Saturday, February 4, 2012 (Lead Story)
A businessman, Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome, was On Friday, February 3, 2012, arrested by the police for questioning in connection with his alleged receipt of GH¢51.2 million judgement debt by fraudulent means.
His arrest, according to a Deputy Minister of Information, Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, followed a directive by President John Evans Atta Mills as part of a series of actions to deal with the Woyome judgement debt saga.
The interim report released by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) on Thursday concluded that Mr Woyome was not entitled to the GH¢51,283,480.59 that had been paid to him by the government for the abrogation of contracts in respect of the construction of stadia for the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations (CAN 2008).
It said Mr Woyome manipulated documents and information, and riding on the negligence and/or complicity of public officials, managed to receive money which he was clearly not entitled to.
Barely 24 hours after the report was made public, sources said Woyome was picked up for questioning by armed policemen in traffic around 1 p.m.
The Head of Operations at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, Chief Superintendent Frank Kwofie, confirmed Mr Woyome's arrest.
He said it was true that Woyome had been picked up for questioning but declined to give further details. He also declined to say whether or not other persons implicated in the EOCO report would be picked up for questioning.
Mr Woyome’s lawyers were frantically trying to secure bail for him as of 6 p.m.
The entrance to the Police Headquarters was a silent statement of a “no-go area”, as armoured vehicles blocked the place, while scores of armed policemen in helmet patrolled the pavements near the headquarters.
Another group of armed men was spotted sitting in an armoured vehicle, while reporters and members of the public were refused entry to the premises which, until 1 p.m. yesterday, had been opened to the public.
Armed men kept an eye on reporters who had earlier been politely turned away. Only the lawyers for Woyome were allowed entry.
The National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Dr Kwabena Adjei, was spotted entering the Police Headquarters in a Toyota Land Cruiser at 3.44 p.m.
Some Woyome sympathisers expressed disappointment at his arrest.
Asked why they were there, they said they had gathered to give moral support to the businessman.
Passers-by looked towards the Police Headquarters as if it was possible to catch a glimpse of Mr Woyome.
A taxi driver loudly informed a colleague driver who was driving in the opposite direction that he had heard Woyome was in the police building for fraud.
Vehicles were searched and drivers interviewed before they were allowed entry onto the premises. Others were turned away.
Scores of Woyome sympathisers who had earlier trooped to the Police Headquarters to demand his release were thrown out.
A crowd gathered at a nearby bus stop and waited for new developments. They stood at bay to avoid being picked by the police who had earlier arrested a few people who had thronged the Police Headquarters a few minutes after Mr Woyome had been picked up.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
DSP Mawuenyegah"s trial - A-G BUNGLES CASE
February 1, 2012 (Lead Story)
THE Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court on January 31, 2012 granted bail to Deputy Superintendent of Police Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda on the grounds that the charge against her was flawed.
According to the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah, “the particulars of offence accompanying the statement of offence are alien to the law and I, therefore, do not see why her rights must be curtailed”.
Ignoring an earlier move by the prosecution to introduce fresh evidence to convince the court to refuse Mrs Tehoda bail, the judge upheld a bail application from counsel for Mrs Tehoda and granted her bail in the sum of GH¢100,000, with two sureties.
Counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr E. A.Vordoagu, had prayed the court to grant his client bail because the charge preferred against her was incompetent, vexatious and without merit.
After standing the case down for three hours to enable the prosecution to file its affidavit in opposition to the defence team’s bail application, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, emerged, accusing Mrs Tehoda’s husband and her uncle, who is also a policeman, of using crude methods to secure her release.
Those allegations did not deter the judge from scrutinising the charge sheet and the particulars of offence, which eventually led to the granting of bail to the accused person.
Mrs Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga, has been charged with one count of abetment of stealing cocaine under Section 20 (1) of Act 29/60 and Section 56 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990, PNDCL 236.
But the particulars of offence stated, “Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, Police Officer, between 21st July, 2011 and December 2011 in the Greater Accra Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did aid and abet one Nana Ama Martins’ families and other individuals to commit crime, to wit loss of cocaine exhibit.”
That, according to the judge, was misleading, because there was no law which charged individuals for “loss of cocaine”.
He, therefore, held that holding the accused person for abetting crime was misleading and for that reason the court would uphold her human rights and admit her to bail.
Mr Justice Essel-Mensah admitted that although the case was a simple legal matter, it had become topical and sensational and for that reason the court would be very careful in giving its ruling.
The first question the judge posed was: “Has the applicant (Mrs Tehoda) been charged with any narcotic offence?”, to which he (judge) answered that the charge sheet bore no reference to that.
He then argued that although the prosecution had said she had abetted crime by stealing cocaine, the same charge sheet explained that she had contributed to the loss of cocaine exhibit.
The court held that the Criminal and other Offences Act had not enacted such a law.
Based on those inconsistencies and ambiguities in the charge sheet, it held that Mrs Tehoda could not be held any longer in detention.
Contrary to a court order on Tuesday, January 30, 2012 that they should produce the accused person, BNI officials failed to do so, but Mrs Tehoda’s husband and her family members expressed open joy after the court’s ruling yesterday.
They congratulated the defence lawyers, Mr E. A. Vordoagu and Mr Oliver Dzeble, for securing the freedom of their relative.
Mr Vordoagu had argued that the prosecution lumped the charge sheet together, thereby rendering it either mischievous or incompetent.
He further argued that the prosecution was seeking to misdirect the law and stated that the charge preferred against his client was bailable.
According to him, Mrs Tehoda had been kept in custody since December 29, 2011 on flawed charges.
“You do not arrest a person only to fish for evidence to incriminate her. This is dangerous practice and I pray the court to admit her to bail on flexible terms,” he said.
He assured the court that Mrs Tehoda would comply with the court’s orders when granted bail.
Responding, Mr Wiredu pointed out that the accused person was lawfully charged and denied an assertion that defence lawyers had been denied access to her.
Mr Wiredu informed the court that the sister of Nana Martins, the lady who was said to have possessed the cocaine which turned to washing soda, had been directed by Mrs Tehoda’s husband not to co-operate with the police.
He said he had evidence to prove that Mrs Tehoda’s uncle, a sergeant in the Ghana Police Service, was scheming with Mr Tehoda and Nana Martins’s sister to secure Mrs Tehoda’s release.
According to the Chief State Attorney, the three persons were working “furiously to interfere in the process” and for that reason it would be dangerous to grant the accused person bail.
He, therefore, prayed the court to take the seriousness of the offence, as well as accompanying punishment, into consideration and refuse the accused person bail.
Mrs Tehoda had, on January 17, 2012, pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The police handed the accused person over to the BNI on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been rearrested in July 2011.
Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.
BNI Investigations led to the arrest of Mrs Tehoda for her alleged role in the swapping of the cocaine.
The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify Mrs Tehoda’s collaborators.
THE Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court on January 31, 2012 granted bail to Deputy Superintendent of Police Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda on the grounds that the charge against her was flawed.
According to the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah, “the particulars of offence accompanying the statement of offence are alien to the law and I, therefore, do not see why her rights must be curtailed”.
Ignoring an earlier move by the prosecution to introduce fresh evidence to convince the court to refuse Mrs Tehoda bail, the judge upheld a bail application from counsel for Mrs Tehoda and granted her bail in the sum of GH¢100,000, with two sureties.
Counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr E. A.Vordoagu, had prayed the court to grant his client bail because the charge preferred against her was incompetent, vexatious and without merit.
After standing the case down for three hours to enable the prosecution to file its affidavit in opposition to the defence team’s bail application, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, emerged, accusing Mrs Tehoda’s husband and her uncle, who is also a policeman, of using crude methods to secure her release.
Those allegations did not deter the judge from scrutinising the charge sheet and the particulars of offence, which eventually led to the granting of bail to the accused person.
Mrs Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga, has been charged with one count of abetment of stealing cocaine under Section 20 (1) of Act 29/60 and Section 56 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990, PNDCL 236.
But the particulars of offence stated, “Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, Police Officer, between 21st July, 2011 and December 2011 in the Greater Accra Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did aid and abet one Nana Ama Martins’ families and other individuals to commit crime, to wit loss of cocaine exhibit.”
That, according to the judge, was misleading, because there was no law which charged individuals for “loss of cocaine”.
He, therefore, held that holding the accused person for abetting crime was misleading and for that reason the court would uphold her human rights and admit her to bail.
Mr Justice Essel-Mensah admitted that although the case was a simple legal matter, it had become topical and sensational and for that reason the court would be very careful in giving its ruling.
The first question the judge posed was: “Has the applicant (Mrs Tehoda) been charged with any narcotic offence?”, to which he (judge) answered that the charge sheet bore no reference to that.
He then argued that although the prosecution had said she had abetted crime by stealing cocaine, the same charge sheet explained that she had contributed to the loss of cocaine exhibit.
The court held that the Criminal and other Offences Act had not enacted such a law.
Based on those inconsistencies and ambiguities in the charge sheet, it held that Mrs Tehoda could not be held any longer in detention.
Contrary to a court order on Tuesday, January 30, 2012 that they should produce the accused person, BNI officials failed to do so, but Mrs Tehoda’s husband and her family members expressed open joy after the court’s ruling yesterday.
They congratulated the defence lawyers, Mr E. A. Vordoagu and Mr Oliver Dzeble, for securing the freedom of their relative.
Mr Vordoagu had argued that the prosecution lumped the charge sheet together, thereby rendering it either mischievous or incompetent.
He further argued that the prosecution was seeking to misdirect the law and stated that the charge preferred against his client was bailable.
According to him, Mrs Tehoda had been kept in custody since December 29, 2011 on flawed charges.
“You do not arrest a person only to fish for evidence to incriminate her. This is dangerous practice and I pray the court to admit her to bail on flexible terms,” he said.
He assured the court that Mrs Tehoda would comply with the court’s orders when granted bail.
Responding, Mr Wiredu pointed out that the accused person was lawfully charged and denied an assertion that defence lawyers had been denied access to her.
Mr Wiredu informed the court that the sister of Nana Martins, the lady who was said to have possessed the cocaine which turned to washing soda, had been directed by Mrs Tehoda’s husband not to co-operate with the police.
He said he had evidence to prove that Mrs Tehoda’s uncle, a sergeant in the Ghana Police Service, was scheming with Mr Tehoda and Nana Martins’s sister to secure Mrs Tehoda’s release.
According to the Chief State Attorney, the three persons were working “furiously to interfere in the process” and for that reason it would be dangerous to grant the accused person bail.
He, therefore, prayed the court to take the seriousness of the offence, as well as accompanying punishment, into consideration and refuse the accused person bail.
Mrs Tehoda had, on January 17, 2012, pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The police handed the accused person over to the BNI on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been rearrested in July 2011.
Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.
BNI Investigations led to the arrest of Mrs Tehoda for her alleged role in the swapping of the cocaine.
The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify Mrs Tehoda’s collaborators.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Supreme Court judge suggests solution to Akuse boundary dispute
A Supreme Court judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, today suggested that the solution to the Akuse boundary dispute between the Greater Accra and Eastern Regions could be found in the examination of relevant local government legislations.
He, therefore, directed lawyers for parties in the boundary dispute at the Supreme Court to research into versions of Legislative Instrument from 1954 to date and address the court on it.
He made the suggestion when the matter was called at the court’s sitting in Accra today.
The case, which bordered on whether or not Akuse was part of the Greater Accra or Eastern Region was not heard because one of the panel members was out of the jurisdiction.
It was, therefore, adjourned to February 16, 2012.
There was heated argument between parties in the case outside the court premises after the case was adjourned. The parties, who mostly spoke in the local dialect Krobo swore to deal with each other when they reach the Akuse township.
Akuse has been at the centre of a dispute between the Dangme West District, now the Shai Osudoku District, in the Greater Accra Region and the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region following the decision of the Parliamentary Committee on Subsidiary Legislation set up in 2010 to place the Akuse Electoral Area under the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region, a move which infuriated authorities and residents of the Manya Krobo Traditional Area.
Two individuals are challenging the creation and specification of the new electoral area by the Ministry of Local Government which was gazetted in November 2010.
Mr Charles Mate Kole and Nene Azago Kwesitsu I have sued the EC and the Attorney-General on the grounds that the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument, 2010 (LI 1983) sought to alter boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions.
The two are contending that the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka, Natiriku and Salon Electoral areas (previously part of the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region, as per the specification made by CI 46 of 2004) are now part of the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region.
They are, accordingly, praying the court to declare that that action was in excess of the powers conferred on the Minister of Local Government by sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462).
In a writ filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, the plaintiffs are praying the Supreme Court to declare that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 241 (2) and Article 5 of the Constitution, Parliament acted in excess of its powers by approving, adopting and enacting LI 1983.
They are also praying the highest court of the land to declare as null and void and of no legal effect LI 1983 which eventually altered the boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions, as well as declare as null and void and of no legal effect the second column of LI 1983 which relates to the specification of the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka, Natiriku and Salon Electoral areas as part of the Dangme West District.
The plaintiffs are asking for an order restraining the EC from conducting elections or unit committee elections or exercising its powers to conduct elections in the affected towns pending the hearing and final determination of the merits of the instant action, as well as any further costs the court may deem fit.
The Attorney-General has, however, denied that the Minister of Local Government embarked on an exercise to alter boundaries between the Eastern and the Greater Accra regions.
The defendant is also praying the court to take into consideration the statute and social needs of the community, the economic exigencies of time and other factors, adding, “The Osudoku people need to keep their cultural identity as one people and the law must be used in the sense to further the cause of this unity and not to disintegrate them.”
In relation to this suit, the Chief of Akuse, Nene Teye Titiriku, the Akuse and Amedeka Residents Association and six former assembly members applied to be joined to the suit but the court struck out the names of the six assembly members and, accordingly, joined the names of the two others to the suit filed by Mr Kole and Nene Kwesitsu.
In November 2010, a Parliamentary Sub-Legislating Committee, acting on the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument, 2010 (LI 1983), realigned six electoral areas — Zongo New Town, Akutua, Osukute, Bungalow, Amedeka and Salon — at Akuse, originally part of the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region, to Dangme West in the Greater Accra Region.
He, therefore, directed lawyers for parties in the boundary dispute at the Supreme Court to research into versions of Legislative Instrument from 1954 to date and address the court on it.
He made the suggestion when the matter was called at the court’s sitting in Accra today.
The case, which bordered on whether or not Akuse was part of the Greater Accra or Eastern Region was not heard because one of the panel members was out of the jurisdiction.
It was, therefore, adjourned to February 16, 2012.
There was heated argument between parties in the case outside the court premises after the case was adjourned. The parties, who mostly spoke in the local dialect Krobo swore to deal with each other when they reach the Akuse township.
Akuse has been at the centre of a dispute between the Dangme West District, now the Shai Osudoku District, in the Greater Accra Region and the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region following the decision of the Parliamentary Committee on Subsidiary Legislation set up in 2010 to place the Akuse Electoral Area under the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region, a move which infuriated authorities and residents of the Manya Krobo Traditional Area.
Two individuals are challenging the creation and specification of the new electoral area by the Ministry of Local Government which was gazetted in November 2010.
Mr Charles Mate Kole and Nene Azago Kwesitsu I have sued the EC and the Attorney-General on the grounds that the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument, 2010 (LI 1983) sought to alter boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions.
The two are contending that the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka, Natiriku and Salon Electoral areas (previously part of the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region, as per the specification made by CI 46 of 2004) are now part of the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region.
They are, accordingly, praying the court to declare that that action was in excess of the powers conferred on the Minister of Local Government by sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462).
In a writ filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, the plaintiffs are praying the Supreme Court to declare that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 241 (2) and Article 5 of the Constitution, Parliament acted in excess of its powers by approving, adopting and enacting LI 1983.
They are also praying the highest court of the land to declare as null and void and of no legal effect LI 1983 which eventually altered the boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions, as well as declare as null and void and of no legal effect the second column of LI 1983 which relates to the specification of the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka, Natiriku and Salon Electoral areas as part of the Dangme West District.
The plaintiffs are asking for an order restraining the EC from conducting elections or unit committee elections or exercising its powers to conduct elections in the affected towns pending the hearing and final determination of the merits of the instant action, as well as any further costs the court may deem fit.
The Attorney-General has, however, denied that the Minister of Local Government embarked on an exercise to alter boundaries between the Eastern and the Greater Accra regions.
The defendant is also praying the court to take into consideration the statute and social needs of the community, the economic exigencies of time and other factors, adding, “The Osudoku people need to keep their cultural identity as one people and the law must be used in the sense to further the cause of this unity and not to disintegrate them.”
In relation to this suit, the Chief of Akuse, Nene Teye Titiriku, the Akuse and Amedeka Residents Association and six former assembly members applied to be joined to the suit but the court struck out the names of the six assembly members and, accordingly, joined the names of the two others to the suit filed by Mr Kole and Nene Kwesitsu.
In November 2010, a Parliamentary Sub-Legislating Committee, acting on the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument, 2010 (LI 1983), realigned six electoral areas — Zongo New Town, Akutua, Osukute, Bungalow, Amedeka and Salon — at Akuse, originally part of the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region, to Dangme West in the Greater Accra Region.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Supreme Court adjourns suit against Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey
THE Supreme Court could not hear a case brought against Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey over his purchase of a government bungalow because the plaintiffs, Okudzeto Ablakwa and Dr Omane Boamah, were not served with hearing notices.
The court then directed its registrar to serve hearing notices on parties and accordingly adjourned the case sine die.
Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey was present in court.
In November 2011, the court dismissed Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s preliminary objection which argued that the court had no mandate to hear a case brought before it by the applicants in respect of his right to purchase a government bungalow.
The nine-member court, in a unanimous decision, argued that, although, the case passed for a land case, which falls within the domain of the High Court, the plaintiffs were not laying claim to the property in question but rather seeking an interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution regarding the ownership of state property, including Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution.
Presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, the court agreed that it had jurisdiction by law and precedents to hear the case which bordered both on constitutionality and public interest.
Other members of the court were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Baffoe Bonnie, Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo.
In 2008, Mr Ablakwa and Dr. Boamah, Deputy Ministers of Information and Environment, Science and Technology respectively, brought the action against Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman, who was then the Minister of Tourism and National Orientation, seeking a declaration from the court that he had no right to buy the bungalow at No 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge residential area he was occupying at the time.
The plaintiffs had argued that the action of Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey contravened Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) and smacked of cronyism and gross abuse of discretional powers of a public officer.
However, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey raised a preliminary objection, saying the court had no mandate to hear the case.
His argument was that the right procedure was for the plaintiffs to apply to the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), if they thought he was abusing his office by applying to purchase the bungalow.
However, the Supreme Court held otherwise and accordingly dismissed the case.
The court then directed its registrar to serve hearing notices on parties and accordingly adjourned the case sine die.
Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey was present in court.
In November 2011, the court dismissed Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s preliminary objection which argued that the court had no mandate to hear a case brought before it by the applicants in respect of his right to purchase a government bungalow.
The nine-member court, in a unanimous decision, argued that, although, the case passed for a land case, which falls within the domain of the High Court, the plaintiffs were not laying claim to the property in question but rather seeking an interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution regarding the ownership of state property, including Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution.
Presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, the court agreed that it had jurisdiction by law and precedents to hear the case which bordered both on constitutionality and public interest.
Other members of the court were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Baffoe Bonnie, Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo.
In 2008, Mr Ablakwa and Dr. Boamah, Deputy Ministers of Information and Environment, Science and Technology respectively, brought the action against Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman, who was then the Minister of Tourism and National Orientation, seeking a declaration from the court that he had no right to buy the bungalow at No 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge residential area he was occupying at the time.
The plaintiffs had argued that the action of Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey contravened Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) and smacked of cronyism and gross abuse of discretional powers of a public officer.
However, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey raised a preliminary objection, saying the court had no mandate to hear the case.
His argument was that the right procedure was for the plaintiffs to apply to the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), if they thought he was abusing his office by applying to purchase the bungalow.
However, the Supreme Court held otherwise and accordingly dismissed the case.
Court orders BNI to produce DSP Mawuenyegah
January 31, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)
The Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court, yesterday ordered the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) to produce Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga at its sitting tomorrow (January 31, 2012).
The court’s order followed the failure of BNI officials to bring the accused person to court as was required by law.
Counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr E. A. Vordoagu informed the court of the frustrations the defence team encountered anytime they visited their client at the BNI cells.
According to him, although, BNI officials had been served with hearing notices, they refused to bring their client to court as well as made it impossible for the defence team to have access to her.
Mrs Tehoda, the Deputy Head of the Commercial Crimes Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, has applied for bail at the Human Rights Court presided over by Mr Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah.
Mrs Tehoda, has been remanded by the Accra Circuit Court on one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine but her lawyers applied for bail on her behalf at the Human Rights Court.
At the Human Rights Court’s sitting in Accra today, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, prayed the court to adjourn the case to Wednesday because he was out of the jurisdiction and upon return was informed his outfit was served with a copy of Mrs Tehoda’s bail application last Friday.
Mr Vordoagu opposed Mr Wiredu’s plea with the court and said the Attorney-General’s office had sufficient notice and for that reason, the court should ignore Mr Wiredu’s plea.
Responding to Mr Vordoagu’s submission, Mr Wiredu argued that the defence team’s bail application was badly written thereby causing the court to dismiss it on Wednesday, January 25, 2012.
The court, after listening to both parties, ordered the BNI to produce Mrs Tehoda tomorrow (January 31, 2012).
Mrs Tehoda on January 17, 2012 pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The police handed the accused person over to the BNI on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Ama Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been re-arrested in July 2011.
Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.
Following that, the Vice-President, Mr John Mahama, tasked the BNI to investigate the incident.
The investigation led to the arrest of the accused for her role in the swapping of the cocaine.
Although, her unit was not investigating Nana Martins for any offence, DSP Mrs Tehoda allegedly went for the suspect on different occasions from CID cells and took her to her office and also arranged a lawyer for her.
The trial circuit court had, in September last year, received the alleged cocaine, weighing 1,020 grammes, as exhibit after it had been tested by the Police Forensic Laboratory.
A day after that, counsel for Nana Martins prayed that the substance be retested because it was not cocaine, as alleged by the police report. The re-testing was done and it turned out to be sodium carbonate.
It was during BNI investigations that it came to light that DSP Mrs Tehoda played a role in the swapping of the cocaine and also assisted Nana Martins to sell her house, all to facilitate the swapping.
The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify the collaborators of DSP Mrs Tehoda.
The Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court, yesterday ordered the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) to produce Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga at its sitting tomorrow (January 31, 2012).
The court’s order followed the failure of BNI officials to bring the accused person to court as was required by law.
Counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr E. A. Vordoagu informed the court of the frustrations the defence team encountered anytime they visited their client at the BNI cells.
According to him, although, BNI officials had been served with hearing notices, they refused to bring their client to court as well as made it impossible for the defence team to have access to her.
Mrs Tehoda, the Deputy Head of the Commercial Crimes Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, has applied for bail at the Human Rights Court presided over by Mr Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah.
Mrs Tehoda, has been remanded by the Accra Circuit Court on one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine but her lawyers applied for bail on her behalf at the Human Rights Court.
At the Human Rights Court’s sitting in Accra today, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, prayed the court to adjourn the case to Wednesday because he was out of the jurisdiction and upon return was informed his outfit was served with a copy of Mrs Tehoda’s bail application last Friday.
Mr Vordoagu opposed Mr Wiredu’s plea with the court and said the Attorney-General’s office had sufficient notice and for that reason, the court should ignore Mr Wiredu’s plea.
Responding to Mr Vordoagu’s submission, Mr Wiredu argued that the defence team’s bail application was badly written thereby causing the court to dismiss it on Wednesday, January 25, 2012.
The court, after listening to both parties, ordered the BNI to produce Mrs Tehoda tomorrow (January 31, 2012).
Mrs Tehoda on January 17, 2012 pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The police handed the accused person over to the BNI on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Ama Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been re-arrested in July 2011.
Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.
Following that, the Vice-President, Mr John Mahama, tasked the BNI to investigate the incident.
The investigation led to the arrest of the accused for her role in the swapping of the cocaine.
Although, her unit was not investigating Nana Martins for any offence, DSP Mrs Tehoda allegedly went for the suspect on different occasions from CID cells and took her to her office and also arranged a lawyer for her.
The trial circuit court had, in September last year, received the alleged cocaine, weighing 1,020 grammes, as exhibit after it had been tested by the Police Forensic Laboratory.
A day after that, counsel for Nana Martins prayed that the substance be retested because it was not cocaine, as alleged by the police report. The re-testing was done and it turned out to be sodium carbonate.
It was during BNI investigations that it came to light that DSP Mrs Tehoda played a role in the swapping of the cocaine and also assisted Nana Martins to sell her house, all to facilitate the swapping.
The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify the collaborators of DSP Mrs Tehoda.
MEN SLEEP WITH DAUGHTERS - One jailed 10 years, another remanded
A 40-year-old man,Emmanuel Kwesi Yevu, who had sexual intercourse with his 13-year-old daughter, claiming he had woken up from a dream in which he had sex with his late wife, was yesterday sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra Circuit Court.
He pleaded guilty to the offence of incest.
In another case of incest, the court remanded 40-year-old Kwesi Mortsi, for having an affair with his 18-year-old daughter for 18 months and aborting her pregnancy for her on three occasions.
Mortsi, however, pleaded not guilty to one count of incest and was remanded to reappear on Februrary 7, 2012.
In the first case, Yevu had told the court that on a particular occasion, he had taken alcohol, slept and dreamt of having sex with his late wife.
When he woke up, he found out that his daughter had placed one of her legs on him and so, unable to control himself, he had sex with her.
Yevu also claimed a spirit entered him and lured him to have sex with his daughter on two occasions gave her medicines to swallow and another to insert in her vagina when she complained to him that she had not menstruated for three months.
There was profuse laughter when Yevu’s brother got up and informed the court that Yevu was oblivious of his offence because he had been charmed spiritually.
He looked directly at the trial judge, Mrs Georgina Mensah-Dastsa, and said “please have mercy on my brother. This one, ibi juju oooh.”
The judge replied “On a lighter note, I have powers but not juju powers. So take your juju story to a juju court.”
Yevu, who appeared not to be in a position to speak found his voice all of a sudden after his brother had humoured the court and stated in Ewe that evil spirits drove him to sleep with his daughter.
He said the spirits entered him thereby making him have frequent dreams of having sexual intercourse with his late wife.
On a particular occasion, he claimed he took in alcohol, slept, dreamt of having sex with his late wife and upon waking up, he found his daughter had laid one of her legs on him.
The facts of the case as presented by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mrs Sarah Acquah said the complainant was the victim’s uncle.
She said the victim had been living with the convict at Omanjor in Accra since the death of victim’s mother.
The prosecution said during October 2011, the victim was sleeping when Yevu forced her and had sex with her on two occasions. After the acts, the victim informed her father that she had not menstruated for the past three months.
Yevu, suspecting the victim was pregnant, gave the victim medicine to swallow and insert some of the medicine into her vagina.
Soon after inserting the medicine, the victim began to complain of abdominal pains and she was rushed to the hospital and a report was made to the Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU) at Odorkor Police station.
The victim was issued with a medical form while her father was arrested by the Police and during interrogation, Yevu admitted the offence.
Mortsi, on the other hand lived at Dansoman in Accra with his daughter, a school drop out and was for the past one and half years subjecting her to sexual abuse.
On January 16, 2012, Mortsi attempted to have sexual intercourse with his daughter but she refused to heed to his moves.
The next day while preparing to leave for work, Mortsi made sexual moves again but the victim refused thereby infuriating Mortsi who seized her bag in the process.
Mortsi’s action infuriated the victim who reported her sexual ordeal to the police.
Mortsi was picked up for questioning and later charged after police had completed investigations into the matter.
He pleaded guilty to the offence of incest.
In another case of incest, the court remanded 40-year-old Kwesi Mortsi, for having an affair with his 18-year-old daughter for 18 months and aborting her pregnancy for her on three occasions.
Mortsi, however, pleaded not guilty to one count of incest and was remanded to reappear on Februrary 7, 2012.
In the first case, Yevu had told the court that on a particular occasion, he had taken alcohol, slept and dreamt of having sex with his late wife.
When he woke up, he found out that his daughter had placed one of her legs on him and so, unable to control himself, he had sex with her.
Yevu also claimed a spirit entered him and lured him to have sex with his daughter on two occasions gave her medicines to swallow and another to insert in her vagina when she complained to him that she had not menstruated for three months.
There was profuse laughter when Yevu’s brother got up and informed the court that Yevu was oblivious of his offence because he had been charmed spiritually.
He looked directly at the trial judge, Mrs Georgina Mensah-Dastsa, and said “please have mercy on my brother. This one, ibi juju oooh.”
The judge replied “On a lighter note, I have powers but not juju powers. So take your juju story to a juju court.”
Yevu, who appeared not to be in a position to speak found his voice all of a sudden after his brother had humoured the court and stated in Ewe that evil spirits drove him to sleep with his daughter.
He said the spirits entered him thereby making him have frequent dreams of having sexual intercourse with his late wife.
On a particular occasion, he claimed he took in alcohol, slept, dreamt of having sex with his late wife and upon waking up, he found his daughter had laid one of her legs on him.
The facts of the case as presented by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mrs Sarah Acquah said the complainant was the victim’s uncle.
She said the victim had been living with the convict at Omanjor in Accra since the death of victim’s mother.
The prosecution said during October 2011, the victim was sleeping when Yevu forced her and had sex with her on two occasions. After the acts, the victim informed her father that she had not menstruated for the past three months.
Yevu, suspecting the victim was pregnant, gave the victim medicine to swallow and insert some of the medicine into her vagina.
Soon after inserting the medicine, the victim began to complain of abdominal pains and she was rushed to the hospital and a report was made to the Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU) at Odorkor Police station.
The victim was issued with a medical form while her father was arrested by the Police and during interrogation, Yevu admitted the offence.
Mortsi, on the other hand lived at Dansoman in Accra with his daughter, a school drop out and was for the past one and half years subjecting her to sexual abuse.
On January 16, 2012, Mortsi attempted to have sexual intercourse with his daughter but she refused to heed to his moves.
The next day while preparing to leave for work, Mortsi made sexual moves again but the victim refused thereby infuriating Mortsi who seized her bag in the process.
Mortsi’s action infuriated the victim who reported her sexual ordeal to the police.
Mortsi was picked up for questioning and later charged after police had completed investigations into the matter.
Human trafficker jailed 10 years
January 28, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)
A trader who trafficked 10 young girls to Nigeria for labour and prostitution has been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court.
Fati Abubakari, who was convicted to five years each on two separate dockets for engaging in human trafficking, was whisked away in a waiting van around 11 am to begin her jail term.
In the first case, she was charged with her former husband for conspiracy and human trafficking.
Her former husband, Bawa Salifu, who was at large during the trial, was, however, acquitted and discharged on two counts of conspiracy and human trafficking.
Fati was, however, convicted on five counts of human trafficking.
In the second case, Fati was charged along with her two sisters, Memuna Abukari and Zinabu Abukari, both traders.
Her sisters were acquitted and discharged on conspiracy and human trafficking charges but the court found Fati guilty and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment.
The court took into consideration the fact that she was a mother of two and that she was a first offender.
It also ordered Fati to return all items she had seized from her victims, as well as pay them their accrued salaries.
Acquitting the other accused persons, the court held that the prosecution failed to lead evidence to prove their guilt.
The facts of the case were that Fati had, in 2007, trafficked her victims from Agbogloshie in Accra and Gushegu in the Northern Region to Nigeria for labour and prostitution.
According to the prosecuion, the complainant in the case was a member of staff of the Regional Advocacy Information and Network System (RAINS), a non-governmental organisation, while the accused persons lived in Ghana and Nigeria.
It said on December 28, 2010, a victim confided in the complainant that about four years ago she and other girls had been recruited by the accused persons from Agbogbloshie and Gushegu and transported to Nigeria under the pretext of securing them jobs.
The victim told the complainant that she and the other girls were made to sell porridge during the day and forced to engage in prostitution during the night.
According to her, the accused persons took all the proceeds from the sale of the porridge and the prostitution, without paying her and her colleagues anything at all.
In the process, one of the girls was forced into marriage, while one of them went through a series of abortions as a result of having unprotected sex with her male customers.
During investigations, it emerged that Fati had been in the trafficking trade for the past 10 years. She denied committing any offence but admitted transporting a number of girls to Nigeria for work.
A trader who trafficked 10 young girls to Nigeria for labour and prostitution has been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court.
Fati Abubakari, who was convicted to five years each on two separate dockets for engaging in human trafficking, was whisked away in a waiting van around 11 am to begin her jail term.
In the first case, she was charged with her former husband for conspiracy and human trafficking.
Her former husband, Bawa Salifu, who was at large during the trial, was, however, acquitted and discharged on two counts of conspiracy and human trafficking.
Fati was, however, convicted on five counts of human trafficking.
In the second case, Fati was charged along with her two sisters, Memuna Abukari and Zinabu Abukari, both traders.
Her sisters were acquitted and discharged on conspiracy and human trafficking charges but the court found Fati guilty and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment.
The court took into consideration the fact that she was a mother of two and that she was a first offender.
It also ordered Fati to return all items she had seized from her victims, as well as pay them their accrued salaries.
Acquitting the other accused persons, the court held that the prosecution failed to lead evidence to prove their guilt.
The facts of the case were that Fati had, in 2007, trafficked her victims from Agbogloshie in Accra and Gushegu in the Northern Region to Nigeria for labour and prostitution.
According to the prosecuion, the complainant in the case was a member of staff of the Regional Advocacy Information and Network System (RAINS), a non-governmental organisation, while the accused persons lived in Ghana and Nigeria.
It said on December 28, 2010, a victim confided in the complainant that about four years ago she and other girls had been recruited by the accused persons from Agbogbloshie and Gushegu and transported to Nigeria under the pretext of securing them jobs.
The victim told the complainant that she and the other girls were made to sell porridge during the day and forced to engage in prostitution during the night.
According to her, the accused persons took all the proceeds from the sale of the porridge and the prostitution, without paying her and her colleagues anything at all.
In the process, one of the girls was forced into marriage, while one of them went through a series of abortions as a result of having unprotected sex with her male customers.
During investigations, it emerged that Fati had been in the trafficking trade for the past 10 years. She denied committing any offence but admitted transporting a number of girls to Nigeria for work.
Judge orders prosecution to start money laundering case
January 27, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE judge presiding over the case involving a lawyer and two others allegedly involved in money laundering activities has given the prosecution in the case a one-week ultimatum to start prosecuting the case.
According to Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, the court would advise itself should the prosecution fail to abide by the court’s directive.
Charles Owusu Juanah, a lawyer, Dr. Victor Amoah, an Agronomist and Nana Kwaku Agyei, a miner were first arraigned before the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court on January 19, 2012, charged with two counts of conspiracy and aiding and abetting money laundering activities.
They pleaded not guilty to the offences. Charles and Victor were each granted bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties each, one each to be justified.
Although, Victor managed to meet the bail terms, Charles could not and that prompted his lawyers to plead with the court at its sitting in Accra today to vary the bail terms.
According to one of the defence lawyers for Charles, Mr George Heward-Mills, the accused person had been in custody for two weeks already with his passport confiscated thereby making it impossible for him to leave the jurisdiction.
He said the bail condition was a great burden on his client and accordingly prayed the court to review the bail conditions for Charles.
Following counsel’s plea, the court reviewed the bail terms and granted Charles bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties, one to be justified.
The court directed the accused person to deposit a land title deed worth $2.5 million instead of $4 million with the registrar of the court as justification.
He and the other accused persons were also directed to report daily to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
Nana Kwaku Agyei, who was remanded on the last adjourned date was today granted bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties.
His lawyer, Mr Joseph Turkson, produced a medical report to prove that his client was not well.
An Assistant State Attorney, Mr. Edward Cudjoe, renewed his bail application and prayed the court to grant his client bail on terms he could meet.
The court granted Agyei bail and indicated that the court will review the condition based on his health condition
The accused persons are being accused of allegedly obtaining, through money laundering activities, an amount of $3.5 million.
Juanah, who is alleged to be the principal architect, is said to have collected the $3.5 million from the GT Bank headquarters at about 9:45 p.m. on November 17, 2011 after luring a Dubai-based businessman, Mohammed Shafiq, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Jampur Group, and his agents into the country to establish business dealings in gold.
The prosecution said when Mr Shafiq and his agents arrived in Ghana, they were told that the gold had been lodged in a vault at the SG-SSB Bank and were made to pay $3.5 million before it would be released.
It said the money was lodged in an account at the Abeka branch of the GT Bank and the alleged gold subsequently handed over to the buyers.
The prosecution further stated that when Mr Shafiq and his agents decided to verify the authenticity of 135 kilogrammes of gold after it had been delivered, only 5 kilogrammes was found to be authentic.
It said when Mr Shafiq and his agents complained and threatened to lodge a complaint with the police, Juanah allegedly warned them not to dare, as they would be incarcerated for transacting an illegitimate business as illegal immigrants.
It said Mr Shafiq and his agents quickly left the country for Dubai and were advised to lodge a complaint with the National Security, which referred the matter to EOCO.
According to the prosecution, investigations had so far revealed that Juanah drafted the contract agreement for the transactions, acted as solicitor to both the buyer and the seller, while Amoah, a friend of Juanah and Amoah, acted as consultant to Mr Shafiq and his agent.
THE judge presiding over the case involving a lawyer and two others allegedly involved in money laundering activities has given the prosecution in the case a one-week ultimatum to start prosecuting the case.
According to Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, the court would advise itself should the prosecution fail to abide by the court’s directive.
Charles Owusu Juanah, a lawyer, Dr. Victor Amoah, an Agronomist and Nana Kwaku Agyei, a miner were first arraigned before the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court on January 19, 2012, charged with two counts of conspiracy and aiding and abetting money laundering activities.
They pleaded not guilty to the offences. Charles and Victor were each granted bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties each, one each to be justified.
Although, Victor managed to meet the bail terms, Charles could not and that prompted his lawyers to plead with the court at its sitting in Accra today to vary the bail terms.
According to one of the defence lawyers for Charles, Mr George Heward-Mills, the accused person had been in custody for two weeks already with his passport confiscated thereby making it impossible for him to leave the jurisdiction.
He said the bail condition was a great burden on his client and accordingly prayed the court to review the bail conditions for Charles.
Following counsel’s plea, the court reviewed the bail terms and granted Charles bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties, one to be justified.
The court directed the accused person to deposit a land title deed worth $2.5 million instead of $4 million with the registrar of the court as justification.
He and the other accused persons were also directed to report daily to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
Nana Kwaku Agyei, who was remanded on the last adjourned date was today granted bail in the sum of $4 million with three sureties.
His lawyer, Mr Joseph Turkson, produced a medical report to prove that his client was not well.
An Assistant State Attorney, Mr. Edward Cudjoe, renewed his bail application and prayed the court to grant his client bail on terms he could meet.
The court granted Agyei bail and indicated that the court will review the condition based on his health condition
The accused persons are being accused of allegedly obtaining, through money laundering activities, an amount of $3.5 million.
Juanah, who is alleged to be the principal architect, is said to have collected the $3.5 million from the GT Bank headquarters at about 9:45 p.m. on November 17, 2011 after luring a Dubai-based businessman, Mohammed Shafiq, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Jampur Group, and his agents into the country to establish business dealings in gold.
The prosecution said when Mr Shafiq and his agents arrived in Ghana, they were told that the gold had been lodged in a vault at the SG-SSB Bank and were made to pay $3.5 million before it would be released.
It said the money was lodged in an account at the Abeka branch of the GT Bank and the alleged gold subsequently handed over to the buyers.
The prosecution further stated that when Mr Shafiq and his agents decided to verify the authenticity of 135 kilogrammes of gold after it had been delivered, only 5 kilogrammes was found to be authentic.
It said when Mr Shafiq and his agents complained and threatened to lodge a complaint with the police, Juanah allegedly warned them not to dare, as they would be incarcerated for transacting an illegitimate business as illegal immigrants.
It said Mr Shafiq and his agents quickly left the country for Dubai and were advised to lodge a complaint with the National Security, which referred the matter to EOCO.
According to the prosecution, investigations had so far revealed that Juanah drafted the contract agreement for the transactions, acted as solicitor to both the buyer and the seller, while Amoah, a friend of Juanah and Amoah, acted as consultant to Mr Shafiq and his agent.
DSP Mawuenyegah applies for bail
January 26, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)
The interdicted Deputy Head of the Commercial Crimes Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, DSP Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga, has applied for bail at the Human Rights Court.
Mrs Tehoda, who was remanded by the Accra Circuit Court on one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine on January 17, 2012 was not present at the Human Rights Court.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice U. P. Dery, drew counsel’s attention to some technical errors on the docket and accordingly advised counsel to rectify them.
Following that development, the court, could not hear her case due to the technical errors which needed to be rectified by counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr Oliver Dzeble.
Details of the bail application were not made available. A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the bail application.
Mrs Tehoda on January 17, 2012 pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The court declined bail application by counsel for the accused.
The accused person was handed over to the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) by the police on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Ama Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been re-arrested in July 2011.
Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.
Following that, the Vice-President, Mr John Mahama, tasked the BNI to investigate the incident.
The investigation led to the arrest of the accused, who was handed over for her role in the swapping of the cocaine.
Although, her unit was not investigating Nana Martins for any offence, DSP Mrs Tehoda allegedly went for the suspect on different occasions from CID cells and took her to her office and also arranged a lawyer for her.
The trial circuit court had, in September last year, received the alleged cocaine, weighing 1,020 grammes, as exhibit after it had been tested by the Police Forensic Laboratory.
A day after that, counsel for Nana Martins prayed that the substance be retested because it was not cocaine, as alleged by the police report. The re-testing was done and it turned out to be sodium carbonate.
It was during BNI investigations that it came to light that DSP Mrs Tehoda played a role in the swapping of the cocaine and also assisted Nana Martins to sell her house, all to facilitate the swapping.
The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify the collaborators of DSP Mrs Tehoda, who was admitted to bail by the Human Rights High Court for the abuse of her constitutional rights.
The interdicted Deputy Head of the Commercial Crimes Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, DSP Mrs Gifty Mawuenyegah Tehoda, who is at the centre of the cocaine-turn-sodium carbonate saga, has applied for bail at the Human Rights Court.
Mrs Tehoda, who was remanded by the Accra Circuit Court on one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine on January 17, 2012 was not present at the Human Rights Court.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice U. P. Dery, drew counsel’s attention to some technical errors on the docket and accordingly advised counsel to rectify them.
Following that development, the court, could not hear her case due to the technical errors which needed to be rectified by counsel for Mrs Tehoda, Mr Oliver Dzeble.
Details of the bail application were not made available. A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the bail application.
Mrs Tehoda on January 17, 2012 pleaded not guilty to one count of abetment of stealing of cocaine and was remanded by the Circuit Court to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The court declined bail application by counsel for the accused.
The accused person was handed over to the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) by the police on December 29, 2011 on suspicious dealings with Nana Ama Martins after she (Nana Martins) had been re-arrested in July 2011.
Nana Martins was acquitted and discharged by the Accra Circuit Court of the charge of possessing cocaine in the trial which was aborted after the court had upheld a submission of ‘no case’ made by her counsel.
Following that, the Vice-President, Mr John Mahama, tasked the BNI to investigate the incident.
The investigation led to the arrest of the accused, who was handed over for her role in the swapping of the cocaine.
Although, her unit was not investigating Nana Martins for any offence, DSP Mrs Tehoda allegedly went for the suspect on different occasions from CID cells and took her to her office and also arranged a lawyer for her.
The trial circuit court had, in September last year, received the alleged cocaine, weighing 1,020 grammes, as exhibit after it had been tested by the Police Forensic Laboratory.
A day after that, counsel for Nana Martins prayed that the substance be retested because it was not cocaine, as alleged by the police report. The re-testing was done and it turned out to be sodium carbonate.
It was during BNI investigations that it came to light that DSP Mrs Tehoda played a role in the swapping of the cocaine and also assisted Nana Martins to sell her house, all to facilitate the swapping.
The prosecution said investigations were still ongoing to identify the collaborators of DSP Mrs Tehoda, who was admitted to bail by the Human Rights High Court for the abuse of her constitutional rights.
High court dismisses action
January 23, 2012 (Page 3)
THE Accra High Court yesterday dismissed a motion for interlocutory injunction seeking an order to restrain the People’s National Convention (PNC) from organising the party’s delegate congress.
According to the court, the applicants failed to provide independent evidence to substantiate allegations of fraud leveled against the defendants.
It accordingly dismissed the application for interlocutory injunction and awarded cost of GHC 2,000 against Ibrahim Karim, Haruna Abass, Abubakari Sadick Wiyor, Benard Bama-Ame and Michale Anafo who had brought an action against, three executives of the PNC, Dr Edward Mahama, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan and Benard Mornah.
The court’s ruling will now pave the way for the fixing of a new date for the national delegates which was originally scheduled to take place in Sunyani from December 9-11, 2011.
Following a motion for stay of proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal filed by counsel for the defendants, Dr. Somtim Tobiga, the court adjourned the hearing of the substantive case sine die.
In the said appeal, the applicants/appellants are challenging the court’s decision which dismissed their preliminary objection of conflict of interest raised against counsel for the party, Mr James Agalga and four of its leaders, who have been sued by the defendants/appellants.
The defendants/appellants said it was wrong for Mr Agalga to represent the respondents because the party was the victim in the matter and it was unethical for counsel to represent both the victim and the perpetrators of the act against the victim.
However, Mr Agalga responded that the objection was misplaced because the court was not the right forum to ventilate it and also the PNC was an inanimate object which could sue and be sued and behind which was the leadership who acted for it.
In the substantive suit, the are also seeking an order to restrain the PNC, Dr Mahama, Alhaji Ramadan and Mr Mornah from introducing themselves as the Leader, Chairman and General Secretary, respectively, of the party or to grant interviews to the media or participate in any media or public programme in their purported capacities as such.
They are further seeking an order to restrain the respondents from withdrawing or spending any funds from the account of the PNC or soliciting any funds from any person or organisation for the benefit or on behalf of the party.
THE Accra High Court yesterday dismissed a motion for interlocutory injunction seeking an order to restrain the People’s National Convention (PNC) from organising the party’s delegate congress.
According to the court, the applicants failed to provide independent evidence to substantiate allegations of fraud leveled against the defendants.
It accordingly dismissed the application for interlocutory injunction and awarded cost of GHC 2,000 against Ibrahim Karim, Haruna Abass, Abubakari Sadick Wiyor, Benard Bama-Ame and Michale Anafo who had brought an action against, three executives of the PNC, Dr Edward Mahama, Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan and Benard Mornah.
The court’s ruling will now pave the way for the fixing of a new date for the national delegates which was originally scheduled to take place in Sunyani from December 9-11, 2011.
Following a motion for stay of proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal filed by counsel for the defendants, Dr. Somtim Tobiga, the court adjourned the hearing of the substantive case sine die.
In the said appeal, the applicants/appellants are challenging the court’s decision which dismissed their preliminary objection of conflict of interest raised against counsel for the party, Mr James Agalga and four of its leaders, who have been sued by the defendants/appellants.
The defendants/appellants said it was wrong for Mr Agalga to represent the respondents because the party was the victim in the matter and it was unethical for counsel to represent both the victim and the perpetrators of the act against the victim.
However, Mr Agalga responded that the objection was misplaced because the court was not the right forum to ventilate it and also the PNC was an inanimate object which could sue and be sued and behind which was the leadership who acted for it.
In the substantive suit, the are also seeking an order to restrain the PNC, Dr Mahama, Alhaji Ramadan and Mr Mornah from introducing themselves as the Leader, Chairman and General Secretary, respectively, of the party or to grant interviews to the media or participate in any media or public programme in their purported capacities as such.
They are further seeking an order to restrain the respondents from withdrawing or spending any funds from the account of the PNC or soliciting any funds from any person or organisation for the benefit or on behalf of the party.
Two remanded for supplying narcotic drugs
January 24, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)
Two persons were on Monday remanded by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly possessing and supplying narcotic drugs.
Hamza Mohammed was charged with one count of possessing 46 wrappers of cocaine and 14 wrappers of heroin, while Kwaku Bagnabu was charged with one count of supplying narcotic drugs.
They both pleaded not guilty to the offence and were remanded to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The case took a twist when Hamza informed the court that he had been forced to mention Bagnabu as his supplier as a result of the torture he had suffered at the hands of the police.
Following Hamza's revelation, counsel for Bagnabu, Mr George Asamani, prayed the court to grant his client bail but it declined and fixed February 6, 2012 as the next adjourned date.
According to Mr Asamani, his client was innocent and was simply being held for keeping papers in his room, adding that “teachers and printing press owners should also be arrested”.
His statement drew a huge laughter from the audience in the courtroom.
The facts of the case, as narrated by Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr Cletus Abadamlora, were that on December 20, 2011, a police highway patrol team from the Police Headquarters stopped a vehicle at La Aplaku on the Aflao road and found wrappers in the vehicle.
According to the prosecution, the patrol team observed that 46 wrappers contained cocaine, while 14 wrappers contained heroin. Test results from the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) proved the police were right.
Hamza mentioned Bagnabu as the supplier of the narcotic drugs during interrogation, thereby resulting in Bagnabu's arrest.
However, during the court's sitting in Accra Monday, Hamza informed the court that Bagnabu had no hand in the crime he (Hamza) was alleged to have committed.
Two persons were on Monday remanded by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly possessing and supplying narcotic drugs.
Hamza Mohammed was charged with one count of possessing 46 wrappers of cocaine and 14 wrappers of heroin, while Kwaku Bagnabu was charged with one count of supplying narcotic drugs.
They both pleaded not guilty to the offence and were remanded to reappear on February 6, 2012.
The case took a twist when Hamza informed the court that he had been forced to mention Bagnabu as his supplier as a result of the torture he had suffered at the hands of the police.
Following Hamza's revelation, counsel for Bagnabu, Mr George Asamani, prayed the court to grant his client bail but it declined and fixed February 6, 2012 as the next adjourned date.
According to Mr Asamani, his client was innocent and was simply being held for keeping papers in his room, adding that “teachers and printing press owners should also be arrested”.
His statement drew a huge laughter from the audience in the courtroom.
The facts of the case, as narrated by Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr Cletus Abadamlora, were that on December 20, 2011, a police highway patrol team from the Police Headquarters stopped a vehicle at La Aplaku on the Aflao road and found wrappers in the vehicle.
According to the prosecution, the patrol team observed that 46 wrappers contained cocaine, while 14 wrappers contained heroin. Test results from the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) proved the police were right.
Hamza mentioned Bagnabu as the supplier of the narcotic drugs during interrogation, thereby resulting in Bagnabu's arrest.
However, during the court's sitting in Accra Monday, Hamza informed the court that Bagnabu had no hand in the crime he (Hamza) was alleged to have committed.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Lawyer Granted Bail For Alleged Money Laundering
Friday, January 20, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)
The lawyer accused of aiding money laundering activities, Charles Owusu Juanah, was yesterday granted bail in the sum of $4 million with two sureties, one of which is to be justified.
The Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court also granted bail in the sum of $4 million with two sureties, one of which to be justified, to his alleged accomplice, Victor Amoah.
They were also ordered to report themselves at the offices of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) at 10 a.m. daily.
A third accused person, Nana Kwaku Agyei, was, however, remanded to reappear on January 26, 2012.
Juanah and Amoah, who pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and aiding and abetting money laundering activities, were granted bail after the prosecution had substituted an earlier charge sheet with a new one.
They were initially charged with conspiracy and money laundering. They are being accused of obtaining, through money laundering activities, $3.5 million from a Dubai-based businessman, Mohammed Shafiq, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Jampur Group, and his agents.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a large crowd which had thronged the court premises to give support to the accused persons applauded thunderously immediately the trial judge, Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, announced that the two had been granted bail.
The judge, however, brought the crowd to order and warned them not to repeat that act or risk being cited for contempt of court.
Bail was granted to the two after their team of lawyers had prayed the court to grant them bail on the grounds that charges preferred against them were bailable offences.
Lead counsel for Juanah and Amoah, Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, argued that the charges preferred against his clients were flawed and asked, “How can one aid and abet money laundering offences?”
He prayed the court to grant his clients bail for proper investigations to be carried out to determine whether or not his clients were the proper ones to be charged.
Mr Owusu-Fordjour informed the court that his clients were responsible persons who had offices and permanent places of abode and for that reason they would not flout the court’s orders when granted bail.
He also informed the court that his clients had substantial sureties who were willing to stand in for the accused persons, adding that the Constitution deemed the accused persons innocent until proved guilty.
One of the lawyers for Juanah and Amoah, Mr George Heward-Mills, argued that it would be unjust for the court to hold their clients under the circumstance, adding, “If you persist in prayer, the Lord will answer you.”
Counsel for Agyei, Mr Joseph Turkson, prayed the court to grant his client bail under reasonable terms and conditions.
A State Attorney, Mr Edward Cudjoe, on the other hand, disagreed with the defence team and prayed the court to remand the accused persons, since investigations were ongoing.
Juanah, who is alleged to be the principal architect, is said to have collected the $3.5 million from the GT Bank headquarters about 9:45 p.m. on November 17, 2011 after luring Mr Shafiq and his agents into the country to establish business dealings in gold.
The prosecution said when Mr Shafiq and his agents arrived in Ghana, they were told that the gold had been lodged in a vault at the SG-SSB Bank and were made to pay $3.5 million before it would be released.
It said the money was lodged in an account at the Abeka branch of the GT Bank and the alleged gold subsequently handed over to the buyers.
The prosecution further stated that when Mr Shafiq and his agents decided to verify the authenticity of the 135 kilogrammes of gold after it had been delivered, only five kilogrammes was found to be authentic.
It said when Mr Shafiq and his agents complained and threatened to lodge a complaint with the police, Juanah allegedly warned them not to dare, as they would be incarcerated for transacting an illegitimate business as illegal immigrants.
It said Mr Shafiq and his agents quickly left the country for Dubai and were advised to lodge a complaint with the National Security, which referred the matter to EOCO.
According to the prosecution, investigations had so far revealed that Juanah drafted the contract agreement for the transactions and acted as solicitor for both the buyer and the seller, while Amoah, a friend of Juanah and Agyei, acted as consultant to Mr Shafiq and his agents.
The lawyer accused of aiding money laundering activities, Charles Owusu Juanah, was yesterday granted bail in the sum of $4 million with two sureties, one of which is to be justified.
The Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court also granted bail in the sum of $4 million with two sureties, one of which to be justified, to his alleged accomplice, Victor Amoah.
They were also ordered to report themselves at the offices of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) at 10 a.m. daily.
A third accused person, Nana Kwaku Agyei, was, however, remanded to reappear on January 26, 2012.
Juanah and Amoah, who pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and aiding and abetting money laundering activities, were granted bail after the prosecution had substituted an earlier charge sheet with a new one.
They were initially charged with conspiracy and money laundering. They are being accused of obtaining, through money laundering activities, $3.5 million from a Dubai-based businessman, Mohammed Shafiq, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Jampur Group, and his agents.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a large crowd which had thronged the court premises to give support to the accused persons applauded thunderously immediately the trial judge, Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, announced that the two had been granted bail.
The judge, however, brought the crowd to order and warned them not to repeat that act or risk being cited for contempt of court.
Bail was granted to the two after their team of lawyers had prayed the court to grant them bail on the grounds that charges preferred against them were bailable offences.
Lead counsel for Juanah and Amoah, Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, argued that the charges preferred against his clients were flawed and asked, “How can one aid and abet money laundering offences?”
He prayed the court to grant his clients bail for proper investigations to be carried out to determine whether or not his clients were the proper ones to be charged.
Mr Owusu-Fordjour informed the court that his clients were responsible persons who had offices and permanent places of abode and for that reason they would not flout the court’s orders when granted bail.
He also informed the court that his clients had substantial sureties who were willing to stand in for the accused persons, adding that the Constitution deemed the accused persons innocent until proved guilty.
One of the lawyers for Juanah and Amoah, Mr George Heward-Mills, argued that it would be unjust for the court to hold their clients under the circumstance, adding, “If you persist in prayer, the Lord will answer you.”
Counsel for Agyei, Mr Joseph Turkson, prayed the court to grant his client bail under reasonable terms and conditions.
A State Attorney, Mr Edward Cudjoe, on the other hand, disagreed with the defence team and prayed the court to remand the accused persons, since investigations were ongoing.
Juanah, who is alleged to be the principal architect, is said to have collected the $3.5 million from the GT Bank headquarters about 9:45 p.m. on November 17, 2011 after luring Mr Shafiq and his agents into the country to establish business dealings in gold.
The prosecution said when Mr Shafiq and his agents arrived in Ghana, they were told that the gold had been lodged in a vault at the SG-SSB Bank and were made to pay $3.5 million before it would be released.
It said the money was lodged in an account at the Abeka branch of the GT Bank and the alleged gold subsequently handed over to the buyers.
The prosecution further stated that when Mr Shafiq and his agents decided to verify the authenticity of the 135 kilogrammes of gold after it had been delivered, only five kilogrammes was found to be authentic.
It said when Mr Shafiq and his agents complained and threatened to lodge a complaint with the police, Juanah allegedly warned them not to dare, as they would be incarcerated for transacting an illegitimate business as illegal immigrants.
It said Mr Shafiq and his agents quickly left the country for Dubai and were advised to lodge a complaint with the National Security, which referred the matter to EOCO.
According to the prosecution, investigations had so far revealed that Juanah drafted the contract agreement for the transactions and acted as solicitor for both the buyer and the seller, while Amoah, a friend of Juanah and Agyei, acted as consultant to Mr Shafiq and his agents.
Osafo-Maafo Drags EOCO To Court
Thursday, January 19,2011 (Page 3 Lead)
A former Minister of State, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, has dragged the Economic and Organised Crimes Office (EOCO) to the Fast Track High Court, challenging EOCO’s decision to invite him to testify in investigations into the payment of GH¢58 million to a businessman, Mr Alfred Woyome.
According to Mr Osafo-Maafo, who was once a Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, public utterances by the President, the Deputy Attorney-General and the EOCO clearly indicated bias and the likelihood that the investigations would be prejudiced against him.
He is, accordingly, praying the court to declare that the purported investigations being undertaken by EOCO into what he termed suspected serious offences, including fraud in the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008, and an invitation to him to assist in investigations were unlawful to the extent that they were issues raised in a report of the Auditor-General duly laid before Parliament.
The plaintiff is further praying the court to declare that the circumstances involving the payment of the colossal sum of GH¢58,095,974.13 to Mr Woyome and the acts and utterances of the President, the Deputy Attorney-General and the EOCO disabled EOCO from acting in a fair and reasonable manner.
Mr Osafo-Maafo, who is also a former Minister of Education, is pleading with the court to declare that the purported investigations being undertaken by EOCO were actuated by bias and prejudice and, therefore, unlawful under the 1992 Constitution.
He is also seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the investigations into the so-called suspected serious offences, including fraud in the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008, as well as other reliefs the court might deem fit.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the trial judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibilities as a High Court judge, appealed to parties in the case not to take any steps that would prejudice the outcome of the case.
The matter could not be heard by the court yesterday because counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, had sent a letter and a medical report indicating that he was indisposed.
Counsel for Mr Osafo-Maafo, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, then prayed the court to stop EOCO from continuing with investigations until the final determination of the matter.
The presiding judge advised Mr Dame to file an application for contempt against EOCO but Mr Dame said it would not serve any purpose, since the investigations might be completed before court processes were filed.
Mr Osafo-Maafo was accompanied to the court by a former Deputy Minister of Sports, Mr O. B. Amoah; Mr Kwaku Agyemang-Manu, a former Deputy Minister of Finance, and other sympathisers.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed an application for interlocutory injunction for an order to restrain EOCO and its agents from continuing with investigations into the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008 pending the final determination of the suit.
According to the applicant, who said he received a letter dated January 5, 2012 inviting him to assist in EOCO’s investigations, his suit had a great chance of success and so unless EOCO was restrained by the court, he would suffer irreparable loss.
An affidavit in support of his suit stated that EOCO’s continuous conduct of investigations into the matter was likely to prejudice a fair hearing and determination of the suit and in the process occasion a miscarriage of justice.
An affidavit in support of the substantive suit and deposed to by counsel for Mr Osafo-Maafo stated, among others, that the President’s directive to EOCO was a ruse in furtherance of the President’s agenda to divert attention and calculated at vindicating his prior public pronouncements of wrongdoing and impropriety by key members of the erstwhile New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration.
It said the various public statements of the President, as well as other government functionaries, on the payment of money to Mr Woyome undoubtedly demonstrated the bias and the prejudice of the government and the Office of the Attorney-General, the authority with oversight responsibility for EOCO.
According to the affidavit in support, “Given the ample exhibition of bias and prejudice against key personalities in the erstwhile Kufuor administration, including the plaintiff, the defendant cannot be trusted to carry out any fair or impartial investigations into the relevant issues in controversy.”
It further pointed out that the President’s directive mandating EOCO to carry out the investigations in question was in utter bad faith and in gross contravention of the injunction imposed on all persons in positions of authority by the combined effect of articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with due process and in a manner devoid of prejudice, arbitrariness and capriciousness.
“Indeed, the conduct of the President and the Attorney-General so far flouts the fundamental principle of natural justice underpinning our legal system for a person not to be a judge in his own cause and for that matter ought to be curtailed by this honourable court,” the affidavit in support stated.
It added that the Constitution mandated only Parliament to investigate matters arising out of reports of the Auditor-General.
A former Minister of State, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, has dragged the Economic and Organised Crimes Office (EOCO) to the Fast Track High Court, challenging EOCO’s decision to invite him to testify in investigations into the payment of GH¢58 million to a businessman, Mr Alfred Woyome.
According to Mr Osafo-Maafo, who was once a Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, public utterances by the President, the Deputy Attorney-General and the EOCO clearly indicated bias and the likelihood that the investigations would be prejudiced against him.
He is, accordingly, praying the court to declare that the purported investigations being undertaken by EOCO into what he termed suspected serious offences, including fraud in the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008, and an invitation to him to assist in investigations were unlawful to the extent that they were issues raised in a report of the Auditor-General duly laid before Parliament.
The plaintiff is further praying the court to declare that the circumstances involving the payment of the colossal sum of GH¢58,095,974.13 to Mr Woyome and the acts and utterances of the President, the Deputy Attorney-General and the EOCO disabled EOCO from acting in a fair and reasonable manner.
Mr Osafo-Maafo, who is also a former Minister of Education, is pleading with the court to declare that the purported investigations being undertaken by EOCO were actuated by bias and prejudice and, therefore, unlawful under the 1992 Constitution.
He is also seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the investigations into the so-called suspected serious offences, including fraud in the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008, as well as other reliefs the court might deem fit.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the trial judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibilities as a High Court judge, appealed to parties in the case not to take any steps that would prejudice the outcome of the case.
The matter could not be heard by the court yesterday because counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, had sent a letter and a medical report indicating that he was indisposed.
Counsel for Mr Osafo-Maafo, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, then prayed the court to stop EOCO from continuing with investigations until the final determination of the matter.
The presiding judge advised Mr Dame to file an application for contempt against EOCO but Mr Dame said it would not serve any purpose, since the investigations might be completed before court processes were filed.
Mr Osafo-Maafo was accompanied to the court by a former Deputy Minister of Sports, Mr O. B. Amoah; Mr Kwaku Agyemang-Manu, a former Deputy Minister of Finance, and other sympathisers.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed an application for interlocutory injunction for an order to restrain EOCO and its agents from continuing with investigations into the award and execution of contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008 pending the final determination of the suit.
According to the applicant, who said he received a letter dated January 5, 2012 inviting him to assist in EOCO’s investigations, his suit had a great chance of success and so unless EOCO was restrained by the court, he would suffer irreparable loss.
An affidavit in support of his suit stated that EOCO’s continuous conduct of investigations into the matter was likely to prejudice a fair hearing and determination of the suit and in the process occasion a miscarriage of justice.
An affidavit in support of the substantive suit and deposed to by counsel for Mr Osafo-Maafo stated, among others, that the President’s directive to EOCO was a ruse in furtherance of the President’s agenda to divert attention and calculated at vindicating his prior public pronouncements of wrongdoing and impropriety by key members of the erstwhile New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration.
It said the various public statements of the President, as well as other government functionaries, on the payment of money to Mr Woyome undoubtedly demonstrated the bias and the prejudice of the government and the Office of the Attorney-General, the authority with oversight responsibility for EOCO.
According to the affidavit in support, “Given the ample exhibition of bias and prejudice against key personalities in the erstwhile Kufuor administration, including the plaintiff, the defendant cannot be trusted to carry out any fair or impartial investigations into the relevant issues in controversy.”
It further pointed out that the President’s directive mandating EOCO to carry out the investigations in question was in utter bad faith and in gross contravention of the injunction imposed on all persons in positions of authority by the combined effect of articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with due process and in a manner devoid of prejudice, arbitrariness and capriciousness.
“Indeed, the conduct of the President and the Attorney-General so far flouts the fundamental principle of natural justice underpinning our legal system for a person not to be a judge in his own cause and for that matter ought to be curtailed by this honourable court,” the affidavit in support stated.
It added that the Constitution mandated only Parliament to investigate matters arising out of reports of the Auditor-General.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Microsoft warns consumers and businesses in Ghana to beware of fake software
Accra, Ghana — 12 December 2011 Ghanaian law enforcement authorities raided the premises of Skynet Computers and Accessories, a computer reseller operating in Asylum Down, Accra after obtaining a search warrant from a Magistrate Court. The raid took place on 30 November 2011 and the matter has been handed to the Ghana Copyright Office for further investigation.
The raid points to the fact that many resellers are in possession of high quality counterfeit software that is packaged like genuine software – a trend resulting in many consumers, who believe they are purchasing software from a reliable source, unknowingly becoming victims to software piracy.
Says Seye Oloruntoba, Anti-Piracy Manager, Microsoft Anglophone West Africa: “We’ve noticed a rising number of what turn out to be ‘accidental pirates’ – people who unintentionally purchase counterfeit software from resellers and only later find out they have been duped. In doing so, they expose themselves to a plethora of risks, which in the long-run can prove extremely costly for individuals, and often disastrous for businesses. Honest resellers, who sell only genuine software, are put at an unfair disadvantage, and ultimately the whole economy feels the effects. ”
39 pieces of suspected counterfeit Microsoft Windows software were recovered at Skynet Computers and Accessories’ premises. While the original source of the counterfeit software in still under investigation, it is understood that Skynet Computers and Accessories had recently supplied 400 pieces of Windows 7 Professional software to a local bank.
A recent global study conducted by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) revealed that over 70% of PC users in Africa acquire software illegally on a regular basis and confirmed that many consumers are unsure of what constitutes software piracy .
“We are actively working to ensure our customers and partners in Ghana are protected from unscrupulous suppliers,” added Oloruntoba. “This is a responsibility we take extremely seriously. When they come to us for help, we make sure they receive the necessary support and we also alert local law enforcement authorities like the Ghana Copyright Office. There must be severe consequences for those who sell pirated and counterfeit software in Ghana.”
It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between genuine and non-genuine software, unless consumers are discerning and know what to look out for. Oloruntoba suggests following these tips to avoid being misled when purchasing software:
1. Before you purchase Windows software, ask resellers to confirm it will pass the Windows activation test. Activation and validation are the keys to genuine software.
2. Beware of the common gateways of digital counterfeiting: websites advertising ‘cheap software’; online auction sites with links to download sites offering counterfeit software; and peer-to-peer (P2P) networks or other file-sharing technologies.
3. Buy from a trusted source. Research online or local sellers extensively before making a purchase.
4. Compare the price. Counterfeit software is often sold at a much cheaper price, but can end up costing users hundreds or thousands of dollars.
5. Be suspicious of products that lack some form of proof of authenticity – such as a hologram, CD, DVD, recovery media, manuals and Microsoft Software License Terms (MSLT).
6. Be extremely careful when buying from software sellers in other countries as this complicates matters if the transaction goes awry.
7. Keep your anti-virus program up to date. This reduces your computer’s risk of exposure to viruses and malware when downloading software.
8. Say no to sellers offering backup copies or bundles of several programs.
For more information on how to protect yourself from counterfeit software, as well as tips and tricks for how to spot and avoid illegal software, please visit Microsoft’s anti-counterfeiting site http://www.howtotell.com.
About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq “MSFT”) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential.
Editorial Contact
Olabisi Soleye
itg Communications for Microsoft Nigeria
The raid points to the fact that many resellers are in possession of high quality counterfeit software that is packaged like genuine software – a trend resulting in many consumers, who believe they are purchasing software from a reliable source, unknowingly becoming victims to software piracy.
Says Seye Oloruntoba, Anti-Piracy Manager, Microsoft Anglophone West Africa: “We’ve noticed a rising number of what turn out to be ‘accidental pirates’ – people who unintentionally purchase counterfeit software from resellers and only later find out they have been duped. In doing so, they expose themselves to a plethora of risks, which in the long-run can prove extremely costly for individuals, and often disastrous for businesses. Honest resellers, who sell only genuine software, are put at an unfair disadvantage, and ultimately the whole economy feels the effects. ”
39 pieces of suspected counterfeit Microsoft Windows software were recovered at Skynet Computers and Accessories’ premises. While the original source of the counterfeit software in still under investigation, it is understood that Skynet Computers and Accessories had recently supplied 400 pieces of Windows 7 Professional software to a local bank.
A recent global study conducted by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) revealed that over 70% of PC users in Africa acquire software illegally on a regular basis and confirmed that many consumers are unsure of what constitutes software piracy .
“We are actively working to ensure our customers and partners in Ghana are protected from unscrupulous suppliers,” added Oloruntoba. “This is a responsibility we take extremely seriously. When they come to us for help, we make sure they receive the necessary support and we also alert local law enforcement authorities like the Ghana Copyright Office. There must be severe consequences for those who sell pirated and counterfeit software in Ghana.”
It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between genuine and non-genuine software, unless consumers are discerning and know what to look out for. Oloruntoba suggests following these tips to avoid being misled when purchasing software:
1. Before you purchase Windows software, ask resellers to confirm it will pass the Windows activation test. Activation and validation are the keys to genuine software.
2. Beware of the common gateways of digital counterfeiting: websites advertising ‘cheap software’; online auction sites with links to download sites offering counterfeit software; and peer-to-peer (P2P) networks or other file-sharing technologies.
3. Buy from a trusted source. Research online or local sellers extensively before making a purchase.
4. Compare the price. Counterfeit software is often sold at a much cheaper price, but can end up costing users hundreds or thousands of dollars.
5. Be suspicious of products that lack some form of proof of authenticity – such as a hologram, CD, DVD, recovery media, manuals and Microsoft Software License Terms (MSLT).
6. Be extremely careful when buying from software sellers in other countries as this complicates matters if the transaction goes awry.
7. Keep your anti-virus program up to date. This reduces your computer’s risk of exposure to viruses and malware when downloading software.
8. Say no to sellers offering backup copies or bundles of several programs.
For more information on how to protect yourself from counterfeit software, as well as tips and tricks for how to spot and avoid illegal software, please visit Microsoft’s anti-counterfeiting site http://www.howtotell.com.
About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq “MSFT”) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential.
Editorial Contact
Olabisi Soleye
itg Communications for Microsoft Nigeria
Thursday, July 28, 2011
'Fee-paying policy legal'
July 29, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Supreme Court yesterday declared that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian public universities was not discriminatory under the 1992 Constitution. In a unanimous decision, the court held that the policy had rather made it possible for more qualified students to gain admission to public universities under the current 10 per cent quota allocated to foreign students, adding, ÒFull fee-paying policy must continue.Ó It also affirmed that 28 per cent of the total revenue of public universities was generated from fees collected from fee-paying students, pointing out that those students were currently subsidising the education of non-fee paying students. The court, accordingly dismissed an action filed by the Federation of Youth Associations of Ghana (FEDYAG) against the public universities and the Attorney-General which sought a declaration that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian public universities was unconstitutional and discriminatory under the Constitution. The FEDYAG instituted the action through its lawyer, Mr Dennis Ofosuapea, claiming that the public universities had been ÒsellingÓ spaces to people based on their economic status and not their intellectual abilities. The public universities, represented by Mr Ace Anan Ankomah and Mr Kwesi Fynn, however, argued that admissions were generally based on how much subvention the government made available to them each year, adding that it was over and above the quota determined by government subventions, that spaces were made available to foreign students, Ghanaian nationals resident abroad and Ghanaian students who had qualified but did not receive admission because they could not be covered by the government subvention. They also argued that the money earned from the full-fee paying students constituted 28 per cent of their overall income and that that money had gone to support non-fee paying students and provided scholarships for students from deprived senior high schools. The panel of nine judges, headed by Mr Justice W.A. Atuguba, declared that the full-fee paying policy was justified and achieved a constitutionally valid purpose because it was one of the means by which the universities had been able to offer education to others. The ruling, read on behalf of the panel by Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyirah, disagreed with the plaintiff and, accordingly, averred that the plaintiff did not understand how the fee-paying system worked. It also held that the plaintiff could not substantiate its claims that the fee-paying policy was discriminatory and not transparent. According to the court, the universities were able to fully articulate and justify with statistics how the fee-paying system worked and also justified that admissions were purely based on merit and not ability to pay. The court further stated that the fee-paying policy was not unprecedented, since it was practised in other African countries and world-wide. It stated that apart from bare assertions made by the plaintiff, it failed to offer any further proof of its case, adding that although Article 25 of the Constitution demanded same or equal chances for educational advancement to Ghanaians, it recognised inherent limitations based on the capacity of the student and the availability of educational facilities. The ultimate object of Article 25, according to the court, was free education by gradual introduction, holding that under Article 38, educational objectives could only be implemented by Òthe availability of resourcesÓ. The court was of the view that the reality was that education came with costs, such as in infrastructure, pointing out that Ghana could not provide free tertiary education in the shortest time possible. It, therefore, suggested the award of more grants, insurance and adequate student loans to enable more students to access university education. The President of the panel, Mr Justice Atuguba, congratulated the FEDYAG on instituting the action and said the fact that its action had failed did not mean it had not served the country well. Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sofia Akuffo, Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
THE Supreme Court yesterday declared that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian public universities was not discriminatory under the 1992 Constitution. In a unanimous decision, the court held that the policy had rather made it possible for more qualified students to gain admission to public universities under the current 10 per cent quota allocated to foreign students, adding, ÒFull fee-paying policy must continue.Ó It also affirmed that 28 per cent of the total revenue of public universities was generated from fees collected from fee-paying students, pointing out that those students were currently subsidising the education of non-fee paying students. The court, accordingly dismissed an action filed by the Federation of Youth Associations of Ghana (FEDYAG) against the public universities and the Attorney-General which sought a declaration that the full-fee paying policy of Ghanaian public universities was unconstitutional and discriminatory under the Constitution. The FEDYAG instituted the action through its lawyer, Mr Dennis Ofosuapea, claiming that the public universities had been ÒsellingÓ spaces to people based on their economic status and not their intellectual abilities. The public universities, represented by Mr Ace Anan Ankomah and Mr Kwesi Fynn, however, argued that admissions were generally based on how much subvention the government made available to them each year, adding that it was over and above the quota determined by government subventions, that spaces were made available to foreign students, Ghanaian nationals resident abroad and Ghanaian students who had qualified but did not receive admission because they could not be covered by the government subvention. They also argued that the money earned from the full-fee paying students constituted 28 per cent of their overall income and that that money had gone to support non-fee paying students and provided scholarships for students from deprived senior high schools. The panel of nine judges, headed by Mr Justice W.A. Atuguba, declared that the full-fee paying policy was justified and achieved a constitutionally valid purpose because it was one of the means by which the universities had been able to offer education to others. The ruling, read on behalf of the panel by Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyirah, disagreed with the plaintiff and, accordingly, averred that the plaintiff did not understand how the fee-paying system worked. It also held that the plaintiff could not substantiate its claims that the fee-paying policy was discriminatory and not transparent. According to the court, the universities were able to fully articulate and justify with statistics how the fee-paying system worked and also justified that admissions were purely based on merit and not ability to pay. The court further stated that the fee-paying policy was not unprecedented, since it was practised in other African countries and world-wide. It stated that apart from bare assertions made by the plaintiff, it failed to offer any further proof of its case, adding that although Article 25 of the Constitution demanded same or equal chances for educational advancement to Ghanaians, it recognised inherent limitations based on the capacity of the student and the availability of educational facilities. The ultimate object of Article 25, according to the court, was free education by gradual introduction, holding that under Article 38, educational objectives could only be implemented by Òthe availability of resourcesÓ. The court was of the view that the reality was that education came with costs, such as in infrastructure, pointing out that Ghana could not provide free tertiary education in the shortest time possible. It, therefore, suggested the award of more grants, insurance and adequate student loans to enable more students to access university education. The President of the panel, Mr Justice Atuguba, congratulated the FEDYAG on instituting the action and said the fact that its action had failed did not mean it had not served the country well. Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sofia Akuffo, Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
Bawku MP's case - Supreme Court rules on appeal in October
July 27, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Supreme Court will, on October 26, 2011, review its decision on whether or not it has the jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande.The court had, in October 2010 and in a 6-3 majority decision, ruled that it had the jurisdiction to hear an appeal challenging the eligibility of Mr Sakande as an MP.The court had overturned counsel for the MPÕs argument that electoral disputes ended at the Court of Appeal and for that reason the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of AppealÕs decision that a suit brought against the MP by a cattle farmer, Mr Sumaila Biebel, was an electoral dispute.Mr Biebel had, in March 2009, filed a suit at the High Court challenging the eligibility of the MP on the grounds that the MP held both British and Burkinabe passports.The High Court, in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High CourtÕs decision, counsel for the MP appealed, resulting in the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, declaring that Mr Biebel should have gone by an electoral petition, since the matter bordered on electoral dispute.Under the law, all matters relating to electoral disputes are to be heard as electoral petitions and those petitions are to be heard 21 days after results have been declared. At its sitting in Accra yesterday, the Supreme Court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, directed the Attorney-GeneralÕs Department to file its written submissions to the MPÕs application on or before July 29, 2011 following the failure of the department to file an address, although it was a party in the suit.Other members of the panel were Justices S.A. Brobbey, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Annin Yeboah, P. Baffoe-Bonnie, B.T. Aryeetey, G.S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo.The court gave Mr Biebel up to October 14, 2011 to file his response to the A-GÕs response, while ruling on the matter would be delivered on October 26, 2011.Moving his application for review, counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, argued that the highest court of the land had no jurisdiction to entertain Mr BiebelÕs suit because the suit was an electoral dispute clothed in constitutionalism.According to counsel, the Supreme CourtÕs decision in October 2010 did not take into consideration the position of the law on electoral disputes, as well as its own numerous decisions on electoral disputes.
THE Supreme Court will, on October 26, 2011, review its decision on whether or not it has the jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande.The court had, in October 2010 and in a 6-3 majority decision, ruled that it had the jurisdiction to hear an appeal challenging the eligibility of Mr Sakande as an MP.The court had overturned counsel for the MPÕs argument that electoral disputes ended at the Court of Appeal and for that reason the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of AppealÕs decision that a suit brought against the MP by a cattle farmer, Mr Sumaila Biebel, was an electoral dispute.Mr Biebel had, in March 2009, filed a suit at the High Court challenging the eligibility of the MP on the grounds that the MP held both British and Burkinabe passports.The High Court, in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High CourtÕs decision, counsel for the MP appealed, resulting in the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, declaring that Mr Biebel should have gone by an electoral petition, since the matter bordered on electoral dispute.Under the law, all matters relating to electoral disputes are to be heard as electoral petitions and those petitions are to be heard 21 days after results have been declared. At its sitting in Accra yesterday, the Supreme Court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, directed the Attorney-GeneralÕs Department to file its written submissions to the MPÕs application on or before July 29, 2011 following the failure of the department to file an address, although it was a party in the suit.Other members of the panel were Justices S.A. Brobbey, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Annin Yeboah, P. Baffoe-Bonnie, B.T. Aryeetey, G.S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo.The court gave Mr Biebel up to October 14, 2011 to file his response to the A-GÕs response, while ruling on the matter would be delivered on October 26, 2011.Moving his application for review, counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, argued that the highest court of the land had no jurisdiction to entertain Mr BiebelÕs suit because the suit was an electoral dispute clothed in constitutionalism.According to counsel, the Supreme CourtÕs decision in October 2010 did not take into consideration the position of the law on electoral disputes, as well as its own numerous decisions on electoral disputes.
Court denies EOCO's appeal for stay
July 20, 2011 (Page 3 lead)
THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) suffered another setback yesterday when the Human Rights Court dismissed its application for stay of execution of the courtÕs order to pay GH¢59,000 in damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).EOCOÕs first setback was on May 13, 2011 when the same court declared that it had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity, and, accordingly, ordered EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December last year.Dissatisfied with the courtÕs ruling, EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.Counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone for the appeal under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.On July 5, 2011, counsel had argued that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.Opposing his opponentÕs application, counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.He further argued that EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because it was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple its operations.Counsel explained that EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the office was not financially resourced.In a terse ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Uuter Paul Dery, upheld counsel for the GFAÕs preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules. In its appeal, EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple its functions.It is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCOÕs assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises. It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body, adding that the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.
THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) suffered another setback yesterday when the Human Rights Court dismissed its application for stay of execution of the courtÕs order to pay GH¢59,000 in damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).EOCOÕs first setback was on May 13, 2011 when the same court declared that it had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity, and, accordingly, ordered EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December last year.Dissatisfied with the courtÕs ruling, EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.Counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone for the appeal under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.On July 5, 2011, counsel had argued that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.Opposing his opponentÕs application, counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.He further argued that EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because it was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple its operations.Counsel explained that EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the office was not financially resourced.In a terse ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Uuter Paul Dery, upheld counsel for the GFAÕs preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules. In its appeal, EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple its functions.It is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCOÕs assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises. It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body, adding that the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.
Bawku MP appeals against High Court decision
July 19, 2011 (Centre Spread)
THE Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, has appealed against a High CourtÕs decision which directed that the state could recall a witness in his nationality trial if it wished to do so.According to lawyers for the MP, it was wrong for the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, to direct the prosecution on how to conduct its trial.The court had, on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed ÒambiguityÓ arising from the MPÕs evidence and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his British nationality status.Lead counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, is arguing that it was wrong for the court to direct the prosecution to recall a witness months after the prosecution had closed its case and especially when it had not made such a request.According to the defence, the trial judge assumed the role of a lawyer when he directed the prosecution to recall a witness if it so wished.Meanwhile, the defence team has filed for stay of proceedings at the lower court pending the determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.At the Court of Appeal sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said the prosecution had not filed its affidavit in opposition to the MPÕs application because he had been out of the jurisdiction.He also raised a preliminary objection to the motion for stay of proceedings and stated that the defence should have filed for stay of proceedings at the High Court and not the Court of Appeal, as stated in Section 28 of C.I. 19.However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke, with Justices F. Kusi-Appiah and Dennis Adjei as panel members, drew Mr WireduÕs attention to Section 27 of C.I. 19 and stated that the High Court could not stay its own proceedings.According to the court, the section Mr Wiredu quoted referred only to stay of execution of a courtÕs order and not stay of proceedings. Mr Wiredu conceded.The court then dismissed his preliminary objection and gave the prosecution 10 days to file its affidavit in opposition.On June 8, 2011, the High Court, after giving the prosecution the opportunity to recall a witness, however, refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, Mr Justice Quist devoted a major part of his ruling to explain why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MPÕs claims, citing authorities.Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Kulendi, in his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his clientÕs defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but he was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
THE Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Adamu Daramani Sakande, has appealed against a High CourtÕs decision which directed that the state could recall a witness in his nationality trial if it wished to do so.According to lawyers for the MP, it was wrong for the trial judge, Mr Justice Charles Quist, to direct the prosecution on how to conduct its trial.The court had, on June 8, 2011, granted the prosecution leave to recall a witness if it wished to do so in order to clarify what it termed ÒambiguityÓ arising from the MPÕs evidence and documents from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) which said the MP had not renounced his British nationality status.Lead counsel for the MP, Mr Yonny Kulendi, is arguing that it was wrong for the court to direct the prosecution to recall a witness months after the prosecution had closed its case and especially when it had not made such a request.According to the defence, the trial judge assumed the role of a lawyer when he directed the prosecution to recall a witness if it so wished.Meanwhile, the defence team has filed for stay of proceedings at the lower court pending the determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.At the Court of Appeal sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Rexford Wiredu, said the prosecution had not filed its affidavit in opposition to the MPÕs application because he had been out of the jurisdiction.He also raised a preliminary objection to the motion for stay of proceedings and stated that the defence should have filed for stay of proceedings at the High Court and not the Court of Appeal, as stated in Section 28 of C.I. 19.However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke, with Justices F. Kusi-Appiah and Dennis Adjei as panel members, drew Mr WireduÕs attention to Section 27 of C.I. 19 and stated that the High Court could not stay its own proceedings.According to the court, the section Mr Wiredu quoted referred only to stay of execution of a courtÕs order and not stay of proceedings. Mr Wiredu conceded.The court then dismissed his preliminary objection and gave the prosecution 10 days to file its affidavit in opposition.On June 8, 2011, the High Court, after giving the prosecution the opportunity to recall a witness, however, refused to allow the prosecution to prevail upon the MP to identify an alleged authenticated version of documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected MP.Although the prosecution had not formally put up any application praying the court to grant it leave to recall a witness months after closing its case, Mr Justice Quist devoted a major part of his ruling to explain why the prosecution could recall a witness to rebut the MPÕs claims, citing authorities.Giving its ruling on an application by counsel for the MP, Mr Kulendi, in his opposition to moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his clientÕs defence, the court held that Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act gave the court the mandate to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses.The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but he was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.
Monday, July 18, 2011
PNC Court case - Dr Mahama, others acquitted
Friday, July 15, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six other executives of the party were yesterday acquitted and discharged of a contempt of court charge.
The other executives are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Chairman; Bernard Mornah, General Secretary; Attik Mohammed, Policy Analyst of the PNC; 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.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held a different view and accordingly awarded costs of GH¢5,000 against the applicants.
Giving its ruling on the matter, the court was of the view that the conduct of Dr Mahama and the other executives did not constitute contempt of court.
According to the court, the word “party members” in the lower court’s ruling was not referable to Dr Mahama and the other respondents because the preceding words in the said ruling clearly referred to the applicants.
It said it would be improper to stop Dr Mahama and the other respondents from carrying out their duties as executives of the party, since that would be in violation of the Political Parties Act.
Reacting to the court’s ruling, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said he would apply for a copy of the ruling, study it and advise his clients accordingly.
He was of the view that the costs awarded against his clients were harsh, adding, “The costs will further deepen the internal crisis within the party.”
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 the applicants, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the 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.
However, the respondents raised preliminary legal objection and argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed. But on May 12, 2011, the court dismissed the preliminary objection and moved to hear the contempt application.
It arrived at yesterday's decision after hearing both parties in the case.
THE flag bearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC) in the 2008 elections, Dr Edward Mahama, and six other executives of the party were yesterday acquitted and discharged of a contempt of court charge.
The other executives are Alhaji Ahmed Ramadan, Chairman; Bernard Mornah, General Secretary; Attik Mohammed, Policy Analyst of the PNC; 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.
However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, held a different view and accordingly awarded costs of GH¢5,000 against the applicants.
Giving its ruling on the matter, the court was of the view that the conduct of Dr Mahama and the other executives did not constitute contempt of court.
According to the court, the word “party members” in the lower court’s ruling was not referable to Dr Mahama and the other respondents because the preceding words in the said ruling clearly referred to the applicants.
It said it would be improper to stop Dr Mahama and the other respondents from carrying out their duties as executives of the party, since that would be in violation of the Political Parties Act.
Reacting to the court’s ruling, counsel for the applicants, Mr C.A. Chambers, said he would apply for a copy of the ruling, study it and advise his clients accordingly.
He was of the view that the costs awarded against his clients were harsh, adding, “The costs will further deepen the internal crisis within the party.”
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 the applicants, Dr Mahama and the other respondents flouted the 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.
However, the respondents raised preliminary legal objection and argued that the application was incompetent and must, therefore, be dismissed. But on May 12, 2011, the court dismissed the preliminary objection and moved to hear the contempt application.
It arrived at yesterday's decision after hearing both parties in the case.
Madina rioters case adjourned
July 12, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE case involving 20 people who were allegedly involved in a violent clash between the police and a section of the youth at Madina Zongo Junction in Accra on May 17, 2011 has been adjourned.
The clash, which bordered on a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land, resulted in the injury of eight people, including two policemen.
The Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, adjourned the case to August 10, 2011 following a plea from the prosecution for a short adjournment.
A Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr Kofi Blagodzi, informed the court that a committee set up by the government to investigate the riots had completed its work and submitted its report.
According to him, he was yet to receive briefing on the findings of the committee and, therefore, prayed the court for a short adjournment.
The accused persons are Abdul Hamid, Adam Mohammed, Alidue Hamidu, Bala Camal, James Fadama, Anas Matire, Abubakar Alhassan, Salifu Haridu, Tahiru Kadri and Monsuro Musah.
The rest are Musah Abubakar, Tibriru Masawudu, Musah Mahmoud, Tahiru Ali, Zibrim Abubakar, Ibrahim Alhassan, Aminu Salifu, Baki Salifu, Jerry Mc-Mills Gomelessio and Mohammed Raffi.
They were each charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting with weapons, causing unlawful damage and assault on public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and are currently on bail.
On May 17, 2011, the Madina Zongo Junction area was thrown into chaos when the police fired tear gas, rubber and live ammunition to disperse angry youth protesting the take-over of a parcel of land by the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools.
According to the demonstrators, the land was the only available space in the area for public activities, including political rallies, church crusades and Islamic festivities.
The land in question has been a subject of litigation between the Baptist Church and some members of the community for close to 17 years.
However, the issuance of a writ of possession by an Accra High Court for the church to take over the land, which a bailiff served on the people occupying the land to vacate the place within two weeks, sparked the riot.
Some kiosks and food vending tables in the Zongo community were destroyed, while at the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools glass windows were shattered by the stone-throwing youth.
According to the prosecution, the police managed to restore order, but two policemen sustained injuries in the process.
THE case involving 20 people who were allegedly involved in a violent clash between the police and a section of the youth at Madina Zongo Junction in Accra on May 17, 2011 has been adjourned.
The clash, which bordered on a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land, resulted in the injury of eight people, including two policemen.
The Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Mr Eric Kyei-Baffour, adjourned the case to August 10, 2011 following a plea from the prosecution for a short adjournment.
A Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr Kofi Blagodzi, informed the court that a committee set up by the government to investigate the riots had completed its work and submitted its report.
According to him, he was yet to receive briefing on the findings of the committee and, therefore, prayed the court for a short adjournment.
The accused persons are Abdul Hamid, Adam Mohammed, Alidue Hamidu, Bala Camal, James Fadama, Anas Matire, Abubakar Alhassan, Salifu Haridu, Tahiru Kadri and Monsuro Musah.
The rest are Musah Abubakar, Tibriru Masawudu, Musah Mahmoud, Tahiru Ali, Zibrim Abubakar, Ibrahim Alhassan, Aminu Salifu, Baki Salifu, Jerry Mc-Mills Gomelessio and Mohammed Raffi.
They were each charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting with weapons, causing unlawful damage and assault on public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to the charges and are currently on bail.
On May 17, 2011, the Madina Zongo Junction area was thrown into chaos when the police fired tear gas, rubber and live ammunition to disperse angry youth protesting the take-over of a parcel of land by the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools.
According to the demonstrators, the land was the only available space in the area for public activities, including political rallies, church crusades and Islamic festivities.
The land in question has been a subject of litigation between the Baptist Church and some members of the community for close to 17 years.
However, the issuance of a writ of possession by an Accra High Court for the church to take over the land, which a bailiff served on the people occupying the land to vacate the place within two weeks, sparked the riot.
Some kiosks and food vending tables in the Zongo community were destroyed, while at the Faith Community Baptist Complex of Schools glass windows were shattered by the stone-throwing youth.
According to the prosecution, the police managed to restore order, but two policemen sustained injuries in the process.
Judge unhappy with absence of AMA boss
Thursday, July 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday expressed its dissatisfaction at the absence of the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, who, together with another person, has been cited for contempt in two different contempt applications.
According to the trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, although the court’s clerk had informed him (judge) that Mr Vanderpuije was in the court earlier before leaving for an official assignment, it was unacceptable for him to be absent.
He reminded counsel for the AMA that the contempt application was a quasi-criminal matter for which reason he directed Mr Vanderpuije to be personally present in court until the matter was determined.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, took note of the judge’s position and explained that Mr Vanderpuije did not act out of disrespect for the court.
In the first contempt application, Mr 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 Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing the payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.??????
Mr Yankah is accused 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.
Meanwhile, Mr Vanderpuije has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and Mr Yankah.
He also filed another application praying the court to stay its June 8, 2011 order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
At the court’s hearing in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AAG was short served with Mr Vanderpuije’s application and ,for that reason, filed its affidavit in opposition yesterday morning.
Following the new development, the court adjourned the matter to July 15, 2011 to enable the AAG to serve the AMA with its affidavit in opposition.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije’s) security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije’s office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait. The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, “Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.”
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
Mr Vanderpuije denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday expressed its dissatisfaction at the absence of the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, who, together with another person, has been cited for contempt in two different contempt applications.
According to the trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, although the court’s clerk had informed him (judge) that Mr Vanderpuije was in the court earlier before leaving for an official assignment, it was unacceptable for him to be absent.
He reminded counsel for the AMA that the contempt application was a quasi-criminal matter for which reason he directed Mr Vanderpuije to be personally present in court until the matter was determined.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, took note of the judge’s position and explained that Mr Vanderpuije did not act out of disrespect for the court.
In the first contempt application, Mr 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 Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing the payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.??????
Mr Yankah is accused 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.
Meanwhile, Mr Vanderpuije has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and Mr Yankah.
He also filed another application praying the court to stay its June 8, 2011 order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
At the court’s hearing in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AAG was short served with Mr Vanderpuije’s application and ,for that reason, filed its affidavit in opposition yesterday morning.
Following the new development, the court adjourned the matter to July 15, 2011 to enable the AAG to serve the AMA with its affidavit in opposition.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije’s) security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije’s office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait. The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, “Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.”
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
Mr Vanderpuije denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
EOCO Files For Stay Of Execution
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 (Front Page)
The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed for a stay of execution of a court order which directed it to pay GH¢59,000 being damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).
The Human Rights Court on May 13, 2011 declared that the EOCO had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity.
It accordingly ordered the EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.
It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of the fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December, last year.
Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.
Before counsel for the EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, could move the motion for stay of execution at the court’s sitting yesterday, counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that the EOCO should have come under Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.
He explained that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
Opposing his colleague’s application, Dr Anderson argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
He further argued that the EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because the EOCO was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple EOCO’s operations.
Counsel explained that the EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the EOCO was not financially resourced.
In its appeal, the EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple the function of the EOCO which was on government subvention.
The EOCO is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.
On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCO’s assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises.
It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.
It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body.
It said the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.
The court further contended that the state could be said to have financial interest in an institution when the state funded the running of that institution and expected dividend from it.
It also declared that the court order obtained by EOCO and the subsequent seizure of the GFA's documents and computers were illegal and wrong.
Besides, the court held that EOCO had violated the GFA's right to privacy, property and work.
The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed for a stay of execution of a court order which directed it to pay GH¢59,000 being damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).
The Human Rights Court on May 13, 2011 declared that the EOCO had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity.
It accordingly ordered the EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.
It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of the fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December, last year.
Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.
Before counsel for the EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, could move the motion for stay of execution at the court’s sitting yesterday, counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that the EOCO should have come under Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.
He explained that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
Opposing his colleague’s application, Dr Anderson argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
He further argued that the EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because the EOCO was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple EOCO’s operations.
Counsel explained that the EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the EOCO was not financially resourced.
In its appeal, the EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple the function of the EOCO which was on government subvention.
The EOCO is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.
On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCO’s assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises.
It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.
It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body.
It said the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.
The court further contended that the state could be said to have financial interest in an institution when the state funded the running of that institution and expected dividend from it.
It also declared that the court order obtained by EOCO and the subsequent seizure of the GFA's documents and computers were illegal and wrong.
Besides, the court held that EOCO had violated the GFA's right to privacy, property and work.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Tsikata Pursues Appeal Against Conviction
July 5, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
The Court of Appeal Monday directed its registrar to furnish the state with the record of proceedings at the Fast Track High Court which convicted Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, a former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).
The state is also expected to be served with exhibits of the trial of Mr Tsikata, who was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in June, 2008, for wilfully causing financial loss to the state and misapplying public property.
Mr Tsikata, who was released in December, 2008, under presidential pardon, filed an appeal against his conviction saying the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence on record.
At the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Merley Wood, informed the court that the court on the last adjourned date ordered that mistakes in the record of proceedings at the lower court be corrected but that had not been done yet.
Mr Tsikata, whose lawyer was absent, explained that there were no mistakes in the record of proceedings; rather the court had on May 27, 2010, ordered that the font sizes of the record of proceedings be emboldened.
He also stated that the record of proceedings did not come with exhibits.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke and supported by Mr Justice K. N. Aduama-Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, accordingly directed the registrar to serve the state with the records of proceedings and exhibits.
A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata was found guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public property and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
The former chief executive of the GNPC was charged in 2002 with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state through a loan he guaranteed for Valley Farms, a private cocoa-producing company, on behalf of the GNPC, and another count of misapplying GH¢2,000 in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991, but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted a recognisance bail.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata had gone to the court without his lawyer who, he said, was outside the jurisdiction on the day of his incarceration, and had sought to take a date for the hearing of a fresh motion on notice to take further evidence that he had filed at the court.
The motion sought an order granting leave for the defence to call further evidence in the case but the court, presided over by Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, convicted him.
In the grounds of appeal, Mr Tsikata contended that the trial judge erred in law in deciding that financial loss had been caused simply because payment of monies had been made by the GNPC.
According to him, the trial judge erred in law in deciding that there was no provision for indemnity from Valley Farms for the guarantee when the express terms of the guarantee agreement gave GNPC a right of subrogation over the assets of Valley Farms.
It said the trial judge erred in law in deciding that because the said investment in Valley Farms was outside the objects of GNPC, on her interpretation of the statute setting up GNPC, financial loss had thereby been caused to the state.
According to the appellant, the trial judge showed manifest bias against him in the conduct of the trial and particularly in relation to her decision to proceed to give judgement when no notice had been served on him to the effect that judgement would be given on that fateful day.
He said the trial judge manifested her determination to give a biased judgement by striking out an application by his counsel to introduce further evidence from admissions made by the Attorney-General during a Supreme Court proceeding that there was no dispute about the viability of the evidence when his counsel had written to the court to explain his absence and requested a date for the hearing of the application.
He said the trial judge also erred in disregarding evidence from the prosecution itself that made it clear that the project in relation to which the charges had been brought was a profitable investment which would have yielded benefits to the nation and the GNPC.
The appellant argued that the trial judge again erred in claiming that an investment in a cocoa project was unrelated to the business of the government when there was uncontested evidence that funding from the export of cocoa was critical to the responsibility of GNPC to import crude oil for the country.
He noted that the trial judge again erred in holding that the he had admitted in a caution statement that he authorised the GNPC Head of Finance to effect the payment in the charge sheet.
According to Mr Tsikata, the trial judge further erred in failing to appreciate the role that Merchant Bank played as the trustee of GNPC resources.
The Court of Appeal Monday directed its registrar to furnish the state with the record of proceedings at the Fast Track High Court which convicted Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, a former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).
The state is also expected to be served with exhibits of the trial of Mr Tsikata, who was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in June, 2008, for wilfully causing financial loss to the state and misapplying public property.
Mr Tsikata, who was released in December, 2008, under presidential pardon, filed an appeal against his conviction saying the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence on record.
At the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Merley Wood, informed the court that the court on the last adjourned date ordered that mistakes in the record of proceedings at the lower court be corrected but that had not been done yet.
Mr Tsikata, whose lawyer was absent, explained that there were no mistakes in the record of proceedings; rather the court had on May 27, 2010, ordered that the font sizes of the record of proceedings be emboldened.
He also stated that the record of proceedings did not come with exhibits.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Kanyoke and supported by Mr Justice K. N. Aduama-Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, accordingly directed the registrar to serve the state with the records of proceedings and exhibits.
A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata was found guilty on three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state and another count of misapplying public property and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
The former chief executive of the GNPC was charged in 2002 with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of GH¢230,000 to the state through a loan he guaranteed for Valley Farms, a private cocoa-producing company, on behalf of the GNPC, and another count of misapplying GH¢2,000 in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991, but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted a recognisance bail.
On June 18, 2008, Mr Tsikata had gone to the court without his lawyer who, he said, was outside the jurisdiction on the day of his incarceration, and had sought to take a date for the hearing of a fresh motion on notice to take further evidence that he had filed at the court.
The motion sought an order granting leave for the defence to call further evidence in the case but the court, presided over by Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, convicted him.
In the grounds of appeal, Mr Tsikata contended that the trial judge erred in law in deciding that financial loss had been caused simply because payment of monies had been made by the GNPC.
According to him, the trial judge erred in law in deciding that there was no provision for indemnity from Valley Farms for the guarantee when the express terms of the guarantee agreement gave GNPC a right of subrogation over the assets of Valley Farms.
It said the trial judge erred in law in deciding that because the said investment in Valley Farms was outside the objects of GNPC, on her interpretation of the statute setting up GNPC, financial loss had thereby been caused to the state.
According to the appellant, the trial judge showed manifest bias against him in the conduct of the trial and particularly in relation to her decision to proceed to give judgement when no notice had been served on him to the effect that judgement would be given on that fateful day.
He said the trial judge manifested her determination to give a biased judgement by striking out an application by his counsel to introduce further evidence from admissions made by the Attorney-General during a Supreme Court proceeding that there was no dispute about the viability of the evidence when his counsel had written to the court to explain his absence and requested a date for the hearing of the application.
He said the trial judge also erred in disregarding evidence from the prosecution itself that made it clear that the project in relation to which the charges had been brought was a profitable investment which would have yielded benefits to the nation and the GNPC.
The appellant argued that the trial judge again erred in claiming that an investment in a cocoa project was unrelated to the business of the government when there was uncontested evidence that funding from the export of cocoa was critical to the responsibility of GNPC to import crude oil for the country.
He noted that the trial judge again erred in holding that the he had admitted in a caution statement that he authorised the GNPC Head of Finance to effect the payment in the charge sheet.
According to Mr Tsikata, the trial judge further erred in failing to appreciate the role that Merchant Bank played as the trustee of GNPC resources.
Ghana @ 50 Ruling, State Appeals Against Mpiani, Wereko-Brobbey
Tuesday, July 5,2011 (Lead Story)
HEARING of the state’s appeal against the acquittal and discharge of a former Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani, and Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, of all charges of wilfully causing financial loss to the state began at the Court of Appeal yesterday.
The case was, however, adjourned indefinitely because Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process filed by the state.
Consequently, the court directed its registrar to serve appeal processes on Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani.
The two former officials of the defunct Ghana@50 Secretariat were discharged by the Accra Fast Track High Court on August 11, 2010 on the grounds that due process was not followed to warrant their prosecution.
Dissatisfied with their discharge, the state filed an appeal but it emerged at the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.
Dr Wereko-Brobby has, however, been served with the appeal process.
Counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobby, Mr Akoto Ampaw, drew the court’s attention to the fact that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.
He, therefore, stated that it was important that the issue was resolved before hearing of the appeal could proceed.
Following counsel’s submission, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Canyon, with Mr Justice K. N. Aduama Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei as the other members, accordingly directed the registrar of the court to serve Mr Mpiani with the relevant documents on the case.
A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the substantive appeal.
Among the grounds of appeal filed by the state are that the trial judge erred in law when he concluded that before adverse findings or reports were deemed to be judgements of the High Court, the constitutional arrangements under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution precluded the Attorney-General from initiating prosecution against persons affected adversely by the findings or reports of commissions of inquiry, whose conclusion was clearly a gross misdirection on the powers of the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
It said the judge, having confused himself on the issues as to ‘public inquiries developing into criminal trials’ and ‘public inquiries forming the basis of criminal trials’, erroneously concluded that the prosecutions in the High Court of persons against whom adverse findings were made by the commissions established under Constitutional Instrument (C.I) 36 of 2002 were in contravention of Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
The trial judge, it said, having misinformed himself that all persons who appeared before the Ghana@50 Commission of Inquiry were called as witnesses, failed to appreciate the legal distinction between a person called by a commission of inquiry ‘as a subject of inquiry or as having been in anyway implicated/concerned in the matter under inquiry’ and ‘as witness’ under Article 282 and 283 of the 1992 Constitution respectively, and thereby came to the wrong conclusion that the respondents were compellable witnesses whose incriminatory evidence was not used in any criminal or civil proceedings against them under Section 10 of C.I 61, rather than finding that the respondents were either subjects of inquiry or persons who were otherwise implicated/concerned in the matter before the Ghana@50 Inquiry within the meaning of Article 282 of the 1992 Constitution and on the strength of the evidence before him.
It said the trial judge misinformed himself on the import of Sections 8 and 9 of the Commission of Inquiry (Ghana@50) Instrument, 2009 (C.I 61) of 2009 relating to privilege, indemnity and immunities of persons appearing before the commission when he held that the criminal proceedings subsequently instituted against the respondents at the High Court after the commission’s work were wrong in law.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, also known as Tarzan, the former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana@50 Secretariat, and Mr Mpiani, Chairman of the National Planning Committee (NPC) for Ghana@50, were charged with four counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
They pleaded not guilty and were each admitted to GH¢35 million on their own recognisance bail.
A Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, in his ruling, upheld the motion of the defence that under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution, the accused persons were entitled to an appeal at the Court of Appeal because the Ghana @50 Commission of Inquiry which recommended the prosecution of the two had the powers of the High Court.
According to the court, although the law mandated the Attorney-General (A-G) to prosecute, the A-G must ensure that due process of the law was adhered to, adding that the arguments put forward by the prosecution that the accused persons misappropriated Ghana @50 property at Trassaco Valley were not part of the charges before the court.
It said Article 282 (61)(2a) and (62) of the Constitution made it unlawful for the prosecution to charge the accused persons who appeared before the Commission of Enquiry as witnesses with any criminal offence.
It accordingly advised that any time the state wanted to prosecute people considered to have misappropriated state resources, it could resort to other investigative agencies and not a Commission of Enquiry.
The facts of the case were that Parliament approved $31.80 million, equivalent to GH¢29.31 million, for the celebration of Ghana@50 from January to December 2007 and the holding of the African Union Summit.
The prosecution said the amount was made up of a first tranche of GH¢18.29 million, which was approved by Parliament on July 20, 2006, and a second tranche, which was a loan of GH¢11.02 million, contracted from the Fidelity Bank and approved by Parliament.
It said aside from those sums approved by Parliament, huge sums of money appeared to have been spent on the celebrations, adding that more than a year after the celebrations, many projects remained uncompleted and the government was saddled with huge debts.
The prosecution said it was against that background that the Commission of Enquiry was set up by President John Evans Atta Mills into activities of Ghana@50 Secretariat and the entire celebration.
According to the prosecution, the Commission found out that although Parliament had approved GH¢29.31 million for the celebration, GH¢97,776,338.44 was spent on it, out of which GH¢75,569,563.34 was directly spent by the Secretariat and the NPC.
The Secretariat and NPC, therefore, spent about GH¢46,999,563 in excess of the amount approved by Parliament for the celebration, the prosecution said.
It further stated that the Commission of Enquiry also found out that contrary to Articles 176 and 178 of the 1992 Constitution, the Secretariat and NPC used all the internally generated funds, totalling GH¢19,352,498.00, without approval from Parliament.
HEARING of the state’s appeal against the acquittal and discharge of a former Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani, and Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, of all charges of wilfully causing financial loss to the state began at the Court of Appeal yesterday.
The case was, however, adjourned indefinitely because Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process filed by the state.
Consequently, the court directed its registrar to serve appeal processes on Mr Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani.
The two former officials of the defunct Ghana@50 Secretariat were discharged by the Accra Fast Track High Court on August 11, 2010 on the grounds that due process was not followed to warrant their prosecution.
Dissatisfied with their discharge, the state filed an appeal but it emerged at the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra yesterday that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.
Dr Wereko-Brobby has, however, been served with the appeal process.
Counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobby, Mr Akoto Ampaw, drew the court’s attention to the fact that Mr Mpiani had not been served with the appeal process.
He, therefore, stated that it was important that the issue was resolved before hearing of the appeal could proceed.
Following counsel’s submission, the court, presided over by Mr Justice S.E. Canyon, with Mr Justice K. N. Aduama Osei and Mr Justice Dennis Adjei as the other members, accordingly directed the registrar of the court to serve Mr Mpiani with the relevant documents on the case.
A new date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the substantive appeal.
Among the grounds of appeal filed by the state are that the trial judge erred in law when he concluded that before adverse findings or reports were deemed to be judgements of the High Court, the constitutional arrangements under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution precluded the Attorney-General from initiating prosecution against persons affected adversely by the findings or reports of commissions of inquiry, whose conclusion was clearly a gross misdirection on the powers of the Attorney-General under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution.
It said the judge, having confused himself on the issues as to ‘public inquiries developing into criminal trials’ and ‘public inquiries forming the basis of criminal trials’, erroneously concluded that the prosecutions in the High Court of persons against whom adverse findings were made by the commissions established under Constitutional Instrument (C.I) 36 of 2002 were in contravention of Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
The trial judge, it said, having misinformed himself that all persons who appeared before the Ghana@50 Commission of Inquiry were called as witnesses, failed to appreciate the legal distinction between a person called by a commission of inquiry ‘as a subject of inquiry or as having been in anyway implicated/concerned in the matter under inquiry’ and ‘as witness’ under Article 282 and 283 of the 1992 Constitution respectively, and thereby came to the wrong conclusion that the respondents were compellable witnesses whose incriminatory evidence was not used in any criminal or civil proceedings against them under Section 10 of C.I 61, rather than finding that the respondents were either subjects of inquiry or persons who were otherwise implicated/concerned in the matter before the Ghana@50 Inquiry within the meaning of Article 282 of the 1992 Constitution and on the strength of the evidence before him.
It said the trial judge misinformed himself on the import of Sections 8 and 9 of the Commission of Inquiry (Ghana@50) Instrument, 2009 (C.I 61) of 2009 relating to privilege, indemnity and immunities of persons appearing before the commission when he held that the criminal proceedings subsequently instituted against the respondents at the High Court after the commission’s work were wrong in law.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, also known as Tarzan, the former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana@50 Secretariat, and Mr Mpiani, Chairman of the National Planning Committee (NPC) for Ghana@50, were charged with four counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
They pleaded not guilty and were each admitted to GH¢35 million on their own recognisance bail.
A Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, in his ruling, upheld the motion of the defence that under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution, the accused persons were entitled to an appeal at the Court of Appeal because the Ghana @50 Commission of Inquiry which recommended the prosecution of the two had the powers of the High Court.
According to the court, although the law mandated the Attorney-General (A-G) to prosecute, the A-G must ensure that due process of the law was adhered to, adding that the arguments put forward by the prosecution that the accused persons misappropriated Ghana @50 property at Trassaco Valley were not part of the charges before the court.
It said Article 282 (61)(2a) and (62) of the Constitution made it unlawful for the prosecution to charge the accused persons who appeared before the Commission of Enquiry as witnesses with any criminal offence.
It accordingly advised that any time the state wanted to prosecute people considered to have misappropriated state resources, it could resort to other investigative agencies and not a Commission of Enquiry.
The facts of the case were that Parliament approved $31.80 million, equivalent to GH¢29.31 million, for the celebration of Ghana@50 from January to December 2007 and the holding of the African Union Summit.
The prosecution said the amount was made up of a first tranche of GH¢18.29 million, which was approved by Parliament on July 20, 2006, and a second tranche, which was a loan of GH¢11.02 million, contracted from the Fidelity Bank and approved by Parliament.
It said aside from those sums approved by Parliament, huge sums of money appeared to have been spent on the celebrations, adding that more than a year after the celebrations, many projects remained uncompleted and the government was saddled with huge debts.
The prosecution said it was against that background that the Commission of Enquiry was set up by President John Evans Atta Mills into activities of Ghana@50 Secretariat and the entire celebration.
According to the prosecution, the Commission found out that although Parliament had approved GH¢29.31 million for the celebration, GH¢97,776,338.44 was spent on it, out of which GH¢75,569,563.34 was directly spent by the Secretariat and the NPC.
The Secretariat and NPC, therefore, spent about GH¢46,999,563 in excess of the amount approved by Parliament for the celebration, the prosecution said.
It further stated that the Commission of Enquiry also found out that contrary to Articles 176 and 178 of the 1992 Constitution, the Secretariat and NPC used all the internally generated funds, totalling GH¢19,352,498.00, without approval from Parliament.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Court stops govt, CSC from probing director
June 30,2011 (Page 3 Lead)
The Human Rights Court has prohibited the government and the Civil Service Council from proceeding with investigations against a former Director of the Ministry of Youth and Sports and another over the disbursement and loss of $30,000 at the ministry.
The court also declared that the purported investigations being undertaken by the Civil Service Council into the alleged disbursement and loss of $30,000 and the invitation to the two to appear before the so-called fact-finding committee of the council were 'actuated by bias and prejudice and, therefore, unlawful and a gross infringement of the applicants' fundamental human right to a fair hearing under Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution'.
According to the court, the Civil Service Council had demonstrated that it did not have an impartial mind to conduct investigations against Mr Albert Anthony Ampong, a former Chief Director, and Mr Adim Odoom, a former Principal Accountant, both of the Ministry of Youth and Sports.
The legal tussle between the applicants and the council began on July 7, 2009 when the two were interdicted for their alleged disbursement of $20,000 and $10,000 to a former Minister of Youth and Sports, Alhaji Muntaka Mohammed Mubarak.
The two applicants reported the conduct of Alhaji Mubarak to the President, resulting in the National Security Council taking over investigations.
The two were found culpable after investigations.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations, their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed an application for judicial review on their behalf.
In December 2009, the Accra Fast Track High Court, in two separate rulings, held that the interdiction of the two was illegal and, accordingly, quashed an order directed at them to refund $30,00 to the state coffers.
The court held that the sanctions must not be applied against the two based on the national security report which it described as 'flawed'.
According to the court, due process was not followed and for that reason it was inappropriate for sanctions to be applied against the two because they had neither been investigated nor charged for any offence.
The applicants resumed work as ordered by the court, but the Civil Service Council, by a letter dated March 31, 2010, interdicted them and indicated its intention to conduct investigations into their conduct in the disbursement of the $30,000.
The two, however, instituted legal action, resulting in the Human Rights Court, on November 8, 2010, declaring the decision of the Civil Service Council as unlawful.
Despite the Human Rights Court's directive, the Civil Service Council decided to embark on a fact-finding mission but the court held that from its letters to the applicants, it was clear that the Civil Service had not conducted fresh investigations and it was, therefore, relying on the flawed National Security report to conduct the said investigations into the disbursement of the $30,000.
'It was simply carrying forward the President's directives, which were declared unlawful by the Fast Track Division of this court,' the court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, held.
Citing authorities to support its decision, the court held that the council simply wanted a way to rubber-stamp the National Security investigations and the President's directives which said the two should be interdicted.
According to the court, the findings of fact against the applicants by the Civil Service Council were the same conclusions the National Security Council had arrived at, adding, 'It is obvious that this fact-finding committee is a ruse. It is not a genuine, impartial, fact-finding committee.'
It further held that the applicants would not be given a fair hearing, which would be a violation of their right to administrative justice pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution, pointing out that the applicants were, therefore, entitled to be protected under Article 33 of the Constitution.
The court awarded costs of GH¢6,000 against the Civil Service Council.
The Human Rights Court has prohibited the government and the Civil Service Council from proceeding with investigations against a former Director of the Ministry of Youth and Sports and another over the disbursement and loss of $30,000 at the ministry.
The court also declared that the purported investigations being undertaken by the Civil Service Council into the alleged disbursement and loss of $30,000 and the invitation to the two to appear before the so-called fact-finding committee of the council were 'actuated by bias and prejudice and, therefore, unlawful and a gross infringement of the applicants' fundamental human right to a fair hearing under Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution'.
According to the court, the Civil Service Council had demonstrated that it did not have an impartial mind to conduct investigations against Mr Albert Anthony Ampong, a former Chief Director, and Mr Adim Odoom, a former Principal Accountant, both of the Ministry of Youth and Sports.
The legal tussle between the applicants and the council began on July 7, 2009 when the two were interdicted for their alleged disbursement of $20,000 and $10,000 to a former Minister of Youth and Sports, Alhaji Muntaka Mohammed Mubarak.
The two applicants reported the conduct of Alhaji Mubarak to the President, resulting in the National Security Council taking over investigations.
The two were found culpable after investigations.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations, their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed an application for judicial review on their behalf.
In December 2009, the Accra Fast Track High Court, in two separate rulings, held that the interdiction of the two was illegal and, accordingly, quashed an order directed at them to refund $30,00 to the state coffers.
The court held that the sanctions must not be applied against the two based on the national security report which it described as 'flawed'.
According to the court, due process was not followed and for that reason it was inappropriate for sanctions to be applied against the two because they had neither been investigated nor charged for any offence.
The applicants resumed work as ordered by the court, but the Civil Service Council, by a letter dated March 31, 2010, interdicted them and indicated its intention to conduct investigations into their conduct in the disbursement of the $30,000.
The two, however, instituted legal action, resulting in the Human Rights Court, on November 8, 2010, declaring the decision of the Civil Service Council as unlawful.
Despite the Human Rights Court's directive, the Civil Service Council decided to embark on a fact-finding mission but the court held that from its letters to the applicants, it was clear that the Civil Service had not conducted fresh investigations and it was, therefore, relying on the flawed National Security report to conduct the said investigations into the disbursement of the $30,000.
'It was simply carrying forward the President's directives, which were declared unlawful by the Fast Track Division of this court,' the court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, held.
Citing authorities to support its decision, the court held that the council simply wanted a way to rubber-stamp the National Security investigations and the President's directives which said the two should be interdicted.
According to the court, the findings of fact against the applicants by the Civil Service Council were the same conclusions the National Security Council had arrived at, adding, 'It is obvious that this fact-finding committee is a ruse. It is not a genuine, impartial, fact-finding committee.'
It further held that the applicants would not be given a fair hearing, which would be a violation of their right to administrative justice pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution, pointing out that the applicants were, therefore, entitled to be protected under Article 33 of the Constitution.
The court awarded costs of GH¢6,000 against the Civil Service Council.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
AMA Boss Files Appeal Against Contempt Case
June 29, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)
The Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.
Mr Vanderpuije, who was absent in court yesterday, filed another application praying the court to stay the order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, announced the filing of the appeal and stay of execution of the court order when the matter was called yesterday and stated that the motion for stay of execution would be moved on July 6, 2011.
Opposing counsel's plea for an adjournment, counsel for the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG), Mr George Ankomah Mensah, prayed the court to issue a bench warrant for Mr Vanderpuije's arrest but the court declined.
The two applications, which were filed on Monday, are yet to be served on the court and the AAG.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
But he has denied any wrongdoing.
In the first contempt application, Mr 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 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 Mr 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 accused 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 court's ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije's) security guard.
According to Mr Baffour, he informed Mr Vanderpuije that because it was a contempt application, he was expected to personally sign for it but Mr Vanderpuije walked out on him while directing Baffour to give the documents to his security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije's office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait.
The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, 'Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.'
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
He also denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.
The Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.
Mr Vanderpuije, who was absent in court yesterday, filed another application praying the court to stay the order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, announced the filing of the appeal and stay of execution of the court order when the matter was called yesterday and stated that the motion for stay of execution would be moved on July 6, 2011.
Opposing counsel's plea for an adjournment, counsel for the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG), Mr George Ankomah Mensah, prayed the court to issue a bench warrant for Mr Vanderpuije's arrest but the court declined.
The two applications, which were filed on Monday, are yet to be served on the court and the AAG.
The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.
But he has denied any wrongdoing.
In the first contempt application, Mr 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 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 Mr 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 accused 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 court's ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.
The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije's) security guard.
According to Mr Baffour, he informed Mr Vanderpuije that because it was a contempt application, he was expected to personally sign for it but Mr Vanderpuije walked out on him while directing Baffour to give the documents to his security guard.
He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije's office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait.
The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.
A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.
Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, 'Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.'
According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.
The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.
An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.
He also denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)