to prove that the defendant had been given fair and ample opportunity to retract and apologise to the Ga Mantse for the defamatory statement but the defendant refused to do so.
It further stated that the Ga Mantse had been able to prove that the defendant treated his demand for an apology and a retraction with contempt.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday slapped the Dzasetse of the Ga Paramount Stool, Nii Yaote Oto-Ga II, with GH¢500,000 damages for defaming the Ga Mantse, King Tackie Tawiah III.
Nii Oto-Ga, known in private life as Emmanuel Tackie Yarboi, who is a member of the rival faction poised to wrest the Ga Stool from the Ga Mantse, was also ordered to pay GH¢10,000 costs in favour of the Ga Mantse for falsely alleging that the Ga Mantse had forged President J.E.A. Mills’s signature on a document to give the impression that he (Ga Mantse) was the recognised and legitimate occupant of the Ga Stool.
The allegation was made in a press statement signed by Nii Oto-Ga, issued on April 17, 2009 and copied to the Greater Accra Regional Minister, the Greater Accra Regional Police Commander, the Security Advisor to the President at the Castle, Osu, and the National Security Co-ordinator.
Nii Oto-Ga’s allegation, which was widely circulated in the media and on the Internet, meant and was understood to mean that the Ga Mantse was a fraudster, a forger and dishonest man with criminal tendencies.
Following the defendant’s inability to substantiate the allegation and his further failure to withdraw and apologise, the Ga Mantse filed a suit at the Fast Track High Court, claiming GH¢6 million in general damages for libel, costs and other relief the court might deem fit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice E. A. Asante, however, declined to award the GH¢6 million general damages sought by the Ga Mantse and rather awarded GH¢500,000.
It said it took into account the stature of the Ga Mantse in society and the effect the defamatory remarks would have on him.
The court, after taking evidence from parties in the case, held that the defendant had failed to substantiate the allegation he had levelled against the Ga Mantse.
It was also of the view that the defendant deliberately and recklessly made the malicious statement without taking into consideration whether it was true or false.
The court was of the view that Nii Oto-Ga had made the malicious statement in a deliberate and calculated attempt to cause maximum damage in order to hurt the Ga Mantse’s reputation.
Citing authorities to buttress its decision, it held that the plaintiff was able to lead ample evidence to prove that the defendant had been given fair and ample opportunity to retract and apologise to the Ga Mantse for the defamatory statement but the defendant refused to do so.
It further stated that the Ga Mantse had been able to prove that the defendant treated his demand for an apology and a retraction with contempt.
AMA cited for contempt
Thursday, June 2, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, and another person have been cited for contempt of court for allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
The AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf the AAG by its lawyer and which is praying the court to cite Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, will be moved at the Accra Fast Track on June 7, 2011.
According to counsel for the AAG, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, the AMA had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims, but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before him (trial judge).
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Mr Eddie Sam, denied his learned friend’s claims and said he was not aware of any such action by the AMA.
He advised counsel for the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if he was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
The Presiding Judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, reiterated his call on both parties to respect the court’s decision.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed 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 notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the substantive suit, the AAG has accused the AMA of increasing the special rates on billboards by more than 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
It 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.
A writ filed on behalf of the AAG by Ankomah Mensah and Associates, legal practitioners, is 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 requests the court to order that the excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion, among others.
THE Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, and another person have been cited for contempt of court for allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.
The AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf the AAG by its lawyer and which is praying the court to cite Dr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, will be moved at the Accra Fast Track on June 7, 2011.
According to counsel for the AAG, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, the AMA had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims, but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before him (trial judge).
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Mr Eddie Sam, denied his learned friend’s claims and said he was not aware of any such action by the AMA.
He advised counsel for the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if he was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
The Presiding Judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, reiterated his call on both parties to respect the court’s decision.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed 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 notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the substantive suit, the AAG has accused the AMA of increasing the special rates on billboards by more than 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
It 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.
A writ filed on behalf of the AAG by Ankomah Mensah and Associates, legal practitioners, is 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 requests the court to order that the excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion, among others.
Issa Mobilla's case - AG's Dept. directed to appoint new prosecutor
May 28, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court has directed the Attorney-General's Department to appoint a new prosecutor to handle the case involving three soldiers alleged to have murdered Alhaji Issa Mobilla.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logo, gave the directive following the failure of the prosecutor in charge of the case to appear before the court for the second time within a month to handle the case.
The prosecutor is believed to be indisposed.
At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka said it was unfortunate that the prosecutor did not appear to do the case.
Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and murder of Alhaji Mobilla, a former Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
A third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
Counsel for the accused, Mr Thaddeus Sory, said his clients had been in custody for almost half a decade and it appeared the state was not interested in trying them.
He informed the court that he would apply for the accused persons to be discharged if a prosecutor did not appear before the court on the next adjourned date.
Mr Justice Logo urged counsel to instead apply for bail on the next adjourned date.
Hearing continues on June 9, 2011.
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 Accra Fast Track High Court has directed the Attorney-General's Department to appoint a new prosecutor to handle the case involving three soldiers alleged to have murdered Alhaji Issa Mobilla.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logo, gave the directive following the failure of the prosecutor in charge of the case to appear before the court for the second time within a month to handle the case.
The prosecutor is believed to be indisposed.
At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka said it was unfortunate that the prosecutor did not appear to do the case.
Appiah and Modzaka have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and murder of Alhaji Mobilla, a former Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), on December 9, 2004.
A third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
Counsel for the accused, Mr Thaddeus Sory, said his clients had been in custody for almost half a decade and it appeared the state was not interested in trying them.
He informed the court that he would apply for the accused persons to be discharged if a prosecutor did not appear before the court on the next adjourned date.
Mr Justice Logo urged counsel to instead apply for bail on the next adjourned date.
Hearing continues on June 9, 2011.
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.
Supreme Court dismisses CENCORD's motion
May 27, 2011 (Front Page)
THE Supreme Court on May 26, 2011 threw out a motion filed by the Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD) to restrain a member of the Council of State, Mr J.H. Owusu-Acheampong, from holding himself as the Campaign Manager for President J.E.A. Mills in his contest for the 2012 flag-bearer slot of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
"The applicant has not shown that Mr Owusu-Achempong has threatened to act or is acting in his new position. These are prerequisites for the grant of interim injunction," the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, declared after counsel for CENCORD had failed to convince the court to grant the application for injunction.
"There is no clear articulation of thought. In the circumstance, we find it difficult to grant the application for interim injunction. The application is, accordingly, dismissed," the court held in a unanimous decision.
Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Professor Justice F.K. Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Ms Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
Counsel for CENCORD, Mr Dennis Ofosu-Appiah Ofosuapea, had earlier been subjected to a barrage of questions from panel members when he moved the motion.
In the substantive suit, CENCORD is challenging the President's decision to appoint Mr Owusu-Acheampong as his Campaign Manager for the NDC flag-bearer contest for Election 2012.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the suit on a latter date.
The applicant, who joined the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice along with the President and Mr Owusu-Acheampong in the suit, is claiming that the appointment of Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the acceptance of same by him "are acts that are inconsistent with or in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more particularly articles 2 (1) (b); 3 (4) (a); 41 (b) and 89 (1) (2) (c) thereof".
The plaintiff, who is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is also praying the court to grant an order prohibiting any sitting President from deploying members of the Council of State for partisan undertakings.
Moving his motion for interim injunction, counsel argued that Mr Owusu-Acheampong could not act in partisan politics because he was elected member of the Council of State.
According to him, Mr Owusu-Acheampong's acceptance of President Mills's appointment amounted to annoyance.
Counsel had earlier been granted leave by the court to move his motion, although it was of the view he should have filed for an interlocutory, and not interim, injunction.
Mr Justice Atuguba questioned counsel whether or not a sitting President could be sued, to which Mr Ofosuapea replied in the affirmative, adding that the President could be sued as a substantive President and not in an acting position.
It could be adduced from the questions from panel members that they were dissatisfied with the way and manner Mr Ofosuapea articulated his case.
They were particularly disappointed at his virtually giving them the same answers which implied that the President had breached the Constitution.
The panel members, after deliberating among themselves, unanimously dismissed counsel's application.
No costs were awarded.
THE Supreme Court on May 26, 2011 threw out a motion filed by the Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD) to restrain a member of the Council of State, Mr J.H. Owusu-Acheampong, from holding himself as the Campaign Manager for President J.E.A. Mills in his contest for the 2012 flag-bearer slot of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
"The applicant has not shown that Mr Owusu-Achempong has threatened to act or is acting in his new position. These are prerequisites for the grant of interim injunction," the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, declared after counsel for CENCORD had failed to convince the court to grant the application for injunction.
"There is no clear articulation of thought. In the circumstance, we find it difficult to grant the application for interim injunction. The application is, accordingly, dismissed," the court held in a unanimous decision.
Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Professor Justice F.K. Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Ms Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
Counsel for CENCORD, Mr Dennis Ofosu-Appiah Ofosuapea, had earlier been subjected to a barrage of questions from panel members when he moved the motion.
In the substantive suit, CENCORD is challenging the President's decision to appoint Mr Owusu-Acheampong as his Campaign Manager for the NDC flag-bearer contest for Election 2012.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the suit on a latter date.
The applicant, who joined the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice along with the President and Mr Owusu-Acheampong in the suit, is claiming that the appointment of Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the acceptance of same by him "are acts that are inconsistent with or in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more particularly articles 2 (1) (b); 3 (4) (a); 41 (b) and 89 (1) (2) (c) thereof".
The plaintiff, who is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is also praying the court to grant an order prohibiting any sitting President from deploying members of the Council of State for partisan undertakings.
Moving his motion for interim injunction, counsel argued that Mr Owusu-Acheampong could not act in partisan politics because he was elected member of the Council of State.
According to him, Mr Owusu-Acheampong's acceptance of President Mills's appointment amounted to annoyance.
Counsel had earlier been granted leave by the court to move his motion, although it was of the view he should have filed for an interlocutory, and not interim, injunction.
Mr Justice Atuguba questioned counsel whether or not a sitting President could be sued, to which Mr Ofosuapea replied in the affirmative, adding that the President could be sued as a substantive President and not in an acting position.
It could be adduced from the questions from panel members that they were dissatisfied with the way and manner Mr Ofosuapea articulated his case.
They were particularly disappointed at his virtually giving them the same answers which implied that the President had breached the Constitution.
The panel members, after deliberating among themselves, unanimously dismissed counsel's application.
No costs were awarded.
CENCORD drags EC to court for contempt
May 25, 2011 (Centre Spread)
A civil rights organisation, the Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD), has dragged the Electoral Commission (EC), its Chairman, Dr K. Afari-Djan, and his commissioners to the Supreme Court on contempt charges.
According to CENCORD, the EC had failed to comply with a Supreme Court order which gave the nod to more than 13,586, remand and convicted prisoners in the country to exercise their franchise.
The Supreme Court had, in a unanimous decision on March 23, 2010, given prisoners the right to vote and accordingly directed the EC to come up with a Constitutional Instrument (CI) to create the legal framework to facilitate the inclusion of prisoners on the voters register for the next general election.
“This order is to be carried out as soon as practicable and, in any case, within not more than 12 calendar months from today March 23, 2010,” the court held.
However, according to CENCORD, it had conducted a number of checks at the Attorney-General’s Office, the Assembly Press, as well as EC offices, and all pointed to the fact that the EC, its Chairman and its commissioners had to date not complied with the court order.
The plaintiff is, therefore, praying the Supreme Court to cite the EC, Dr Afari-Djan and six commissioners of the EC — Mr David Kangah, Mr Kwadwo Safo Kantanka, Ms Pauline Adobea Dadzawa, Mr Ebenezer Aggrey-Fynn, Ms Rebecca Kabuki Adjalo and Sa-Adatu Maida — for contempt of court.
It is also praying the court to imprison the respondents without giving them any option of a fine, as well as declare them not eligible for election or appointment to any public office for 10 years, beginning with the date of the expiration of the term of imprisonment.
According to the plaintiff, the respondents deserved to be imprisoned because they had “demonstrated a calculated threat to sink the constitutional order to death, having committed a high crime under Clause 4 of Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution and thus must be punished”.
He further argued that the respondents had no respect for the supreme laws as they knew their responsibilities and yet failed to act.
A date is yet to be fixed for the motion to be moved by counsel for the applicant, Mr Dennis Ofosu-Appiah Ofosuapea.
On March 23, 2010, the Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, upheld an application filed on behalf of remand and convicted prisoners by two legal practitioners, Mr Ahumah Ocansey and Mr Kojo Graham, of the Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (CHURCIL).
The two had, in separate suits which were consolidated by the court on November 12, 2009, prayed the court to declare as null and void sections of PNDC Law 284 which barred remand and convicted prisoners from voting.
Joined in the suit were the Attorney-General and the EC.
The A-G's Department had opposed the suit on the grounds that the relief being sought by the two lawyers was against the public interest, while the EC had prayed the court to exclude it from the suit.
The court, however, disagreed.
In a three-and-a-half-hour ruling, the court, which had Dr Justice S.K. Date-Bah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse and Mr Justice Annin Yeboah as its members, ruled that the 1992 Constitution, per Article 42, grants all citizens of Ghana who are 18 years and above and are of sound mind the right to be registered to enable them to vote in all public elections and referenda.
"This right extends or includes all convicted prisoners, irrespective of the provisions of Section 7 (5) of the Representation of the People's Law, 1992, (PNDC Law 284) which imposes a residency requirement or qualification under which convicted prisoners were deemed disqualified," it said.
It, therefore, declared as void Section 7 (5) of PNDC Law 284, since it was inconsistent with Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution.
It further stated that to avoid chaos and hasty decisions, it was imperative for the EC to come up with rules and regulations to regulate the registration exercise.
"This is to ensure that such an exercise is efficiently and effectively managed, controlled and directed to operationalise the registration of prisoners to enable them to vote in future elections and referenda, such as will ensure harmonious interface with the Prisons Service Act 1972, NRCD 46, and all the other relevant stakeholders," the court held among others.
Meanwhile, Mr Ofosuapea has petitioned the President to instruct the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to cause the immediate arrest of the respondents for having contravened Article 24 of the 1992 Constitution.
He also called for the immediate removal of the respondents from office to stand trial.
A civil rights organisation, the Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD), has dragged the Electoral Commission (EC), its Chairman, Dr K. Afari-Djan, and his commissioners to the Supreme Court on contempt charges.
According to CENCORD, the EC had failed to comply with a Supreme Court order which gave the nod to more than 13,586, remand and convicted prisoners in the country to exercise their franchise.
The Supreme Court had, in a unanimous decision on March 23, 2010, given prisoners the right to vote and accordingly directed the EC to come up with a Constitutional Instrument (CI) to create the legal framework to facilitate the inclusion of prisoners on the voters register for the next general election.
“This order is to be carried out as soon as practicable and, in any case, within not more than 12 calendar months from today March 23, 2010,” the court held.
However, according to CENCORD, it had conducted a number of checks at the Attorney-General’s Office, the Assembly Press, as well as EC offices, and all pointed to the fact that the EC, its Chairman and its commissioners had to date not complied with the court order.
The plaintiff is, therefore, praying the Supreme Court to cite the EC, Dr Afari-Djan and six commissioners of the EC — Mr David Kangah, Mr Kwadwo Safo Kantanka, Ms Pauline Adobea Dadzawa, Mr Ebenezer Aggrey-Fynn, Ms Rebecca Kabuki Adjalo and Sa-Adatu Maida — for contempt of court.
It is also praying the court to imprison the respondents without giving them any option of a fine, as well as declare them not eligible for election or appointment to any public office for 10 years, beginning with the date of the expiration of the term of imprisonment.
According to the plaintiff, the respondents deserved to be imprisoned because they had “demonstrated a calculated threat to sink the constitutional order to death, having committed a high crime under Clause 4 of Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution and thus must be punished”.
He further argued that the respondents had no respect for the supreme laws as they knew their responsibilities and yet failed to act.
A date is yet to be fixed for the motion to be moved by counsel for the applicant, Mr Dennis Ofosu-Appiah Ofosuapea.
On March 23, 2010, the Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, upheld an application filed on behalf of remand and convicted prisoners by two legal practitioners, Mr Ahumah Ocansey and Mr Kojo Graham, of the Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (CHURCIL).
The two had, in separate suits which were consolidated by the court on November 12, 2009, prayed the court to declare as null and void sections of PNDC Law 284 which barred remand and convicted prisoners from voting.
Joined in the suit were the Attorney-General and the EC.
The A-G's Department had opposed the suit on the grounds that the relief being sought by the two lawyers was against the public interest, while the EC had prayed the court to exclude it from the suit.
The court, however, disagreed.
In a three-and-a-half-hour ruling, the court, which had Dr Justice S.K. Date-Bah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse and Mr Justice Annin Yeboah as its members, ruled that the 1992 Constitution, per Article 42, grants all citizens of Ghana who are 18 years and above and are of sound mind the right to be registered to enable them to vote in all public elections and referenda.
"This right extends or includes all convicted prisoners, irrespective of the provisions of Section 7 (5) of the Representation of the People's Law, 1992, (PNDC Law 284) which imposes a residency requirement or qualification under which convicted prisoners were deemed disqualified," it said.
It, therefore, declared as void Section 7 (5) of PNDC Law 284, since it was inconsistent with Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution.
It further stated that to avoid chaos and hasty decisions, it was imperative for the EC to come up with rules and regulations to regulate the registration exercise.
"This is to ensure that such an exercise is efficiently and effectively managed, controlled and directed to operationalise the registration of prisoners to enable them to vote in future elections and referenda, such as will ensure harmonious interface with the Prisons Service Act 1972, NRCD 46, and all the other relevant stakeholders," the court held among others.
Meanwhile, Mr Ofosuapea has petitioned the President to instruct the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to cause the immediate arrest of the respondents for having contravened Article 24 of the 1992 Constitution.
He also called for the immediate removal of the respondents from office to stand trial.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Bawku MP's case - Counsel opposes move to cast doubt on client
May 25, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
COUNSEL for the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central who is standing trial over his nationality status yesterday opposed moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence.
According to Mr Yonny Kulendi, it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) and other agencies.
A Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, had urged the MP, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the NSS Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
He argued that the MP was not a member of staff of the bodies to which the letter was copied to warrant him to answer questions on it, adding that the document was, in any case, labelled ‘Confidential’.
The bodies to which the letter was copied were the Attorney-General’s office and the Police Service.
Mr Kulendi, who kept referring to the document as the “thing”, in apparent reference to Mr Wiredu’s earlier description of it, argued that the prosecution was acting improperly by calling on his client to identify the document.
“The ‘thing’ was concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice were shut on the prosecution,” counsel argued, in apparent reference to the prosecution closing its case, only to turn around and urge his client to authenticate a document when his client had opened his defence to prove to the world he was not a British citizen.
Mr Kulendi, therefore, prayed the court not to endorse what he termed “unlawful, improper and unwarranted” attempts by the prosecution to request the MP to identify a document with which he (the MP) had nothing to do.
According to him, the prosecution was coming through a “chimney and not a window” because it had ample time to do its case but failed to prove anything against his client and was now making false allegations.
He also accused the prosecution of using state resources to fabricate stories against his client and questioned how the court was going to allow the defence to cross-examine staff of the Commonwealth and British Home Office who were alleged to have been signatories to a document which contradicted his client’s defence.
“The court will be creating prejudice against us if it accepts the documents into evidence. It will create the impression that we forged our documents,” Mr Kulendi argued and, accordingly, prayed the court not to countenance the prosecution’s attempt to subvert justice.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
He explained that the prosecution could not have direct access to the British High Commission and so had to contact the NSS to do checks on its behalf.
According to him, the documents tendered by the MP were forged and further described the stamp on the renunciation document as “Kokompe stamp”.
Mr Kulendi opposed Mr Wiredu’s description, after which Mr Wiredu renamed it “Made-in-Ghana stamp”.
Mr Wiredu further argued that the British Home Office had also stated that the MP’s name was still in the database of British citizens as of November 3, 2010, but Mr Kulendi argued that that assertion was a fabrication from the state in an attempt to subvert justice.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, fixed June 8, 2011 as the date for ruling on the matter.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
COUNSEL for the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central who is standing trial over his nationality status yesterday opposed moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence.
According to Mr Yonny Kulendi, it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) and other agencies.
A Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, had urged the MP, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the NSS Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
He argued that the MP was not a member of staff of the bodies to which the letter was copied to warrant him to answer questions on it, adding that the document was, in any case, labelled ‘Confidential’.
The bodies to which the letter was copied were the Attorney-General’s office and the Police Service.
Mr Kulendi, who kept referring to the document as the “thing”, in apparent reference to Mr Wiredu’s earlier description of it, argued that the prosecution was acting improperly by calling on his client to identify the document.
“The ‘thing’ was concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice were shut on the prosecution,” counsel argued, in apparent reference to the prosecution closing its case, only to turn around and urge his client to authenticate a document when his client had opened his defence to prove to the world he was not a British citizen.
Mr Kulendi, therefore, prayed the court not to endorse what he termed “unlawful, improper and unwarranted” attempts by the prosecution to request the MP to identify a document with which he (the MP) had nothing to do.
According to him, the prosecution was coming through a “chimney and not a window” because it had ample time to do its case but failed to prove anything against his client and was now making false allegations.
He also accused the prosecution of using state resources to fabricate stories against his client and questioned how the court was going to allow the defence to cross-examine staff of the Commonwealth and British Home Office who were alleged to have been signatories to a document which contradicted his client’s defence.
“The court will be creating prejudice against us if it accepts the documents into evidence. It will create the impression that we forged our documents,” Mr Kulendi argued and, accordingly, prayed the court not to countenance the prosecution’s attempt to subvert justice.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
He explained that the prosecution could not have direct access to the British High Commission and so had to contact the NSS to do checks on its behalf.
According to him, the documents tendered by the MP were forged and further described the stamp on the renunciation document as “Kokompe stamp”.
Mr Kulendi opposed Mr Wiredu’s description, after which Mr Wiredu renamed it “Made-in-Ghana stamp”.
Mr Wiredu further argued that the British Home Office had also stated that the MP’s name was still in the database of British citizens as of November 3, 2010, but Mr Kulendi argued that that assertion was a fabrication from the state in an attempt to subvert justice.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, fixed June 8, 2011 as the date for ruling on the matter.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
EOCO wants court order to dispose Sima's assets
May 20, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed a motion on notice at the Accra Fast Track High Court, praying the court to give it the permission to confiscate and dispose of assets of Sima Ibrahim, Chief Executive Officer of Exopa Modelling Agency, who was jailed in March this year, for drug offences.
Sima was sentenced to 15 years on March 3, 2011, after he was found guilty on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs concealed in four tubers of yam.
The motion was expected to be moved yesterday but the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, directed the EOCO to furnish it with the record of proceedings of March 3, 2011.
Consequently, the motion is expected to be moved on June 21, 2011.
Earlier, counsel for Sima, Dr Dominic Ayine, raised a preliminary objection and said the EOCO should have come under PNDCL 328 and not Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code as it had done.
However, the court drew counsel's attention to the fact that it was too early for counsel to be making such argument.
EOCO's action formed part of the Narcotics Control Board's (NACOB’s) plans to confiscate and sell assets of convicted drug dealers to the public.
With the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010 (Act 804) recently passed as its backbone, NACOB’s action is intended to prevent some individuals linked to convicted drug dealers from supporting those convicts while they serve their sentences.
The Daily Graphic issue of May 13, 2011 listed 24 properties belonging to Sima, including buildings, a number of vehicles, bank accounts, both local and foreign, cash in foreign and local currencies, digital cameras, laptops, as well as pistols and shotguns.
The properties include the EXOPA Modelling School, situated behind the Trade Fair Centre at La; a house numbered 1233 at Tema Community 10; shareholding and assets in the EXOPA Modelling School; a Range Rover, a Land Rover, a BMW and Opel vehicles, credit cards, as well as German, Belgian and Togolese passports.
THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed a motion on notice at the Accra Fast Track High Court, praying the court to give it the permission to confiscate and dispose of assets of Sima Ibrahim, Chief Executive Officer of Exopa Modelling Agency, who was jailed in March this year, for drug offences.
Sima was sentenced to 15 years on March 3, 2011, after he was found guilty on two counts of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and attempting to export narcotic drugs concealed in four tubers of yam.
The motion was expected to be moved yesterday but the court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, directed the EOCO to furnish it with the record of proceedings of March 3, 2011.
Consequently, the motion is expected to be moved on June 21, 2011.
Earlier, counsel for Sima, Dr Dominic Ayine, raised a preliminary objection and said the EOCO should have come under PNDCL 328 and not Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code as it had done.
However, the court drew counsel's attention to the fact that it was too early for counsel to be making such argument.
EOCO's action formed part of the Narcotics Control Board's (NACOB’s) plans to confiscate and sell assets of convicted drug dealers to the public.
With the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010 (Act 804) recently passed as its backbone, NACOB’s action is intended to prevent some individuals linked to convicted drug dealers from supporting those convicts while they serve their sentences.
The Daily Graphic issue of May 13, 2011 listed 24 properties belonging to Sima, including buildings, a number of vehicles, bank accounts, both local and foreign, cash in foreign and local currencies, digital cameras, laptops, as well as pistols and shotguns.
The properties include the EXOPA Modelling School, situated behind the Trade Fair Centre at La; a house numbered 1233 at Tema Community 10; shareholding and assets in the EXOPA Modelling School; a Range Rover, a Land Rover, a BMW and Opel vehicles, credit cards, as well as German, Belgian and Togolese passports.
Armed robber jailed 25 years
May 19, 2011 (Page 3)
AN unemployed man has been sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra Circuit Court for robbing Reverend Harry Insaidoo of the Assemblies of God Church and his wife.
Emmanuel Karikari was found guilty on two counts of robbery and sentenced accordingly by the court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, a High Court judge who sat with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge.
The convict committed the offence at the North Kaneshie Assemblies of God premises on February 28, 2009 after Rev Insaidoo had picked up his wife at the airport.
According to the court, the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove the convict’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“The accused was arrested in a similar robbery incident when his accomplices had fled. It hardly needs to be said that the accused person is a notorious gangster and member of the criminal world who deserves a deterrent sentence. I will, therefore, impose the maximum sentence I am capable of,” the judge held.
Karikari and two other accomplices currently on the run trailed Rev Insaidoo and his wife from the airport, held a gun over the head of the church’s caretaker, struck him several times with the butt of the gun and in the process robbed the Reverend and his wife.
The convict and his accomplices assaulted Rev Insaidoo to the extent that his wife had to hurl herself on him to prevent the robbers from shooting her husband.
Karikari and his accomplices robbed the two of a new laptop, a camera, a banking card, a passport, more than £10,000 meant for other people, clothes, among other valuable items.
Based on information that some suspects had been picked for robbery-related offences, Rev Insaidoo and his wife were invited by the Dansoman Police to attend an identification parade on April 2, 2009 which resulted in the Reverend and his wife identifying Karikari as one of the assailants who had brutally assaulted him.
According to the court, the convict did not give any defence that would cast any reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case, adding, “The terse statement he gave to the police on arrest and his evidence in court about an invitation to join a taxi by a friend about 1 a.m. appear to have been fabricated. I do not find his story reasonably probable.”
It further held that the prosecution was able to prove that a towel and a lighter belonging to Mrs Insaidoo were among the items recovered from the convict during a police swoop.
“On the whole, I find the evidence against the accused person overwhelming. Robbery is a serious offence and carries a minimum of 10 years or more and where it involves the use of violence, the perpetrators deserve a deterrent sentence,” the court held.
AN unemployed man has been sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra Circuit Court for robbing Reverend Harry Insaidoo of the Assemblies of God Church and his wife.
Emmanuel Karikari was found guilty on two counts of robbery and sentenced accordingly by the court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, a High Court judge who sat with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge.
The convict committed the offence at the North Kaneshie Assemblies of God premises on February 28, 2009 after Rev Insaidoo had picked up his wife at the airport.
According to the court, the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove the convict’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“The accused was arrested in a similar robbery incident when his accomplices had fled. It hardly needs to be said that the accused person is a notorious gangster and member of the criminal world who deserves a deterrent sentence. I will, therefore, impose the maximum sentence I am capable of,” the judge held.
Karikari and two other accomplices currently on the run trailed Rev Insaidoo and his wife from the airport, held a gun over the head of the church’s caretaker, struck him several times with the butt of the gun and in the process robbed the Reverend and his wife.
The convict and his accomplices assaulted Rev Insaidoo to the extent that his wife had to hurl herself on him to prevent the robbers from shooting her husband.
Karikari and his accomplices robbed the two of a new laptop, a camera, a banking card, a passport, more than £10,000 meant for other people, clothes, among other valuable items.
Based on information that some suspects had been picked for robbery-related offences, Rev Insaidoo and his wife were invited by the Dansoman Police to attend an identification parade on April 2, 2009 which resulted in the Reverend and his wife identifying Karikari as one of the assailants who had brutally assaulted him.
According to the court, the convict did not give any defence that would cast any reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s case, adding, “The terse statement he gave to the police on arrest and his evidence in court about an invitation to join a taxi by a friend about 1 a.m. appear to have been fabricated. I do not find his story reasonably probable.”
It further held that the prosecution was able to prove that a towel and a lighter belonging to Mrs Insaidoo were among the items recovered from the convict during a police swoop.
“On the whole, I find the evidence against the accused person overwhelming. Robbery is a serious offence and carries a minimum of 10 years or more and where it involves the use of violence, the perpetrators deserve a deterrent sentence,” the court held.
tiGO House promotion - STOP IT! • Fast Track High Court orders
May 18, 2011 (Lead Story)
MILLICOM Ghana Limited, operators of the tiGO mobile telecommunication brand, yesterday suffered a huge setback when the Accra Fast Track High Court restrained it from continuing with its house promotion.
The court, on March 31, 2011, had granted an interim injunction halting the mobile operator from continuing with the promotion in which its customers are rewarded with a house each for three consecutive months after entering a draw.
The order for injunction, which was filed against tiGO by the National Lottery Authority (NLA), lasted 10 days.
However, tiGO breached the terms of settlement it entered into with the NLA, which in effect required it not to continue with the promotion.
Following its breach of the settlement, the NLA went back to court and prayed it to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain tiGO from further organising any promotion until the final determination of the substantive suit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge who sat with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, granted the NLA’s request and, accordingly, restrained tiGO from promoting, sponsoring and advertising the ongoing promotion campaign until the final determination of the suit.
The NLA was given a week to give an undertaking to pay any damages to be assessed by the court to tiGO should the NLA’s legal action against tiGO fail at the end of the trial.
There was no order as to costs against Millicom Ghana Limited.
The directors of Millicom Ghana risk being dragged to court for contempt should the company continue to run the promotion, in spite of the court order.
In arguing its case, the defendant stated that the promotion it was organising was neither a lottery nor a game of chance and that the plaintiff’s application for injunction had been brought in bad faith and should be dismissed.
It also challenged the capacity of the plaintiff to institute the action against it, with the reason that it was only the Attorney-General who was empowered by Article 88 (4) of the 1992 Constitution to prosecute all offences in the name of the Republic.
In its ruling, however, the court held that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), enjoined the plaintiff to regulate, supervise, conduct and manage national lotto and provide for related matters and if a body or person was usurping the powers of the plaintiff, nothing prevented it from ventilating its rights in a court of law.
It further submitted that it was satisfied that after studying the arguments for both parties, there were serious triable issues for the court to look into.
The issues it set out for trial included whether or not the promotion by the defendant was a game of chance and a lottery.
In the substantive suit, the NLA has argued that it is the only body mandated by the National Lotto Act (Act 722) to regulate, supervise and manage national lotto, as well as ensure the enforcement of laws relating to national lotto.
It is, therefore, praying the court to declare that the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ is not a promotional campaign but, in fact and in law, a lottery which is prohibited by Section 4 of the Lotto Act.
The plaintiff is also asking the court to declare that tiGO’s operation of lottery without the requisite statutory licence is illegal and unlawful because the defendant has failed to comply with the Lotto Act.
It is also urging the court to declare that the value or cost of the tiGO services required to be utilised or bought by customers as a precondition to participate in the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ represents a consideration which is required by the defendant to enable qualifying customers to participate in the draw to win prizes or reward.
The NLA is further praying the court to grant a “declaration that the defendant has committed a crime, as provided by the National Lotto Act of 2006, Act 722 and the Gaming Act of 2006, Act 721, by engaging in lottery and or games of chance without a statutory licence”.
At the end of the trial, the NLA also expects the court to grant an order directed at the defendant to account for the value of all proceeds and payments received by the defendant from participating subscribers and entrants from the start of the purported promotion till the date of its cessation.
The NLA is requesting for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its agents from promoting, sponsoring and marketing the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ or any other form of lottery in association with third parties without the requisite licences.
MILLICOM Ghana Limited, operators of the tiGO mobile telecommunication brand, yesterday suffered a huge setback when the Accra Fast Track High Court restrained it from continuing with its house promotion.
The court, on March 31, 2011, had granted an interim injunction halting the mobile operator from continuing with the promotion in which its customers are rewarded with a house each for three consecutive months after entering a draw.
The order for injunction, which was filed against tiGO by the National Lottery Authority (NLA), lasted 10 days.
However, tiGO breached the terms of settlement it entered into with the NLA, which in effect required it not to continue with the promotion.
Following its breach of the settlement, the NLA went back to court and prayed it to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain tiGO from further organising any promotion until the final determination of the substantive suit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge who sat with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, granted the NLA’s request and, accordingly, restrained tiGO from promoting, sponsoring and advertising the ongoing promotion campaign until the final determination of the suit.
The NLA was given a week to give an undertaking to pay any damages to be assessed by the court to tiGO should the NLA’s legal action against tiGO fail at the end of the trial.
There was no order as to costs against Millicom Ghana Limited.
The directors of Millicom Ghana risk being dragged to court for contempt should the company continue to run the promotion, in spite of the court order.
In arguing its case, the defendant stated that the promotion it was organising was neither a lottery nor a game of chance and that the plaintiff’s application for injunction had been brought in bad faith and should be dismissed.
It also challenged the capacity of the plaintiff to institute the action against it, with the reason that it was only the Attorney-General who was empowered by Article 88 (4) of the 1992 Constitution to prosecute all offences in the name of the Republic.
In its ruling, however, the court held that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), enjoined the plaintiff to regulate, supervise, conduct and manage national lotto and provide for related matters and if a body or person was usurping the powers of the plaintiff, nothing prevented it from ventilating its rights in a court of law.
It further submitted that it was satisfied that after studying the arguments for both parties, there were serious triable issues for the court to look into.
The issues it set out for trial included whether or not the promotion by the defendant was a game of chance and a lottery.
In the substantive suit, the NLA has argued that it is the only body mandated by the National Lotto Act (Act 722) to regulate, supervise and manage national lotto, as well as ensure the enforcement of laws relating to national lotto.
It is, therefore, praying the court to declare that the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ is not a promotional campaign but, in fact and in law, a lottery which is prohibited by Section 4 of the Lotto Act.
The plaintiff is also asking the court to declare that tiGO’s operation of lottery without the requisite statutory licence is illegal and unlawful because the defendant has failed to comply with the Lotto Act.
It is also urging the court to declare that the value or cost of the tiGO services required to be utilised or bought by customers as a precondition to participate in the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ represents a consideration which is required by the defendant to enable qualifying customers to participate in the draw to win prizes or reward.
The NLA is further praying the court to grant a “declaration that the defendant has committed a crime, as provided by the National Lotto Act of 2006, Act 722 and the Gaming Act of 2006, Act 721, by engaging in lottery and or games of chance without a statutory licence”.
At the end of the trial, the NLA also expects the court to grant an order directed at the defendant to account for the value of all proceeds and payments received by the defendant from participating subscribers and entrants from the start of the purported promotion till the date of its cessation.
The NLA is requesting for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its agents from promoting, sponsoring and marketing the ‘tiGO House Promotion’ or any other form of lottery in association with third parties without the requisite licences.
President dragged to court
May 17, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE President's decision to appoint a member of the Council of State, Mr J. H. Owusu-Acheampong, as his Campaign Manager for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) flag-bearer contest for Election 2012 has been challenged at the Supreme Court.
The Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD) has dragged President J.E.A. Mills, Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to court, claiming that the appointment of Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the acceptance of same by him "are acts that are inconsistent with or in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more particularly articles 2 (1) (b); 3 (4) (a); 41 (b) and 89 (1) (2) (c) thereof".
The plaintiff, who is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is also praying the court to grant an order prohibiting any sitting President from deploying members of the Council of State for partisan undertakings, as well as an injunction against Mr Owusu-Acheampong from holding himself out as Campaign Manger or Chairman of the President's campaign in the NDC flag-bearer contest as long as he remained a member of the Council of State.
CENCORD has also filed a motion for interim injunction praying the Supreme Court to restrain Mr Owusu-Acheampong from holding himself as the Campaign Manager of President Mills until all issues raised in the substantive case had been determined by the Supreme Court.
In the motion for interim injunction, the plaintiff contended that Mr Owusu-Acheampong had no intention of desisting from "execution of the unlawful act imposed on him by the sitting President", unless expressly restrained by the Supreme Court.
According to the plaintiff, it had brought the action against the defendants in its capacity as a corporate body whose constitutional duty enjoined it, at all times, to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law as of the Republic.
A legal practitioner, Mr Dennis Owusu-Appiah Ofosuapea, swore an affidavit in support and stated that he had the consent of CENCORD to depose to the affidavit.
The statement of the plaintiff's case, filed at 10.25 a.m. yesterday, stated, among other things, that the President had, on May 5, 2011, appointed Mr Owusu-Acheampong, who had been elected into office in 2009 by the people of the Brong Ahafo Region to represent the region on the Council of State, as his Campaign Manager.
According to the plaintiff, Mr Owusu-Acheampong had acted in that capacity and had since been directing the affairs of the campaign team in a bid to ensure that President Mills won the flag-bearer position of the NDC at the congress slated for Sunyani from July 8 to 11, 2011.
The plaintiff argued that members of the Council of State had the constitutional mandate to counsel the President in the performance of his duties.
"Appointment of a member of the Council of State to manage and or chair the President's political ambition to bear the flag of his political party is not one of the numerous duties of the President under the 1992 Constitution and or any known law in the Republic," the statement of case spelt out.
It further submitted that since Mr Owusu-Acheampong represented the Brong Ahafo Region and not any particular political party, becoming the President's chairman in "a manner that puts him in active NDC political affairs defeats his representation and thereby creates a potential disaffection among the people he is supposed to represent, some of whom are of different political persuasions or none at all".
The plaintiff further contended that members of the Council of State could not be partisan under the current constitutional dispensation, as they were to remain politically neutral in order to counsel the President to truly represent the best interest of the nation for the good of all.
THE President's decision to appoint a member of the Council of State, Mr J. H. Owusu-Acheampong, as his Campaign Manager for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) flag-bearer contest for Election 2012 has been challenged at the Supreme Court.
The Centre for Constitutional Order (CENCORD) has dragged President J.E.A. Mills, Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to court, claiming that the appointment of Mr Owusu-Acheampong and the acceptance of same by him "are acts that are inconsistent with or in contravention of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more particularly articles 2 (1) (b); 3 (4) (a); 41 (b) and 89 (1) (2) (c) thereof".
The plaintiff, who is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is also praying the court to grant an order prohibiting any sitting President from deploying members of the Council of State for partisan undertakings, as well as an injunction against Mr Owusu-Acheampong from holding himself out as Campaign Manger or Chairman of the President's campaign in the NDC flag-bearer contest as long as he remained a member of the Council of State.
CENCORD has also filed a motion for interim injunction praying the Supreme Court to restrain Mr Owusu-Acheampong from holding himself as the Campaign Manager of President Mills until all issues raised in the substantive case had been determined by the Supreme Court.
In the motion for interim injunction, the plaintiff contended that Mr Owusu-Acheampong had no intention of desisting from "execution of the unlawful act imposed on him by the sitting President", unless expressly restrained by the Supreme Court.
According to the plaintiff, it had brought the action against the defendants in its capacity as a corporate body whose constitutional duty enjoined it, at all times, to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law as of the Republic.
A legal practitioner, Mr Dennis Owusu-Appiah Ofosuapea, swore an affidavit in support and stated that he had the consent of CENCORD to depose to the affidavit.
The statement of the plaintiff's case, filed at 10.25 a.m. yesterday, stated, among other things, that the President had, on May 5, 2011, appointed Mr Owusu-Acheampong, who had been elected into office in 2009 by the people of the Brong Ahafo Region to represent the region on the Council of State, as his Campaign Manager.
According to the plaintiff, Mr Owusu-Acheampong had acted in that capacity and had since been directing the affairs of the campaign team in a bid to ensure that President Mills won the flag-bearer position of the NDC at the congress slated for Sunyani from July 8 to 11, 2011.
The plaintiff argued that members of the Council of State had the constitutional mandate to counsel the President in the performance of his duties.
"Appointment of a member of the Council of State to manage and or chair the President's political ambition to bear the flag of his political party is not one of the numerous duties of the President under the 1992 Constitution and or any known law in the Republic," the statement of case spelt out.
It further submitted that since Mr Owusu-Acheampong represented the Brong Ahafo Region and not any particular political party, becoming the President's chairman in "a manner that puts him in active NDC political affairs defeats his representation and thereby creates a potential disaffection among the people he is supposed to represent, some of whom are of different political persuasions or none at all".
The plaintiff further contended that members of the Council of State could not be partisan under the current constitutional dispensation, as they were to remain politically neutral in order to counsel the President to truly represent the best interest of the nation for the good of all.
Friday, May 27, 2011
PNC Contempt case - Court dismisses application
May 13, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday dismissed an application filed by the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others which challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against seven leading members of the PNC.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
Challenging the contempt suit brought against them, Dr Mahama and the six other executive members, namely, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban, had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents had prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because it was difficult to identify who the applicant in the suit was.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held that the affidavit, as well as a supplementary affidavit in support of the suit, clearly indicated that Dr Tobiga and the two others were the applicants in the case.
The court held that Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the deponents in the affidavit in support of the contempt application.
It further ruled that Dr Tobiga had clearly indicated in the supplementary affidavit that he had the consent of Jatoh and Gana to depose to the supplementary affidavit on their behalf.
It, therefore, disagreed with the defence team’s argument that Dr Tobiga and the two other deponents were strangers in the case.
After the ruling, counsel for Mr Monah, Mr James Agalga, informed the court that Jatoh and Gana had indicated to him that they wished to withdraw as applicants in the contempt suit.
The trial judge then directed Jatoh and Gana to file an application spelling out their withdrawal from the suit.
Mr Agalga then prayed the court to give the respondents ample time to file their response.
According to counsel, the respondents could not file their affidavit in opposition to the suit because of the preliminary objection they had raised.
Dr Mahama, Alhaji Ramadan, Mr Monah and the other respondents were present in court. Dr Tobiga and the two applicants were also present in court.
Hearing continues on June 6, 2011.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday dismissed an application filed by the flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others which challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against seven leading members of the PNC.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
On January 6, 2011, the district court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
Challenging the contempt suit brought against them, Dr Mahama and the six other executive members, namely, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban, had argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the court.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents had prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because it was difficult to identify who the applicant in the suit was.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held that the affidavit, as well as a supplementary affidavit in support of the suit, clearly indicated that Dr Tobiga and the two others were the applicants in the case.
The court held that Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the deponents in the affidavit in support of the contempt application.
It further ruled that Dr Tobiga had clearly indicated in the supplementary affidavit that he had the consent of Jatoh and Gana to depose to the supplementary affidavit on their behalf.
It, therefore, disagreed with the defence team’s argument that Dr Tobiga and the two other deponents were strangers in the case.
After the ruling, counsel for Mr Monah, Mr James Agalga, informed the court that Jatoh and Gana had indicated to him that they wished to withdraw as applicants in the contempt suit.
The trial judge then directed Jatoh and Gana to file an application spelling out their withdrawal from the suit.
Mr Agalga then prayed the court to give the respondents ample time to file their response.
According to counsel, the respondents could not file their affidavit in opposition to the suit because of the preliminary objection they had raised.
Dr Mahama, Alhaji Ramadan, Mr Monah and the other respondents were present in court. Dr Tobiga and the two applicants were also present in court.
Hearing continues on June 6, 2011.
Kosmos to pay fine
May 11,, 2011 (Front Page)
KOSMOS Energy has agreed to pay a fine of $15 million to the Ghana Government for disclosing data on the Jubilee oil field without the government’s consent.
That followed the peaceful resolution of a dispute between the Government of Ghana and Kosmos.
The fine also includes the company’s spillage of low toxicity crude on the high seas.
According to sources close to the company, Kosmos was expected to raise $500 million through the floating of shares on the US stock market, part of the amount of which would be used to pay the fine, as well as expand the company’s operations in Ghana.
They disclosed that the company had resolved its differences with the government and looked forward to a “long and fruitful relationship with it which will, in the long run, reap benefits for both parties”.
The Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Agyei, confirmed the resolution of the differences but declined to give details, pointing out that “the government will always protect the interest of Ghanaians”.
According to him, Kosmos had publicly disclosed its intention to float its shares, as well as pay the fine, adding, “For that reason, let us leave it at that.”
Kosmos Energy and its partners discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 and they are currently lifting oil from the oil field.
The government has so far been paid US$112,189,575.52, being Ghana’s share of the first lifting of oil from the Jubilee Field.
The money has so far been paid to the Bank of Ghana (BoG) following the first lifting of oil on April 13, 2011.
The amount represented the five per cent royalty portion of the total first lifting of crude oil by all partners for the period.
Kosmos’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) Prospectus filed with the SEC on Thursday, April 14, 2011 stated that it would use proceeds of the IPO to fund capital expenditure.
It further disclosed in the document that it would make a $15 million payment to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) upon the successful completion of the IPO, pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into with the GNPC to resolve past disputes and for general corporate purposes.
The company estimated that its net proceeds from the sale of 30,000,000 common shares in that offering would be approximately $477.7 million, after deducting estimated offering expenses.
Each share is going for $17.
“We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering, available cash and borrowings under our commercial debt facility to fund our capital expenditures and in particular our exploration and appraisal drilling programme and development activities through early 2013, our related operating expenses, to make a $15 million payment to the GNPC upon the successful completion of this offering, pursuant to the settlement agreement we entered into with the GNPC to resolve our past disputes and for general corporate purposes,” it pointed out in its prospectus to the SEC.
“We estimate that we will incur approximately $500 million of capital expenditures for the year ending December 31, 2011. This capital expenditure budget consists of: $175 million for development in Ghana; $225 million for exploration and appraisal in Ghana; $30 million for exploration and appraisal in Cameroon; $30 million for new ventures to expand our licence portfolio (including geological and geophysical expenses), and $40 million in unallocated funds which are available for additional drilling and licensing costs and activities,” it added.
Kosmos further stated that the ultimate amount of capital it would expend might fluctuate materially based on market conditions and the success of its drilling results.
“Our future financial condition and liquidity will be impacted by, among other factors, our level of production of oil and natural gas and the prices we receive from the sale thereof, the success of our exploration and appraisal drilling programme, the number of commercially viable oil and natural gas discoveries made, the quantities of oil and natural gas discovered, the speed with which we can bring such discoveries to production and the actual cost of exploration, appraisal and development of our oil and natural gas assets,” the document added.
KOSMOS Energy has agreed to pay a fine of $15 million to the Ghana Government for disclosing data on the Jubilee oil field without the government’s consent.
That followed the peaceful resolution of a dispute between the Government of Ghana and Kosmos.
The fine also includes the company’s spillage of low toxicity crude on the high seas.
According to sources close to the company, Kosmos was expected to raise $500 million through the floating of shares on the US stock market, part of the amount of which would be used to pay the fine, as well as expand the company’s operations in Ghana.
They disclosed that the company had resolved its differences with the government and looked forward to a “long and fruitful relationship with it which will, in the long run, reap benefits for both parties”.
The Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Agyei, confirmed the resolution of the differences but declined to give details, pointing out that “the government will always protect the interest of Ghanaians”.
According to him, Kosmos had publicly disclosed its intention to float its shares, as well as pay the fine, adding, “For that reason, let us leave it at that.”
Kosmos Energy and its partners discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 and they are currently lifting oil from the oil field.
The government has so far been paid US$112,189,575.52, being Ghana’s share of the first lifting of oil from the Jubilee Field.
The money has so far been paid to the Bank of Ghana (BoG) following the first lifting of oil on April 13, 2011.
The amount represented the five per cent royalty portion of the total first lifting of crude oil by all partners for the period.
Kosmos’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) Prospectus filed with the SEC on Thursday, April 14, 2011 stated that it would use proceeds of the IPO to fund capital expenditure.
It further disclosed in the document that it would make a $15 million payment to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) upon the successful completion of the IPO, pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into with the GNPC to resolve past disputes and for general corporate purposes.
The company estimated that its net proceeds from the sale of 30,000,000 common shares in that offering would be approximately $477.7 million, after deducting estimated offering expenses.
Each share is going for $17.
“We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering, available cash and borrowings under our commercial debt facility to fund our capital expenditures and in particular our exploration and appraisal drilling programme and development activities through early 2013, our related operating expenses, to make a $15 million payment to the GNPC upon the successful completion of this offering, pursuant to the settlement agreement we entered into with the GNPC to resolve our past disputes and for general corporate purposes,” it pointed out in its prospectus to the SEC.
“We estimate that we will incur approximately $500 million of capital expenditures for the year ending December 31, 2011. This capital expenditure budget consists of: $175 million for development in Ghana; $225 million for exploration and appraisal in Ghana; $30 million for exploration and appraisal in Cameroon; $30 million for new ventures to expand our licence portfolio (including geological and geophysical expenses), and $40 million in unallocated funds which are available for additional drilling and licensing costs and activities,” it added.
Kosmos further stated that the ultimate amount of capital it would expend might fluctuate materially based on market conditions and the success of its drilling results.
“Our future financial condition and liquidity will be impacted by, among other factors, our level of production of oil and natural gas and the prices we receive from the sale thereof, the success of our exploration and appraisal drilling programme, the number of commercially viable oil and natural gas discoveries made, the quantities of oil and natural gas discovered, the speed with which we can bring such discoveries to production and the actual cost of exploration, appraisal and development of our oil and natural gas assets,” the document added.
Legon students granted bail
0May 7, 2011 (Front Page)
NINE students of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the University of Ghana, Legon, who are alleged to have molested a suspected laptop thief, Amina Haruna, were yesterday granted bail by the Accra Circuit Court.
The nine — Francis Asiedu Arthur, Mark-Dickson Tornu, Morris Awuregya, Nana Osei Asiamah, Gideon Agyei Ayiridaga, Gabriel Amobila Aboyadana, Godfred Afeatse, Evans Addae Boateng and Obed Banini — were granted bail in the sum of GH¢9,000 each with no sureties.
They each pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, assault by imprisonment, indecent assault and causing unlawful harm and are to reappear in court on May 30, 2011.
The students missed writing their mid-semester examination because they were in court at the time their mates were writing the examination.
Four of their accomplices — Edward Totor, Alexander Aryee, Benedict Boama Brohim and Jason Boama Amponsah — are currently on the run.
Scores of students from the university thronged the court premises to solidarise with the accused persons.
The sympathisers, mostly clad in dark T-shirts and jeans, chanted songs demanding the release of their colleagues.
The student leadership was also present in court and appealed to the sympathisers to remain calm.
Some students and family members of the accused could not hold back their tears, claiming that the accused were innocent or simply victims of circumstance.
Earlier, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr Kofi Blagodzi, presented the facts of the case and did not object to the granting of bail to the accused persons, who looked calm in the dock.
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, stated that the offences allegedly committed by the students were bailable and, accordingly, moved to grant them bail.
According to the facts of the case, the accused, who are all residents of the Annex B (Okponglo) of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the university, were identified by the university authorities on a video tape.
They were first handed over to the Legon Police, who in turn conveyed them to the CID Headquarters for an identification parade.
Soon after the alleged molestation, the university authorities set up a fact-finding committee to investigate the incident.
The prosecution said the committee identified a number of students who were present during the molestation, as seen on the video clips produced, as well as credible eyewitness accounts.
NINE students of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the University of Ghana, Legon, who are alleged to have molested a suspected laptop thief, Amina Haruna, were yesterday granted bail by the Accra Circuit Court.
The nine — Francis Asiedu Arthur, Mark-Dickson Tornu, Morris Awuregya, Nana Osei Asiamah, Gideon Agyei Ayiridaga, Gabriel Amobila Aboyadana, Godfred Afeatse, Evans Addae Boateng and Obed Banini — were granted bail in the sum of GH¢9,000 each with no sureties.
They each pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, assault by imprisonment, indecent assault and causing unlawful harm and are to reappear in court on May 30, 2011.
The students missed writing their mid-semester examination because they were in court at the time their mates were writing the examination.
Four of their accomplices — Edward Totor, Alexander Aryee, Benedict Boama Brohim and Jason Boama Amponsah — are currently on the run.
Scores of students from the university thronged the court premises to solidarise with the accused persons.
The sympathisers, mostly clad in dark T-shirts and jeans, chanted songs demanding the release of their colleagues.
The student leadership was also present in court and appealed to the sympathisers to remain calm.
Some students and family members of the accused could not hold back their tears, claiming that the accused were innocent or simply victims of circumstance.
Earlier, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr Kofi Blagodzi, presented the facts of the case and did not object to the granting of bail to the accused persons, who looked calm in the dock.
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, stated that the offences allegedly committed by the students were bailable and, accordingly, moved to grant them bail.
According to the facts of the case, the accused, who are all residents of the Annex B (Okponglo) of the Mensah Sarbah Hall of the university, were identified by the university authorities on a video tape.
They were first handed over to the Legon Police, who in turn conveyed them to the CID Headquarters for an identification parade.
Soon after the alleged molestation, the university authorities set up a fact-finding committee to investigate the incident.
The prosecution said the committee identified a number of students who were present during the molestation, as seen on the video clips produced, as well as credible eyewitness accounts.
Vaglas Kanco jailed
May 6, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
THE General Overseer of the Vineyard Chapel International, Bishop Vaglas Kanco, was yesterday sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court for defrauding a British national to the tune of £120,000.
He was also ordered to refund the £120,000 he took from the complainant, Clova Sutherland.
Bishop Kanco had lured the complainant into believing that she would die if she did not allow him to pray over a £120,000 cheque she had issued in the name of her former partner.
“While in incarceration, read Psalm 51,” the trial judge, Mr D.E.K. Daketsey, advised Kanco while he was being handcuffed by a policeman at exactly 12.42 p.m. immediately after judgement had been passed.
Bishop Kanco managed to convince the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name in order for him to pray over it to exorcise the evil intent of the complainant’s partner and return it to her on a later date, but he reneged on his promise and cashed the cheque after he had met the complainant at a crusade organised by the Alive Chapel International Church on March 25, 2003.
The convict was then a guest speaker at the crusade, and during his meeting with the complainant she told him the problems she was going through.
She also informed him that she was to pay £120,000 to her partner, whom Bishop Kanco described as an evil person.
The convict also made Clova to believe that she would die if she issued the cheque directly to her partner.
According to the court, it was abundantly clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the convict took advantage of the emotional and psychological turmoil in which the complainant found herself as a result of the break-up of her 14-year-old relationship.
It held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredient of the charge of defrauding by false pretence levelled against Kanco and further described Kanco’s defence that the money was a gift as “lame, limping and an unpardonable excuse”.
It further held that the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove that the complainant’s partner rejected the £120,000 cheque on the grounds that the amount was short of £32,000 and for that reason it was impossible for the complainant to have issued the £120,000 cheque as a gift, especially at a time she was having financial, emotional and health problems.
It said it was on record that lawyers for the complainant’s partner had written letters demanding that she pay the £152,000 she owed her former partner.
“I am inclined to believe the story of the complainant that the accused person tricked her to re-issue the cheque in his name,” the judge intimated.
According to him, it was also clear from the record that the complainant had made several attempts to reclaim her money, while it was also on record that Kanco dispensed of the services of his lawyer, Mr Yonny Kulendi, when he (the lawyer) advised him (Kanco) to refund the £120,000.
“The court wants to send a strong signal to all those who, under the guise of religious Mumbo Jumbo, deceive unsuspecting persons. Society is now wide awake and the law has extended its hands in all human endeavours,” the judge held.
Kanco, who wore a batik shirt, looked fixedly at the trial judge as he read his judgement and at a point he could not sit when he was advised to do so after the judge had finished reading his judgement.
According to the trial judge, it was not in dispute that Kanco took possession of the cheque and cashed it. He also debunked claims by the convict that he did not know the content of the envelope which contained the cheque until he returned from London after a crusade.
The court asked why Kanco had not collected the first cheque which bore the name of the complainant’s alleged devilish partner to pray over it but rather chose to lure the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name.
Earlier, counsel for the convict, Mr Kissi Agyabeng, had prayed the court to defer sentence and indicated that the complainant was interested in her money and not incarceration.
He, therefore, prayed the court to grant Kanco bail, adding that it was not strange for men of God to be given expensive gifts, including houses and cars.
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said it was improper for defence counsel to pray the court to arrest its judgement, adding that followers of the convict could contribute and indemnify the surety should the convict escape.
Mr Wiredu, therefore, prayed the court to give its judgement.
THE General Overseer of the Vineyard Chapel International, Bishop Vaglas Kanco, was yesterday sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court for defrauding a British national to the tune of £120,000.
He was also ordered to refund the £120,000 he took from the complainant, Clova Sutherland.
Bishop Kanco had lured the complainant into believing that she would die if she did not allow him to pray over a £120,000 cheque she had issued in the name of her former partner.
“While in incarceration, read Psalm 51,” the trial judge, Mr D.E.K. Daketsey, advised Kanco while he was being handcuffed by a policeman at exactly 12.42 p.m. immediately after judgement had been passed.
Bishop Kanco managed to convince the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name in order for him to pray over it to exorcise the evil intent of the complainant’s partner and return it to her on a later date, but he reneged on his promise and cashed the cheque after he had met the complainant at a crusade organised by the Alive Chapel International Church on March 25, 2003.
The convict was then a guest speaker at the crusade, and during his meeting with the complainant she told him the problems she was going through.
She also informed him that she was to pay £120,000 to her partner, whom Bishop Kanco described as an evil person.
The convict also made Clova to believe that she would die if she issued the cheque directly to her partner.
According to the court, it was abundantly clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the convict took advantage of the emotional and psychological turmoil in which the complainant found herself as a result of the break-up of her 14-year-old relationship.
It held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredient of the charge of defrauding by false pretence levelled against Kanco and further described Kanco’s defence that the money was a gift as “lame, limping and an unpardonable excuse”.
It further held that the prosecution was able to lead evidence to prove that the complainant’s partner rejected the £120,000 cheque on the grounds that the amount was short of £32,000 and for that reason it was impossible for the complainant to have issued the £120,000 cheque as a gift, especially at a time she was having financial, emotional and health problems.
It said it was on record that lawyers for the complainant’s partner had written letters demanding that she pay the £152,000 she owed her former partner.
“I am inclined to believe the story of the complainant that the accused person tricked her to re-issue the cheque in his name,” the judge intimated.
According to him, it was also clear from the record that the complainant had made several attempts to reclaim her money, while it was also on record that Kanco dispensed of the services of his lawyer, Mr Yonny Kulendi, when he (the lawyer) advised him (Kanco) to refund the £120,000.
“The court wants to send a strong signal to all those who, under the guise of religious Mumbo Jumbo, deceive unsuspecting persons. Society is now wide awake and the law has extended its hands in all human endeavours,” the judge held.
Kanco, who wore a batik shirt, looked fixedly at the trial judge as he read his judgement and at a point he could not sit when he was advised to do so after the judge had finished reading his judgement.
According to the trial judge, it was not in dispute that Kanco took possession of the cheque and cashed it. He also debunked claims by the convict that he did not know the content of the envelope which contained the cheque until he returned from London after a crusade.
The court asked why Kanco had not collected the first cheque which bore the name of the complainant’s alleged devilish partner to pray over it but rather chose to lure the complainant to re-issue the cheque in his name.
Earlier, counsel for the convict, Mr Kissi Agyabeng, had prayed the court to defer sentence and indicated that the complainant was interested in her money and not incarceration.
He, therefore, prayed the court to grant Kanco bail, adding that it was not strange for men of God to be given expensive gifts, including houses and cars.
However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said it was improper for defence counsel to pray the court to arrest its judgement, adding that followers of the convict could contribute and indemnify the surety should the convict escape.
Mr Wiredu, therefore, prayed the court to give its judgement.
Mahama, others challenge contempt case
May 4, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others have challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against them by three members of the party.
According to Dr Mahama and six other executive members of the PNC, the application for contempt brought against them was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the Fast Track High Court.
The other respondents are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
In the said case, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents, Dr Raymond Atuguba, prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because from the records before it, it was difficult to identify who the applicant for the contempt suit was.
According to counsel, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the accused persons in the criminal case before the district magistrate court but in this particular contempt suit only Dr Tobiga was cited as an applicant, arguing that for that reason it was improper for Dr Tobiga and the two others to jointly sign the affidavit in support of the application.
Counsel further argued that assuming without admitting that Dr Tobiga was the applicant in the contempt suit, there was no affidavit in support of his application.
Dr Atuguba, therefore, stressed that the affidavit in support of the contempt application against his clients which was signed by Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana, whom he described as ‘strangers’, was irregular and must, accordingly, be struck out.
He prayed the court not to award costs against Dr Tobiga and the others because steps were underway to resolve the differences between the parties in the case.
Counsel for Dr Tobiga, however, argued that his client acted on behalf of Jatoh and Gana, adding that the averments in the affidavit in support of the contempt suit attested to that.
On the issue of irregularity, counsel argued that it had been cured by Dr Tobiga signing on behalf of the others.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, will rule on the matter on May 12, 2011.
THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six others have challenged the competence of a contempt suit brought against them by three members of the party.
According to Dr Mahama and six other executive members of the PNC, the application for contempt brought against them was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed by the Fast Track High Court.
The other respondents are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Bernard Monah, Attik Mohammed, Alhaji Baba Mohammed, Col George Luri Bayorbor (retd) and Abraham Kaban.
Three members of the PNC — Dr Somtim Tobiga, Ahmed Jatoh and Abu Seidu Baba Gana — had dragged Dr Mahama and the others to court for allegedly flouting a district magistrate court’s order which directed Dr Tobiga, his agents and party members, including the respondents, to vacate the PNC office until the final determination of a case brought against Dr Tobiga and the two others.
In the said case, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana are standing trial for allegedly causing damage and stealing.
On January 6, 2011, the court directed Dr Tobiga, Jatoh, Gana and party members to vacate the party office until the final determination of the criminal case, but, according to them, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the court order by breaking into the office to organise a press conference on January 18, 2011.
In a preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents, Dr Raymond Atuguba, prayed the court to strike out the contempt suit because from the records before it, it was difficult to identify who the applicant for the contempt suit was.
According to counsel, Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana were the accused persons in the criminal case before the district magistrate court but in this particular contempt suit only Dr Tobiga was cited as an applicant, arguing that for that reason it was improper for Dr Tobiga and the two others to jointly sign the affidavit in support of the application.
Counsel further argued that assuming without admitting that Dr Tobiga was the applicant in the contempt suit, there was no affidavit in support of his application.
Dr Atuguba, therefore, stressed that the affidavit in support of the contempt application against his clients which was signed by Dr Tobiga, Jatoh and Gana, whom he described as ‘strangers’, was irregular and must, accordingly, be struck out.
He prayed the court not to award costs against Dr Tobiga and the others because steps were underway to resolve the differences between the parties in the case.
Counsel for Dr Tobiga, however, argued that his client acted on behalf of Jatoh and Gana, adding that the averments in the affidavit in support of the contempt suit attested to that.
On the issue of irregularity, counsel argued that it had been cured by Dr Tobiga signing on behalf of the others.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, will rule on the matter on May 12, 2011.
Two missionaries acquitted of defilement charges
April 30, 2011 (Mirror - Page 27)
TWO missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who were convicted for defiling a 14-year-old girl have been acquitted and discharged by the High Court in Accra.
Omale Ojonugwu Uwa, alias Elder Omale, 25, and Thatayaone Keeng, alias Elder Keeng, 20, were each found guilty on four counts of defilement and were sentenced to 10 years and seven years, respectively.
Omale, a Nigerian, was sentenced to seven years on the charge of conspiracy and 10 years on the charge of defilement, while Keeng, a Motswana, was sentenced to seven years on the charges of conspiracy and defilement.
The two were alleged to have committed the offence at Odorkor, a suburb of Accra, between February and April 2010 and were found guilty and convicted on August 6, 2010.
Dissatisfied with the circuit court’s decision, a legal practitioner, Mr Addo Atuah, filed an appeal on behalf of the two at the High Court in September 2010.
Counsel had argued that the trial court erred in not considering the weight of evidence which inured to the benefit of his clients.
He also argued that it was wrong for the prosecution to have put Omale and Keeng on one charge sheet.
The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, upheld the appeal, quashed the convictions and accordingly acquitted and discharged the missionaries.
The court deferred its reasons to a later date.
The facts of the case were that the missionaries lived in the same house with the complainant and the victim, who was a house help of the complainant.
According to the prosecution, Omale had called the victim to their room in February 2010 and asked if she had kissed or had sex before, to which she said no.
Omale and Keeng were accused of having sex with her in turns and warned her not to tell anyone.
The prosecution claimed the missionaries had bouts of sex with the victim in the months of March and April 2010.
According to it, the complainant later confronted the victim on how she came across a bottle of perfume, to which she explained that Omale had given it to her to remedy her bad body odour.
The circuit court, accordingly, convicted the two after a full trial, but the High Court held otherwise after counsel for the missionaries had pointed out loopholes in the prosecution’s case.
TWO missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who were convicted for defiling a 14-year-old girl have been acquitted and discharged by the High Court in Accra.
Omale Ojonugwu Uwa, alias Elder Omale, 25, and Thatayaone Keeng, alias Elder Keeng, 20, were each found guilty on four counts of defilement and were sentenced to 10 years and seven years, respectively.
Omale, a Nigerian, was sentenced to seven years on the charge of conspiracy and 10 years on the charge of defilement, while Keeng, a Motswana, was sentenced to seven years on the charges of conspiracy and defilement.
The two were alleged to have committed the offence at Odorkor, a suburb of Accra, between February and April 2010 and were found guilty and convicted on August 6, 2010.
Dissatisfied with the circuit court’s decision, a legal practitioner, Mr Addo Atuah, filed an appeal on behalf of the two at the High Court in September 2010.
Counsel had argued that the trial court erred in not considering the weight of evidence which inured to the benefit of his clients.
He also argued that it was wrong for the prosecution to have put Omale and Keeng on one charge sheet.
The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice C.A. Wilson, upheld the appeal, quashed the convictions and accordingly acquitted and discharged the missionaries.
The court deferred its reasons to a later date.
The facts of the case were that the missionaries lived in the same house with the complainant and the victim, who was a house help of the complainant.
According to the prosecution, Omale had called the victim to their room in February 2010 and asked if she had kissed or had sex before, to which she said no.
Omale and Keeng were accused of having sex with her in turns and warned her not to tell anyone.
The prosecution claimed the missionaries had bouts of sex with the victim in the months of March and April 2010.
According to it, the complainant later confronted the victim on how she came across a bottle of perfume, to which she explained that Omale had given it to her to remedy her bad body odour.
The circuit court, accordingly, convicted the two after a full trial, but the High Court held otherwise after counsel for the missionaries had pointed out loopholes in the prosecution’s case.
Court cautions AMA, Advertisers
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)