Parliament Acted Wrongly In Vodafone Deal-Report

July 7, 2012 (Front page) It emerged at the Commercial Court's sitting in Accra on Thursday that Parliament acted in contravention of the 1992 Constitution in July 2008 when it ratified a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) on the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone without the President's signature. According to an inter-ministerial committee which was set up in May 2009 to review the sale of Ghana’s 70 per cent shares in Ghana Telecom to Vodafone, then President J. A. Kufuor appended his signature to an agreement between Vodafone UK and Ghana Telecom, while Parliament ratified an agreement between Vodafone International of Holland and Ghana Telecom. The Director of Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation at the Ministry of Communications, Mr Issah Yahaya, read out the committee’s findings, dated September 2009, to the Commercial Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, and further stated that Parliament was answerable to the Constitution, not vice versa. The committee also recommended that the numerous lapses encountered in the SPA rendered the agreement null and void. Led by counsel for the six plaintiffs who are challenging the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone, Mr Bright Akwetey, the witness said the committee found the SPA inimical to national interest and, therefore, made a number of recommendations aimed at protecting the national interest. Hearing continues on July 9, 2012. The Commercial Court is taking evidence for onward delivery to the Supreme Court to enable the Supreme Court to determine whether or not the sale of GT to Vodafone was constitutional. The plaintiffs in the matter — Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa and five others — sued the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited and the Registrar-General over the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone. The other plaintiffs, who are all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), are Mr Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah. They are calling for a declaration that the sale of GT is inimical to the public interest. They are, therefore, seeking reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with due process of law and is, therefore, a nullity. They are also seeking an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect. The plaintiffs are further praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the government from disposing of its 70 per cent share in GT to Vodafone or any other foreign company without first exploring avenues for funding and better management in Ghana, among others. In the substantive suit, the plaintiffs are contending that the SPA entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for $900 million was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government. They said they were opposed to the unlawful establishment of the said Enlarged GT Group, as it undermined the sovereignty of the country and endangered the national security of Ghana. According to them, the decision of the government to transfer the assets, properties, shares, equipment, among others, to Vodafone was obnoxious, unlawful and inimical to the public interest, particularly when no consideration was required to be paid by Vodafone for the stated assets. The plaintiffs argued that the three Ministers of State and the managing director of GT who signed the agreement on behalf of the government did not exercise the requisite level of circumspection required of them as public officers in relation to public property.

Kofi Adams, NDC back to court

June 14, 2012 (Page 14)- An out of court settlement of a dispute between the suspended Deputy General Secretary of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr. Kofi Adams and his party has failed. The Accra Fast Track High Court presided over by Mr. Justice S. K. Asiedu on May 10, 2012 ordered Mr. Adams and the party to settle their differences and report back to the court yesterday, June 13, 2012. However, parties in the matter informed the court at its sitting in Accra yesterday that they could not settle the matter and for that reason the court should proceed with hearing of the suit filed against the party. Counsel for Mr. Adams, Mr. Stanley R. K. Ahorlu, told the court that efforts to settle the dispute had been unsuccessful and further stated that a notice of appeal filed by Mr. Adams against the court’s order had been withdrawn. Replying, lawyer for the NDC, Mr. Samuel Cudjoe said he was not aware Mr. Adams had withdrawn the notice of appeal. He said the NDC was a peaceful party which wanted its estranged members including Mr. Adams back into its fold. Mr. Justice Asiedu said he was not aware Mr. Adams had withdrawn his appeal and accordingly urged him to notify the registrar of the Court of Appeal of his decision to discontinue the appeal. The matter was adjourned to June 27, 2012. Although, parties in the dispute were not willing to go for arbitration, the court, on May 10, 2012 stamped its authority and ordered them to settle their differences. According to the court, Section 7 sub-section 5 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act gave it the authority to order disputing parties to arbitrate. The court said the NDC Constitution also gave feuding parties an alternative to resort to internal dispute resolution mechanisms. In this instance, the court held that it had found the parties did not exhaust the NDC dispute resolution mechanism. The National Executive Committee (NEC) of the NDC suspended Mr. Adams on March 22, 2012 over an alleged plot in a leaked telephone conversation to run the party down in the upcoming December elections but Mr. Adams sued the party and prayed the court to declare his suspension as null and void. In the substantive suit, Mr. Adams, who is also the Spokesperson for former President Jerry John Rawlings, is requesting the court to declare his suspension null and void because due process was not followed by the NEC. Mr. Adams was suspended for allegedly planning to ensure that President Atta Mills does not win the 2012 elections, as allegedly captured on an audio recording. He was alleged to have noted on the said audio recording: “Atta Mills is not a person going to be president of this country after he finishes with his first term. Whatever it takes for him to go to opposition we’ll do it.” He has, however, denied the voice being his and sued the party in which he is, among others, seeking a declaration from the court that his suspension from the NDC was a severe measure imposed by the defendant without due process and contrary to the rules of natural justice. Mr. Adams is also seeking a declaration that his suspension was void, inoperative and of no effect. He is also praying the court to award general damages and cost.

Akuse part of Manya Krobo - Supreme Court

June 14, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The Supreme Court has put to rest a long-standing boundary dispute between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions by declaring Akuse part of the Lower Manya District in the Eastern Region. 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 to place the Akuse Electoral Area under the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region, a move which infuriated the authorities and residents of the Manya Krobo Traditional Area. In its judgement at its sitting in Accra Wednesday, the highest court of the land declared as null and void the decision of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Subsidiary Legislation which placed the Akuse Electoral Area under the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region. It said Parliament was procedurally wrong in enacting the LI because the action contravened Article 11 (7) of the 1992 Constitution and subsequently declared the original version of the LI which placed Akuse under the Eastern Region as valid. 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. Following that decision, two individuals, Mr Charles Mate Kole and Nene Azago Kwesitsu I, in December 2010 sued the Electoral Commission (EC) and the Attorney-General on the grounds that LI 1983 sought to alter boundaries between the Greater Accra and the Eastern regions. The two, through their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, contended that the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka 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) were now part of the Dangme West District in the Greater Accra Region and that action, according to them, was unconstitutional. The court, presided over by Justice William Atuguba, upheld reliefs sought by the plaintiffs and, accordingly, declared as null and void the designation of Akuse as part of the Greater Accra Region. In a unanimous decision, the court declined to rule on a dispute raging between two chiefs connected to the boundary dispute. According to the court, it only had the power to deal with the constitutional aspect of the suit and emphasised that it was the regional houses of chiefs which had the mandate to determine chieftaincy matters. The applicants had, in the substantive matter, prayed the court to declare that the action to alter the boundaries between the two regions 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). They also pleaded with the 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. The plaintiffs also prayed the Supreme Court 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 related to the specification of the Osukute, Bungalow, Akutua, Zongo New Town, Amedeka and Salon Electoral areas as part of the Dangme West District. The Attorney-General, 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 also prayed the court to take into consideration the statute and social needs of the community, the economic exigencies of the 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.” Other members of the court were Prof Justice S. K. Date-Bah, Justice Julius Ansah, Justice Sophia Adinyira, Justice Jones Dotse, Justice Annin Yeboah, Justice P. Baffoe-Bonney, Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.

Woyome had no contract with government

June 13, 2012 (Front Page) A lawyer at the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Mrs Mangowa Ghanney, Tuesday told the Fast Track High Court that there was no contract between a businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, and the government to warrant the latter to pay him GH¢51.2 million. She said she had also sighted a letter which said Woyome was to provide some services for the government at no cost. Testifying in the trial in which Woyome is facing two counts of defrauding by false pretences and causing financial loss to the state, Mrs Ghanney said a treasurer at the ministry had also queried who the GH¢51.2 million should be paid to because aside from Woyome, a business entity called Astro Investment was also laying claim to the money. Woyome, who has denied any wrongdoing, is alleged to have made fraudulent claims to the government, resulting in the payment of the GH¢51.2 million to him. Woyome and three others — Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh, a Chief State Attorney; Paul Asimenu, the Director of Legal Services at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, and Mrs Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, Nerquaye-Tetteh’s wife — were standing trial for their various roles leading to the fraudulent payment of GH¢51.2 million to Woyome. Woyome faced three counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretence and corrupting a public officer. They all pleaded not guilty to the charges. However, on June 5, 2012, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Cynthia Lamptey, filed a nolle prosequi to discontinue the action against the accused persons and, accordingly, prayed for their discharge. The trial judge, Justice John Ajet-Nasam, obliged the state attorney and, accordingly, discharged all four accused persons and struck out the case. Woyome was, however, re-arrested some few minutes later and slapped with the two fresh charges. Giving her evidence-in-chief, Mrs Ghanney told the court that the then Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, sent a letter to the Ministry of Finance requesting that 22 million euros be paid to Woyome. But the ministry refused to pay. According to her, the Finance Minister, Dr Kwabena Duffuor, referred the letter to her (Mrs Ghanney) for study but she could not advise on it because she was due to travel outside the country within a short period, adding that other lawyers had already advised on the matter. She said she did not have sufficient time to counter what other lawyers had advised on but stated that payment was made after Woyome had secured a default judgement from the High Court. Mrs Ghanney, however, stated during cross-examination by Mr Osafo Buabeng, counsel for the accused, that she would be surprised if full payment had been made because it was procedurally wrong for payment to be made while a civil case was pending. The witness said because the amount involved was huge, she took Woyome and his lawyer to the office of the Director of Budget, where it was agreed that the money should be paid in three instalments. Witness said she had not seen the default judgement and further pointed out that no other payment was made, aside from what was stated in the default judgement. Counsel: Are you aware the recommendation for the payment of the money was not done in a vacuum? Witness: I am not sure. Counsel: When was the first instalment paid? Witness: I do not know because I was not part of the payment process. Counsel: Is the default judgement still in effect? Witness: From the media it is still in force. I am not well versed in the civil matter. Mrs Ghanney stated that she was not officially aware that the Attorney-General had taken civil action against Woyome in respect of the GH¢51.2 million transaction, adding that she got to know of that matter through the media. Hearing continues.

Case of Asamoah-Boateng and 7 others - Court to rule on stay proceedings July 19

June 12, 2012 (Page 20) THE Court of Appeal will on July 19, 2012 decide whether or not to stay proceedings in a criminal matter brought against a former Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mr. Stephen Asamoah-Boateng and seven others over award of contract for renovation works at the ministry. Counsel for two of the accused persons, Mr. Augustines Obour, filed an application for stay of proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal he filed against the Fast Track High Court’s ruling that the law mandated Chief State Attorneys to retire at age 65. Asamoah-Boateng, his wife, Zuleika and seven others have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the State. Other accused persons are Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, former Director of Finance, Ministry of Information and National Orientation, Frank Agyekum, a Former Deputy Minister of Information and National Orientation, Dominic A. Y. Sampong, Former Acting Chief Director, Ministry of Information and National Orientation, Kwabena Denkyira, a Deputy Director of Finance and Administration of the Ministry, Prosper Arku of Supreme Procurement Agencies Limited and Yasmine Domua, a businesswoman. Also in court is Supreme Procurement Agencies Limited, an entity. The accused persons are alleged to have conspired to defraud the State of GHC86,915.85 in renovation works undertaken at the Ministerial Block of the Ministry during Asamoah-Boateng’s tenure in office. They have all pleaded not guilty and admitted to GHC10,000 bail each with a surety. Mr. Obour, who is the lawyer for Kofi Asamoah-Boateng and Sampong, had argued that the then prosecutor in the case, Mr. Anthony Gyambiby had no locus to continue prosecuting the case because he had attained the compulsory retirement age of 60 and for that reason, had no authorization to continue with the case. However, the Accra Fast Track High Court on April 30, 2012 dismissed the application and said the Legal Service Act pegged the retirement age of Chief State Attorneys at 65 and accordingly dismissed a motion which questioned the retirement age of a Chief State Attorney, Mr. Anthony Gymabiby, who was prosecuting a criminal case against a former Minister of Information and eight others. According to the court, Mr. Gyambiby, who has been nominated by the President as a Deputy Minister of Justice, will attain the compulsory retirement age on November 28, 2012 and not on November 28, 2007 as was argued by the applicants. The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Quist, subsequently, declined to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation. Dissatisfied with the Fast Track High Court’s decision, Mr. Obour filed an appeal and subsequently filed an additional motion praying the court to stay proceedings in the criminal matter until the final determination of his clients appeal. In his application for stay of proceedings at the lower court, Mr. Obour said his appeal had a chance of success and for that reason, his clients would suffer irreparable loss if the Court of Appeal did not stay proceedings at the lower court. Meanwhile, the Fast Track High Court has adjourned hearing in the case to July 23, 2012. END.

Head of communications ackbone company testifies at Vodafone trial

June 12, 2012 (Page 20) THE Head of Contract Management at the National Communications Backbone Company (NCBC) has informed the Commercial Court in Accra that he was not aware the national fibre optic cable was not part of assets expected to be acquired by Vodafone. According to him, he had not read the full report on the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) which according to counsel for seven persons challenging the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone, did not include the national fibre optic cable. Answering questions from Mr. Bright Akwetey, Mr. Asare said he was also not aware Vodafone was expected to acquire 70 per cent of Ghana Telecom shares and not the national fibre optic cable. The NCBC, which until 2008 solely owned the fibre optic cable, now owns 30 per cent shares while Vodafone owns 70 per cent of the cable which is sold to mobile network operators and licenced internet service providers. He said the NCBC, which was responsible for managing the national fibre optic cable currently shared offices with Vodafone. He said the National Grid Company (GRIDCO) currently maintained the fibre optic cable and had since 2008 been paid a little in excess of $1.3 million. Earlier, a lawyer at the Volta River Authority (VRA), Mrs. Angelina Dormakyaare, told the court that VRA set up Voltacom to commercialise its excess fibre optic cables in order to earn money for the country. He said the nature of the business was to carry signals to companies in the communication sector. The Head of Visa Fraud and Documentation Unit of the Ghana Police Service, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr. Francis Baah, tendered in evidence minutes of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) from 2001 to date. A former Minister Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Joe Ghartey, was present in court following the issuance of a subpoena but he could not testify because he was yet to receive a copy of the SPA for study. Mr. Akwetey, promised the former Minister or his lawyer, Mr. Frank Davies, with a copy of the SPA to enable him testify later. Hearing continues on June 18, 2012. The plaintiffs in the matter, Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa and five others, sued the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited and the Registrar General over the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone. The other plaintiffs, who are all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), are Mr. Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr. Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms. Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah, and they are calling for a declaration that the sale of GT is inimical to the public interest. They are, therefore, seeking reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with due process of law and is, therefore, a nullity. They are also seeking an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect. The plaintiffs are further praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the government from disposing of its 70 per cent share of GT to Vodafone or any other foreign company without first exploring avenues for funding and better management in Ghana, among others. The plaintiffs are contending that the SPA entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for $900 million was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government. They said they were opposed to the unlawful establishment of the said Enlarged GT Group, as it undermined the sovereignty of the country and endangered the national security of Ghana. According to them, the decision of the government to transfer the assets, properties, shares, equipment, among others, to Vodafone was obnoxious, unlawful and inimical to the public interest, particularly when no consideration was required to be paid by Vodafone for the stated assets. The plaintiffs argued that the three Ministers of State and the managing director of GT who signed the agreement on behalf of the government did not exercise the requisite level of circumspection required of them as public officers in relation to public property. END.

Bawku MP's case - Prosecution to file address

May 12 (Page 3 Lead) The Accra Fast Track High Court has given the prosecution in the dual citizenship trial of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central two weeks to file its address. The court gave the date after Mr Egbert Faibille, lawyer for the MP, Adamu Daramani Sakande, had submitted his written address on behalf of the MP. Mr Faibille indicated the intention of the defence to file its response to the prosecution's address. The court, presided over by Justice Charles Quist, had, on April 27, 2012, directed Mr Faibille to file his address on or before May 11, 2012. 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. He was, however, 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. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has fixed May 23, 2012 as the date to rule on the submission of ‘no case’ in the civil matter brought against the MP. The court fixed the date after parties in the matter had filed their written addresses and informed the court that they did not have additional issues to file. A cattle farmer, Mr Sumaila Biebel, 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 and the High Court, in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, counsel for the MP appealed against it, 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 the results of the elections have been declared. Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal’s decision, Mr Biebel went to the Supreme Court, which decided to take evidence from him. He has since testified and been cross-examined by Mr Faibille. The defence filed a submission of ‘no case’ after Mr Biebel had completed his evidence-in-chief and been cross-examined. According to the defence, Mr Biebel had failed to fully comply with the rules of evidence and, for that reason, there was no evidence before the Supreme Court. It said the standards for submitting exhibits had not been met by Mr Biebel and for that reason the court should strike out his case. Mr Biebel is also the complainant in the criminal action against the MP at the Fast Track High Court.

Court directs NDC, Kofi Adams to resolve differences

May 11, 2012 (Page 12) The Accra Fast Track High Court today ordered the suspended Deputy General Secretary of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr. Kofi Adams and his party to resolve their differences. Although, parties in the dispute were not willing to go for arbitration, the court, presided over by Justice S. K. Asiedu, stamped its authority and ordered them to settle their differences. It also directed them to report the outcome of the arbitration on June 13, 2012. The National Executive Committee (NEC) of the NDC suspended Mr. Adams on March 22, 2012 over an alleged plot in a leaked telephone conversation to run the party down in the upcoming December elections but Mr. Adams sued the party and prayed the court to declare his suspension null and void. Counsel for Mr. Adams, Mr. Stanley R. K. Ahorlu, expected the court to deliver its summary judgement in the matter at its sitting in Accra Thursday but he was disappointed when the court directed his client and the NDC to go for an out of court settlement. Mr. Ahorlu and counsel for the NDC, Mr. Samuel Cudjoe, had prayed the court to rule on the matter but the court ruled that it had observed the parties had not exhausted clauses for dispute resolution as spelt out in the NDC Constitution. According to the court, Section 7 sub-section 5 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act gave it the authority to order disputing parties to arbitrate. The court said the NDC Constitution also gave feuding parties an alternative to resort to internal dispute resolution mechanisms. In this instance, the court held that it had found the parties did not exhaust the NDC dispute resolution mechanism. There was a hot exchange between the lawyers but the presiding judge brought them to order and informed them that nothing would stop the court from ensuring that due procedure was followed. In the substantive suit, Mr. Adams, who is also the Spokesperson for former President Jerry John Rawlings, is requesting the court to declare his suspension null and void because due process was not followed by the NEC. Mr Adams was suspended for allegedly planning to ensure that President Atta Mills does not win Election 2012, as allegedly captured on an audio recording. He was alleged to have noted on the said audio recording: “Atta Mills is not a person going to be president of this country after he finishes with first term. Whatever it takes for him to go to opposition we’ll do it.” He has, however, denied the voice being his and sued the party in which he is, among others, seeking a declaration from the court that his suspension from the NDC was a severe measure imposed by the defendant without due process and contrary to the rules of natural justice. Mr. Adams is also seeking a declaration that his suspension was void, inoperative and of no effect. He is also praying the court to award general damages and cost.

Jake's bungalow case - Ruling deferred to May 23

May 10, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The Supreme Court Wednesday adjourned to May 23, 2012 to deliver its judgement on whether or not it was appropriate for Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the current Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), to purchase a government bungalow. The court had, on February 29, 2012, slated May 9, 2012, as the date for delivery of its judgement after parties in the matter had submitted their written addresses. However, the court, presided over by Justice William Atuguba, announced at its sitting wednesday that it was unable to deliver its judgement because one of its panel members was indisposed. The other panel members present were Justice Sophia Akuffo, Professor Justice S. K. Date-Bah, Justice Annin Yeboah, Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo and Justice N. S. Gbadegbe. A Deputy Minister of Information, Mr Samuel Okudzeto-Ablakwa, and a Deputy Minister of Youth and Sports, Dr Omane Boamah, dragged Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey to the highest court of the land over his purchase of a government bungalow in Accra. 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 court, in a unanimous decision, argued that although the case passed for a land case, which fell 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 a state property, including articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution. It held that it had jurisdiction by law and precedents to hear the case, which bordered both on constitutionality and public interest. In 2008, Mr Okudzeto-Ablakwa and Dr Boamah brought the action against Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, 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 Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s action contravened articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the Constitution 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 on 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 objection and proceeded to receive written submissions from the parties in the case.

REINSTATE COPS - Court orders police

May 8, 2012 (Lead Story) - The Fast Track High Court has given the Ghana Police Service and two others 14 days to reinstate five policemen who were dismissed in March 2011 for alleged misconduct. It also ordered the Police Service, its Central Disciplinary Board and the Attorney-General to reinstate the five policemen in their various offices and positions with full benefits and emoluments before the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings. It also prevented the respondents from taking any steps to eject the applicants from their official residences and further awarded total costs of GH¢2,500 against the respondents. Each applicant benefitted from a GH¢500 cost. The five — General Lance Corporals Isaac Annan, Dominic Amezah, George Akoi, Anthony Adjei and Collins Ohemeng — were dismissed in March 2011 by the Central Disciplinary Board of the Ghana Police Service for various acts of misconduct, neglect of duty, conspiracy to take part in an unauthorised operation, making false entries in an official document, among others. The five policemen, who were alleged to have gone on an unauthorised operation with Lance Corporal Ekow Russel, were, in July 2007, put before the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal but the charges were withdrawn against them. However, Lance Corporal Russel, who was alleged to have given unspecified amounts of money to the five applicants, is currently serving a 12-year jail term. His accomplice, Maxwell Antwi, who pleaded guilty to the charge of possessing a narcotic drug without lawful authority, cited Russel as the supplier of the narcotic drug. They were both convicted on March 24, 2011 but Antwi died in detention some time later. Following developments in relation to the roles the five applicants allegedly played in the unauthorised operation on January 15, 2007, the Central Disciplinary Board of the Ghana Police found the applicants guilty of misconduct and other offences and subsequently dismissed them. Dissatisfied with the board’s decision, the five applicants filed an application for a judicial review, citing breaches of the rules of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and error of law based on the records available. Ruling on the application for a judicial review, the court, presided over by Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, held that the Central Disciplinary Board breached laid down procedure as stipulated in the regulations governing the Police Service. It held that the regulations stated that officers investigated by the board must not be below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police, adding that the appointment of a senior police officer to hold a service enquiry in respect of the applicants was procedurally inappropriate. It, accordingly, declared the entire proceedings, as well as the decision by the senior officer who presided over the enquiry, as null and void. Citing authorities to reinforce its decision, the court held that all acts, directives, signals and orders in respect of or in consequence of the said decision were void and of no legal effect. Consequently, it directed the respondents to reinstate the applicants within 14 days of the receipt of the court order. It also restrained the respondents from interfering with the status of the applicants or ejecting them from their residences or barracks or classes in which they were immediately before the disciplinary proceedings.

Ken Agyapong's case adjourned

May 5, 2012 (Front page) THE Accra Fast Track High Court on May 4, 2012 granted two weeks adjournment to enable the state receive the docket on the case involving the New Patriotic Member of Parliament (NPP) Member of Parliament for Assin North, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, who is alleged to have pitted Ashantis against Gas and Ewes and declaring war. The court granted the adjournment after a Chief State Attorney, Ms. Merley Wood, had informed it that the police were yet to forward the docket on the MP’s case to her outfit for study and advice. She also cited the inability of the police to have access to the MP for investigations because he was not reporting to them due to the fact the Fast Track High Court presiding over his case did not order the MP to report to the police when it granted him bail in the sum of GHC200, 000 with two sureties on April 19, 2012. The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Quist, averted its mind to the prosecution’s prayer for an adjournment and subsequently adjourned the case to May 23, 2012 but was silent on whether or not to order the MP to report to the police on a particular day or days. Agyapong, who wore a locally designed outfit smiled and interacted with sympathisers when he entered the courtroom at 10:18 a.m. The large crowd which besieged the court premises on April 19, 2012 when the MP was first arraigned before the Fast Track High Court was missing at the court’s sitting in Accra today. Pockets of supporters were spotted around the court premises which was heavily guarded by armed policemen detailed there to maintain law and order. Although, the MP was charged with three counts of treason felony, attempted genocide and engaging in terrorism act for allegedly inciting Ashantis against Ewes and Gas as well as declaring war on April 19, 2012, Ms. Wood, informed the court that the police had not referred the docket on the case to her outfit for advice and study. The lead counsel for the MP, Mr. Ayikoi Otoo, expressed surprise at the prosecution’s statement that the police was yet to refer the docket on the case to the Attorney-General’s office. He, therefore, questioned the basis upon which the MP was charged and put first before the Adjabeng District Magistrate and consequently, the Fast Track High Court. He reminded the court and the prosecution that his client was duly charged, his plea taken and facts of the case read to the hearing of all present at the Adjabeng District Magistrate and Fast Track High Courts on April 18 and 19, 2012 respectively. Mr. Otoo argued that the prosecution generated the facts of the case and even added that nine vehicles were destroyed at the Police Headquarters when Agyapong was arrested on April 16, 2012 following his alleged intemperate comments. Meanwhile, Mr. Agyapong’s lawyers on April 24, 2012 discontinued an application which had prayed the Human Rights Court to order the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to produce the MP. Following his continuous incarceration, his lawyers filed an application for habeas corpus praying the court to order the IGP to produce the MP in court. The court presided over by Mr. Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah, obliged, granted the MP bail on health grounds and ordered the IGP to produce the MP and explain to the court why the MP should continuously be kept in detention. Barely four hours after the MP had been granted bail, he was hauled to the Fast Track High Court charged with three counts of treason felony, attempted genocide and engaging in terrorism act for allegedly inciting Ashantis against Ewes and Gas as well as declaring war. He was, however, granted bail by Mr. Justice Quist. In granting the bail, the court also bonded the MP to be of good behavior until the final determination of the criminal action against him. As a result of the grant of bail to the MP, one of his lawyers, Mr. Andy Appiah-Kubi, went before the Human Rights Court and expressed the decision of the applicant to discontinue the application for habeas corpus. The application was subsequently struck out. END.

"Commercial Court has jurisdiction to hear review motion"

May 1, 2012 (Page 22) THE Commercial Court in Accra on April 30, 2012 ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the State’s motion praying it to review GHC500 cost it awarded against it for failing to start a civil case between it and a businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome. It, however, decided to stay proceedings in the hearing of the application pending the outcome of an appeal Woyome has filed against its decision which allowed the state to introduce fresh evidence. The court on March 26, 2012 awarded the GHC500 cost against the State after it failed to commence hearing of the civil matter as directed by the court. Discontented with the GHC500 cost, the state filed the motion praying the court to review its decision but one of the lawyers for Woyome, Mr. Sarfo Buabeng, argued that the state filed the motion under the wrong rule. He submitted that the Court of Appeal was the appropriate forum for hearing of such motions and accordingly prayed the court to strike out the motion. However, the court, presided over by Ms. Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu, held a different view and stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the motion for review of the cost it awarded against the state. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal has adjourned sine die, an appeal against the Commercial Court’s decision to grant the state leave to file additional issues of fraud against Woyome to enable parties in the matter to serve the necessary papers in the case on each other. In the substantive appeal, Woyome said, although, the state had instituted the legal action in July 2010, it “went to sleep until January 16, 2012, when it filed a motion on notice for leave to amend by substitution the amended writ of summons and the accompanying amended statement of claim.” According to his lawyers, the trial judge erred in law in granting the state the permission to introduce evidence of fraud almost two years after the state had filed a suit to retrieve moneys paid him. According to Woyome the state could raise the issue of fraud but argued that the state could not raise any other issue or relief of which will re-open matters concluded in the consent judgement resulting in the payment of the GHC51.2 million to him. He said it was, therefore, wrong in law for the court to allow the state to re-open issues which had already being tackled in the consent judgement. In his supporting affidavit, Woyome argued that “in an action charging fraud, it would be a clear impropriety for the plaintiff (state) to re-open its case.” Woyome, who is currently standing trial at the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court for fraud is accordingly praying the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings at the Commercial Court pending the outcome of his appeal. The state on July 20, 2010 filed an application claiming an agreement it reached with Woyome regarding the payment of GHC51.2 million was a mistake. It, however, stayed dormant until January 2012 when it filed additional issues praying the court to allow it to introduce allegations of fraud against Woyome. The court granted the state’s application on February 29, 2012 but awarded GHC2,000 against it for delaying the matter. The Attorney-General (A-G) is currently in court seeking an order for the refund of the judgement debt of GH¢51,283,480.59 paid to Woyome because it was procured by fraudulent means. Among the reliefs contained in the writ filed at the Registry of the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra, on Monday, January 16, 2012 is a declaration that the terms of settlement filed on June 4, 2010, to the effect that Mr Woyome should be paid the sum in three equal instalments of GH¢17,094,495.53, were procured by mistake on the part of the A-G and due to fraudulent misrepresentation by Mr Woyome. Additionally, the A-G is seeking a declaration to set aside the consent judgement of the court on the grounds that Mr Woyome had no contract with the government and consequently lacked a cause of action and the capacity to make the said claim in any court of competent jurisdiction among others. In his amended statement of defence and counter-claim, Woyome has denied that the negotiation of the judgement obtained by him on May 24, 2010 was arrived at by mistake on the part of the A-G and that after he had obtained the judgement, he was invited by the A-G to a meeting on May 27, 2010. As a result of meeting, an agreement was reached that the judgement debt be steeled by the payment of GH¢41,811,480.59 as the judgement debt of five million euros or its cedi equivalent. The amount represented half of the interest awarded by the court and costs of GH¢25,000. END.

Chief State Attorneys retire at 65

May 1, 2012 (Page 22) The Accra Fast Track High Court Monday ruled that the law mandated Chief State Attorneys to retire at age 65. It said the Legal Service Act pegged the retiring age of Chief State Attorneys at 65 and, accordingly, dismissed a motion which questioned the retiring age of a Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Gyambiby, who was prosecuting a criminal case against a former Minister of Information and eight others. According to the court, Mr Gyambiby, who has been nominated by the President as a Deputy Minister of Justice, will attain the compulsory retiring age on November 28, 2012, not November 28, 2007 as was argued by the applicants. The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, subsequently declined to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation. A former Minister of Information, Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, his wife, Zuleika, and seven others have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the state. The other accused persons are Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, a former Director of Finance, Ministry of Information and National Orientation; Frank Agyekum, a former Deputy Minister of Information and National Orientation; Dominic A. Y. Sampong, a former acting Chief Director, Ministry of Information and National Orientation; Kwabena Denkyira, a Deputy Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry; Prosper Arku of Supreme Procurement Agencies Limited, and Yasmine Domua, a businesswoman. Also in court is Supreme Procurement Agencies Limited, an entity. The accused persons are alleged to have conspired to defraud the State of GH¢86,915.85 in renovation works undertaken at the Ministerial Block of the ministry during Asamoah-Boateng’s tenure of office. They have all pleaded not guilty and admitted to GH¢10,000 bail each, with a surety. Counsel for Kofi Asamoah-Boateng and Sampong, Mr Augustines Obour, had argued that Mr Gyambiby had no locus to continue prosecuting the case because he had attained the compulsory retiring age of 60 and, for that reason, had no authorisation to continue with the case. An affidavit in support of the motion challenging the retention of Mr Gyambiby as the prosecutor in the case said Mr Gyambiby was born in Ghana on November 28, 1947. It said the prosecutor was 64 years old and that in 2007 Mr Gyambiby had attained the age of 60 and, therefore, retired from public service. It stated that Mr Gyambiby could be engaged on contract basis by the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department through the Public Service Commission as a consultant or contractor based on contract but not as a Chief State Attorney. Arguing for the state, a Principal State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, said Mr Gyambiby attained the age of 60 on November 28, 2007 and during that period he had an accrued right which was automatic to continue prosecution to the age of 65. Mr Wiredu pointed out that PNDC Law 320 gave Mr Gyambiby the mandate to retire at age 65, in the same vein as a High Court judge.

Woyome's case - Docket referred to police for further investigations

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The State has referred the docket on the alleged fraudulent payment of GH¢51.2 million to Alfred Agbesi Woyome to the police for further investigations. A Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Atakorah-Obuobisa, Monday informed the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court that the police had forwarded the docket on the matter to the Arttorney-General’s Office for advice but after perusing the document, it observed that further investigations needed to be carried out. She, therefore, prayed the court, presided over by Mr Justice Ajet-Nasam, to give the prosecution four weeks by which time investigations would have been completed. The court subsequently granted the request and said it was important for the police to be given enough time to unravel all issues surrounding the matter. It, however, declined to review the bail condition with respect to the number of times Woyome was expected to report to the police. Woyome, who was alleged to have used fraudulent means to receive GH¢51.2 million from the state, has pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and corrupting a public officer. He is on a GH¢20 million bail with two sureties to be justified and has been ordered to report to the police twice a week. Faced with inconveniences of having to report twice a week to the police, Woyome prayed for a review of the court’s order through one of his lawyers, Mr Sarfo Buabeng. Mr Buabeng prayed the court to revise its earlier order and direct his client to report once instead of twice a week to the police. The court, however, declined to grant Woyome’s request and accordingly maintained the status quo. Woyome is standing trial with three others. They are Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh, a Chief State Attorney who is facing two counts of conspiracy and corruption, the Director of Legal Services of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Paul Asimenu and Gifty, wife of Nerquaye-Tetteh, who are each facing one count of abetment of crime. The three have all pleaded not guilty to the charges. Nerquaye-Tetteh and Asimenu were granted bail in the sum of GHc6, 000 each with two sureties each to be justified. Mrs Nerquaye-Tetteh is on a GHc5, 000 bail. The three have also been ordered to report twice a week to the police. Hearing continues June 4, 2012.

Court Directs Counsel For BAWKU MP To File Address

April 28, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The Fast Track High Court has directed counsel for the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central to file his address in his dual citizenship trial on or before May 11, 2012. The defence team was expected to submit its written address Friday but counsel for the MP, Mr Egbert Faibille, informed the court that he could not finish writing his address and for that reason had not submitted it as directed by the court. He, accordingly, prayed the court for extension of time. The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, subsequently granted the defence team's request and adjourned the case to May 11, 2012. 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. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has fixed May 23, 2012 as the date to rule on the submission of ‘no case’ in the civil matter brought against the MP. The court fixed the date after parties in the matter had filed their written addresses and informed it they did not have additional issues to file. A cattle farmer, Mr Sumaila Biebel, 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 and the High Court, in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, counsel for the MP appealed against its decision, 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 the results of the elections have been declared. Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal’s decision, Mr Biebel went to the Supreme Court, which decided to take evidence from him. He has since testified and has since been cross-examined by Mr Faibille. The defence filed a submission of ‘no case’ after Mr Biebel had completed his evidence-in-chief and had been cross-examined. According to the defence, Mr Biebel had failed to fully comply with the rules of evidence and for that reason there was no evidence before the Supreme Court. The defence said the standards for submitting exhibits had not been met by Mr Biebel and for that reason the court should strike out his case. Mr Biebel is also the complainant in the criminal action against the MP at the Fast Track High Court.

Nduom sues Twum-Boafo

April 25, 2012 (Page 17) The flagbearer of the Progressive People’s Party (PPP), Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom, has hauled the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Free Zones Board, Kojo Twum Boafo, to the High Court for defamation. He is requesting the court to award him GH¢500,000 being punitive and aggravated damages for maliciously and recklessly publishing false and scandalous information against him on a private radio station on April 5, 2012 at about 7.00 a.m. Mr Boafo was alleged to have stated among other things that Dr. Nduom had no conviction and principles in life, had used deposits of his customers in his financial institution to finance his political campaigns, was an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and had allegedly transferred $500,000 to his CIA agents abroad without paying tax on the said amount. The defendant was also alleged to have stated that Dr. Nduom was dismissed from former President J. A. Kufuor’s government because he was in the habit of leaking information to the media. Dissatisfied with Mr. Boafo’s allegations, Dr. Nduom’s lawyers, Quashigah and Co. of Dzidedi Chambers filed a suit at the High Court on April 19, 2012, praying the court to order the defendant to render an unqualified apology in a like manner and of the same prominence to the said publication which was aired on Happy FM. The plaintiff is further praying the court to permanently restrain the defendant and his agents from further publishing such scandalous information about him as well as award cost of litigation and other reliefs the court might deem fit. A date is yet to be fixed for hearing of the substantive matter after Mr. Boafo files his defence. According to the plaintiff, his reputation as an astute politician both locally and internationally had been gravely affected by the defendant’s malicious claims. He said his reputation had been seriously damaged and had suffered considerable embarrassment. A statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons said the plaintiff would make a copy of the audio recordings available to the court. It contended that Mr. Boafo knew and ought to have known that the said publication would cause and had practically caused such irreparable damage to the reputation and integrity of Dr. Nduom as a fraudster, hypocrite, tax evader, secret agent and a person without principles or conviction. According to the statement, the defendant’s words had subjected Dr. Nduom to public ridicule and hatred and if same was not stopped by the court, his entire political career will be wrecked.

State Appeal For Review Of Cost In Woyome Case

April 25, 2012 (Page 11) The State has filed a motion praying the Commercial Court in Accra to review GHc2,000 cost it awarded against it for delaying a civil case between it and businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome. The state on July 20, 2010 filed an application claiming an agreement it reached with Woyome regarding the payment of GHc 51.2 million was a mistake. It, however, stayed dormant until January 2012 when it filed additional issues praying the court to allow it to introduce allegations of fraud against Woyome. The court granted the state’s application on February 29, 2012 but awarded GHc2,000 against the state for delaying the matter. Discontented with the court’s award of GHc2,000 cost, the state filed the motion praying the court to review its decision but one of the lawyers for Woyome, Mr Sarfo Buabeng, has argued that the state filed the motion under the wrong rule. He submitted that the Court of Appeal was the appropriate forum for hearing of such motions and accordingly prayed the court to strike out the motion. The court has fixed April 30, 2012 to rule on the state’s application. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal has adjourned sine die, an appeal against the Commercial Court’s decision to grant the state leave to file additional issues of fraud against Woyome to enable parties in the matter to serve the necessary papers in the case on each other. In the substantive appeal, Woyome said, although, the state had instituted the legal action in July 2010, it “went to sleep until January 16, 2012, when it filed a motion on notice for leave to amend by substitution the amended writ of summons and the accompanying amended statement of claim.” According to his lawyers, the trial judge erred in law in granting the state the permission to introduce evidence of fraud almost two years after the state had filed a suit to retrieve moneys paid him. According to Woyome the state could raise the issue of fraud but argued that the state could not raise any other issue or relief of which will re-open matters concluded in the consent judgement resulting in the payment of the GHC51.2 million to him. He said it was, therefore, wrong in law for the court to allow the state to re-open issues which had already being tackled in the consent judgement. In his supporting affidavit, Woyome argued that “in an action charging fraud, it would be a clear impropriety for the plaintiff (state) to re-open its case.” Woyome, who is currently standing trial at the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court for fraud is accordingly praying the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings at the Commercial Court pending the outcome of his appeal. The Attorney-General (A-G) is currently in court seeking an order for the refund of the judgement debt of GH¢51,283,480.59 paid to Woyome because it was procured by fraudulent means. Among the reliefs contained in the writ filed at the Registry of the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra, on Monday, January 16, 2012 is a declaration that the terms of settlement filed on June 4, 2010, to the effect that Mr Woyome should be paid the sum in three equal instalments of GH¢17,094,495.53, were procured by mistake on the part of the A-G and due to fraudulent misrepresentation by Mr Woyome. Additionally, the A-G is seeking a declaration to set aside the consent judgement of the court on the grounds that Mr Woyome had no contract with the government and consequently lacked a cause of action and the capacity to make the said claim in any court of competent jurisdiction among others. In his amended statement of defence and counter-claim, Woyome has denied that the negotiation of the judgement obtained by him on May 24, 2010 was arrived at by mistake on the part of the A-G and that after he had obtained the judgement, he was invited by the A-G to a meeting on May 27, 2010. As a result of meeting, an agreement was reached that the judgement debt be steeled by the payment of GH¢41,811,480.59 as the judgement debt of five million euros or its cedi equivalent. The amount represented half of the interest awarded by the court and costs of GH¢25,000.

Agyapong's lawyers discontinue habeas corpus case

April 25, 2012 (Page 11) LAWYERS for the Member of Parliament for Assin North, Kennedy Agyapong, who is standing trial for pitting Ashantis against Gas and Ewes and declaring war, have discontinued an application which had prayed the Human Rights Court to order the Inspector General of Police to produce the MP. The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Kwesi Essel-Mensah, had on April 19, 2012 granted bail in the sum of GHC200,000 with two surties, one to be justified to Agyapong who had been in custody since April 16, 2012. Following his continuous incarceration, his lawyers filed an application for habeas corpus praying the court to order the IGP to produce the MP in court. The court obliged, granted the MP bail on health grounds and ordered the IGP to produce the MP and explain to the court why the MP should continuously be kept in detention. Barely four hours after the MP had been granted bail, he was hauled to the Fast Track High Court charged with three counts of treason felony, attempted genocide and engaging in terrorism act for allegedly inciting Ashantis against Ewes and Gas as well as declaring war. He was, however, granted bail in the sum of GHC200,000 with one surety by the Fast Track High Court presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Quist. As a result of the grant of bail to the MP, one of his lawyers, Mr. Andy Appiah-Kubi, went before the Human Rights Court today and expressed the decision of the applicant to discontinue the application for habeas corpus. He narrated events which had eventually resulted in the grant of bail to his client and said, there was, therefore, no need for the application to be pursued. Mr. Appiah-Kubi told the court that, although, Agyapong was currently not in detention, his sugar level was currently high. The presiding judge granted Mr. Appiah-Kubi’s application and subsequently struck out the application for habeas corpus. The premises of the Fast Track High Court, was a scene of wild jubilation and excitement when the MP was granted bail on April 19, 2012. Hundreds of supporters, who had besieged the court premise, could not hide their excitement when they carried the MP shoulder high and sprinkled talcum powder on the MP. The court granted bail to the accused person after his lead counsel, Mr. Ayikoi Otoo, had prayed the court to grant him bail on the grounds that the facts upon which the MP was being held did not support the charges leveled against him. In granting the bail, the court also bonded the MP to be of good behavior until the final determination of the criminal action against him.

Man who registered 15 times fine GHC6,600

April 25, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The Accra District Magistrate Court Tuesday ignored the plea of insanity from a brother of the 47-year-old man, who registered 15 times in the ongoing Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) exercise and fined the culprit GHC6,600. In default, Emmanuel Archibald Laryea, who also bit the thumb of a police officer, will serve two years, nine months imprisonment. Laryea had registered under the following weird names: Gufhid Quist Jox, Provencal, Qusitjox Danfo Kwetey, Epicurus Ahenu Tarlo, Victus Wilfred Juqwyjbusu, Victor Wilfred Abety Moux, Victor Gloveuched, Victor Wilfred Nampty and Provencal Kwetey Buzim. The rest were: Justice Fred Provencal, Job Maxwell Auashong, Philip Obletey Tackie, Anthony Akote, Laryea Archibald and Emmanuel Nii Laryea. Laryea, also used different ages on all his registration cards. The convict, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of registering more than once and causing harm to a police officer, informed the court on April 20, 2012 in Ga that his brain was troubling him. He was convicted on that day but the court, presided over by Mr. Ali Baba, remanded him till today for sentencing. At the court’s sitting in Accra today, the court sentenced Laryea to 500 penalty units on the count of registering more than once and 50 penalty units on a count of causing harm to a public officer. Each penalty unit is equivalent to GHC12.00. His brother raised his hand when the case was called this morning and pleaded with the court to have mercy on his brother because Laryea suffered from mental illness. According to Laryea’s brother, Laryea was a patient of a mental hospital. He brought out a hospital attendance card in an attempt to prove his claim but the presiding magistrate rejected the plea for insanity and sentenced the convict. The magistrate argued that the claim was not enough to prove the innocence of the convict, who had already pleaded guilty to the offence. The court expressed the hope that Laryea’s sentence would serve as a deterrent to other persons who harbour the prospect to register more than once. The prosecutor, Inspector P. Y. Manu, had informed the court that Laryea was picked up at the Naroda polling station at Sakaman in the Ablekuma North Constituency in Accra on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. when he attempted to register for the 16th time.

Multimedia dragged to court

April 24, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) Two Nigerian film producers have dragged the Multimedia Group Limited and its Chief Executive to the High Court in Accra for infringing on their copyrights by illegally showing a new movie on its television channel to the whole world. Charles Uche Ayika and Chinedu Samuel Ugochukwu have accused Multimedia and its Chief Executive, Mr Kwesi Twum, of airing their new movie, Arrows of Love Parts 1 & 2, on MultiTV’s Cine Afrik channel without their permission, thereby losing millions of naira in the process. The plaintiffs are, therefore, praying the High Court to order the defendants to pay $1.3 million, GH¢9,000 being costs in hotel and travel expenses, as well as interest on the money borrowed to produce the film. The defence has, however, filed a motion praying the court to strike out the name of Mr Twum from the writ of summons and the statement of claim because he was not the proper person to be sued under the law. The court has fixed May 23, 2012 as the date to determine whether or not to strike out the name of Mr Twum from the suit. According to the plaintiffs, they granted the right to market the film in Nigeria to Chiddo Productions Limited of Idumota, Lagos, and then entered into a contract worth 200,000,000 naira with Rich Investment Company Limited (RICL) of Nigeria to market and distribute the English version of the movie on DVD and VCD within the rest of Africa. A statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons said before the plaintiffs could supply four million copies of the movie to RICL for distribution, the defendants, without licence from the plaintiffs, started transmitting the film to the whole world via their free-to-air multi-channel digital television service. It said following the transmission of the movie, RICL cancelled the $1.2 million (200,000,000 Naira) contract with the plaintiffs alleging a breach of the contractual agreement. The statement pointed out that the film copiously and conspicuously labelled the plaintiffs as producers and copyright owners of the movie and for that reason the defendant’s action was an infringement on the copyright law. It said the transmission of the movie was repeated many times without any licence from the plaintiffs and thereby caused the plaintiffs a huge loss. According to the statement, the defendants sneered at their efforts for a resolution and were determined not to remedy their wrong unless so ordered by the court. It, therefore, maintained that unless restrained by the court, the defendants would continue to infringe the plaintiffs’ copyright in the movie. In a statement of defence, the defendants said they were not in a position to admit or deny plaintiffs’ claim that they were the copyright owners of the Arrows of Love movie. It said the defendants were also not in a position to admit or deny plaintiffs’ claim that they had given RICL the right to market the movie and as well incurred losses due to the transmission of the movie. It said the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs being sought.

Supreme Court to rule on Bawku MP's case

April 21, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The Supreme Court has fixed May 23, 2012 to rule on a submission of no case in a matter brought against the Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, over his alleged dual nationality. The court fixed the date after parties in the matter had filed their written addresses and informed the court they did not have additional issues to file. Members of the Supreme Court panel are Justices S. K. Date-Bah, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose C. Owusu, Jones Dotse, Annin Yeboah P. Baffoe-Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo. A cattle farmer, Sumaila Biebel, 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, and the High Court in a default judgement on July 15, 2009, ordered the MP to vacate his seat. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, counsel for the MP appealed against the High Court’s decision 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. Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal’s decision, Mr Biebel went to the Supreme Court which decided to take evidence from him. He has since testified and been cross-examined by one of the lawyers for the MP, Mr Egbert Faibille. The defence filed a submission of no case after Mr Biebel had completed his evidence-in-chief. According to the defence, Mr Biebel had failed to fully comply with the rules of evidence and for that reason there was no evidence before the Supreme Court. It said the standards for submitting exhibits had not been met by Mr Biebel and, for that reason, the court should strike out Mr Biebel’s case. At the court’s sitting on March 20, 2012, Mr Biebel informed the court that the Ghana Police Service gave him documents upon which he filed the legal suit against the MP. According to him, he wrote to the Ghana Police Service requesting to be furnished with documents relating to the case, adding that the service responded and furnished him with the relevant documents. He, however, conceded that he had neither heard of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom nor had he personally written to that office in respect of the MP’s nationality status. The witness also stated that he had not received any correspondence from the United Kingdom Home Office on the nationality status of the MP. Mr Biebel is also the complainant in a criminal action against the MP at the Fast Track High Court. The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010. He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer. graphic.com.gh

MAN, 47, CONVICTED - OF REGISTERING 15 TIMES

April 21, 2012 (Lead Story) The man, who registered 15 times in the ongoing biometric voters registration exercise, has been convicted on two counts of registering more than once and causing harm to a police officer. Emmanuel Archibald Laryea, 47, who bit the thumb of a police officer in the course of his arrest, pleaded guilty on both counts Friday and informed the Accra District Magistrate’s Court in Ga that he committed the offence because his brain was worrying him. His explanation drew laughter from the court and impelled a lawyer to plead on his behalf. The lawyer, who stood in as a friend of the court, also prayed the court to direct that the convict be sent to a psychiatrist for evaluation. However, the Presiding Magistrate, Mr Ali Baba, disagreed with the lawyer with the argument that a mentally challenged person could not have had the wisdom to register 15 times with different names. The court also held that a mad man was not capable of having 13 pieces of previous voter registration cards. It said from the records, the convict had the penchant for double registration and consequently, remanded him till April 24, 2012 for sentencing. Prosecuting, Inspector P. Y. Manu told the court that Laryea was picked up at the Naroda polling station at Sakaman in the Ablekuma North Constituency in Accra on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 10:30 am when he attempted to register for the 16th time. Laryea, a labourer, ran out of luck when the electoral official detected that he had already registered at Tantra Polling Centre using a different name. He, however, denied that when he was questioned and insisted that he had never registered. He, eventually, admitted the offence after series of interrogation. According to the prosecution, the registration officer at Naroda Polling Station, Mr Asare Baffour, called the police that they had in their custody a man who had attempted to do double registration with different names. It said the fingerprint scanner detected that Laryea had registered on April 8, 2012 at Tantra Polling Station with the name Nii Laryea. The police arrived at the polling station where Laryea had attempted to register the 16th time but he tried to flee and in the process bit the thumb of General Corporal William Afedo. The convict was, however, overpowered and taken to his residence at Dansoman where the police discovered that he had managed to acquire 15 BVR cards using different names. The police also found 13 old registration cards and four toy revolvers under Laryea’s bed. The names under which the convict registered were: Gufhid Quist Jox Provencal, Qusitjox Danfo Kwetey, Epicurus Ahenu Tarlo, Justice Fred Provencal, Philip Obletey Tackie, Victus Wilfred Juqwyjbusu and Anthony Akote. The rest were: Victor Wilfred Abety Moux, Victor Gloveuched, Victor Wilfred Nampty, Provencal Kwetey Buzim, Laryea Archibald, Emmanuel Nii Laryea, Job Maxwell Auashong. He used different ages on all his registration cards.

Osei-Adjei, Gyimah acquitted

April 20, 2012 (Page 3) THE Court of Appeal has acquitted and discharged a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Akwasi Osei-Adjei and another on two counts of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India. In a unanimous decision, the court freed the former Minister and the former Managing Director of the National Investment Bank (NIB), Mr. Daniel Charles Gyimah on grounds that the prosecution relied on a repealed law to justify why the two former officials must be called upon to open their defence at the High Court. It said the prosecution’s argument were very “sentimental” and further stated that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients set out by Section 14 of the Public Procurement Act to warrant the prosecution of the discharged officials. The two left the courtroom in excitement immediately after the court’s decision while their lawyer, Mr. Godfred Yeboah Dame, granted interviews to reporters. On February 25, 2011, the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court acquitted and discharged Mr Osei-Adjei and Mr. Gyimah on six counts of conspiracy, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, use of public office for profit and stealing. The court, presided over by Mr Justice Bright Mensah, however, ordered the two to open their defence on charges of conspiracy and contravening the Public Procurement Act in the importation of rice from India. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, counsel for the two appealed and stated that the prosecution relied mostly on a repealed law to oppose his client’s appeal. Ruling on the appeal at its sitting in Accra today, the court, presided over by Ms. Mariama Owusu, with Mr. Justice Yaw Appau and Mr. Justice Senyo Dzamefe, as members held that the prosecution was wrong in holding that the NIB was a public entity. It said the NIB was a private entity which ordered for rice and paid for and for that reason it was wrong for the prosecution to hold the accused persons culpable for any crime. On the issue that the NIB board was not consulted by Mr. Gyimah, the court held that that evidence was debunked by one of the managers of the bank who in evidence said the board of NIB was consulted and it duly approved the transaction. It further held that assuming without admitting that the NIB Board was not consulted, Mr. Gyimah was answerable to the board and nobody else. The court further submitted that the trial judge misunderstood and misapplied the principles governing when a submission of no case ought to be upheld as well as what constitutes a prima facie. According to the court, the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the two officials to warrant the court to order them to open their defence. It said accused persons are only ordered to open their defence when the prosecution’s case was not contradictory and capable of grounding a conviction. In this particular case, the court held that the prosecution had woefully failed to prove a prima facie case because none of the prosecution witnesses led evidence to prove that the transaction was financed by public funds. It said the transaction was private one engaged in between NIB and Amira Foods of India and for that matter the prosecution failed to justify why the two officials should be called upon to open their defence. The court said the trial judge failed to specify what the essential ingredients of offence were and thus failed to determine whether the evidence of the prosecution fulfilled the requirements under the law. It said there was no decision in the court of Ghana on what constitutes the violation of the Public Procurement Act adding that this case was the first but nonetheless the ingredients of offence had clearly been spelt out in the Public Procurement Act. It further ruled that there was no evidence the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ordered the purchase of the rice and neither was the prosecution able to prove that Mr. Osei-Adjei was the person who ordered the rice. It accordingly upheld the defence team’s appeal and acquitted and discharged the two officials.

KEN AGYAPONG GRANTED BAIL

April 20, 2012 (Lead Story) THERE was spontaneous jubilation within and outside the Accra Fast Track High Court this afternoon when the Member of Parliament for Assin North, Kennedy Agyapong was granted bail in the sum of GHC200, 000 with one surety to be justified. The MP, who looked visibly excited, was also bonded to be of good behavior until the final determination of the criminal action brought against him by the state. Held on three counts of treason felony, attempted genocide and engaging in terrorism act for allegedly inciting Ashantis against Ewes and Gas as well as declaring war, Agyapong has been in custody since Monday, April 16, 2012. The MP, who had turned into an instant hero finally emerged at 4:47 p.m. He was decorated in party colours and was carried shoulder high with loads of talcum powder sprinkled all over his body. The crowd's deafening noise died down eventually after the MP emerged. The thick crowd trooped out of the court premises and marched to the party headquarters to continue with their jubilation. Hundreds of supporters, who were for the past few days noted for being loud and unruly, stood outside the courtroom and kept mute throughout the proceedings but shouted in jubilation immediately word got out that the MP had been granted bail. They chanted, sang, danced, with some laying on the floor in excitement, remained resolute and vowed to stay at the court premises until the MP came out. It took the intervention of the General Secretary of the NPP, Mr. Kwadwo Owusu-Afriyie’s to bring the overly excited crowd under control around 4:43 p.m. while the MP signed the necessary documents at the court’s registry. Executives of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), former Ministers of State, NPP Members of Parliament and party supporters trooped towards the MP to shake hands with him immediately the presiding judge rose to his chambers. Agyapong was granted bail by the Human Rights Court in the sum of GHC200,000 with two sureties, one to be justified around 9.00 a.m. today but was hurled back to the Fast Track High Court around 12:23 p.m. by the prosecution to face another court. The Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Quist, granted bail to the accused person after his lead counsel, Mr. Ayikoi Otoo, had prayed the court to grant him bail on the grounds that the facts upon which the MP was being held did not support the charges leveled against him. It upheld the defence team’s argument that the charges leveled against the MP did not support the evidence on ground and accordingly advised the prosecution to rethink the charges and look into the Criminal Procedure Code which spelt out a different charge for such utterance. It said while recognizing the right of individuals to free speech, the right to free speech was not absolute and accordingly urged political party leaders to be guarded by the tenets of the Constitution and act appropriately. Mr. Justice Quist then advised the prosecution to take a critical look at the charges preferred against the MP and weigh it against the evidence and determine whether or not the charges were appropriate under the circumstance. After granting the bail, Mr. Otoo, prayed the court to direct the police to keep the accused person in court while the bail and bond processes were being worked out. The court upheld counsel’s submission and directed the Registrar to facilitate the execution of the bail bond within the court premises. Some of the excited party activists trooped out the court room, joined their colleagues outside and embarked on a talcum powder sprinkling exercise. Some of them returned to the courtroom with talcum powder on their faces and clothes. Countering Mr. Anthony Rexford Wiredu, a Principal State Attorney’s prayer for remand of the MP, Mr. Otoo argued that his client had not attacked any arm of government. He submitted that what the MP was reported to have said on the radio station amounted to political talk and accordingly prayed the court to bring the political temperature down by granting the MP bail. He accused the prosecution of deliberately preferring such serious charges against his client in a deliberate attempt to remand him in custody. Mr. Otoo said the law permitted the court to grant his client bail and assured the court that the MP would avail himself for trial. He further argued that he was a Ga from James Town and therefore, saw nothing wrong with the MP’s statement. Mr. Otoo, therefore, prayed the court not to allow the prosecution to use the court to deprive the MP of his freedom among others. Earlier, Mr. Wiredu, read the brief background of the MP’s alleged treasonable statement, prayed the court to remand him because the prosecution had witnesses to prosecute the MP. He also mentioned how some unruly NPP activists vandalized his vehicle and some vehicles at the Police Headquarters and accordingly prayed the court to remand the MP in custody. One of the defence lawyers, Mr Atta Akyea, accused the state of hatching a grand design by preferring what he termed a “gargantuan charge” to warrant the incarceration of the MP. He reminded the court that the international community was monitoring events in Ghana and accordingly prayed the court to grant Agyapong bail. The court took into account the arguments from the prosecution and the defence and accordingly granted the accused person bail.

KEN AGYAPONG FACES 3 COUNTS

April 19, 2012 (Lead Story) THE Adjabeng District Magistrate’s Court in Accra Wednesday said it had no jurisdiction over the hearing of a treason case against the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Assin North, Kennedy Agyapong. Agyapong was alleged to have declared war as well as incited Ashantis to attack Gas and Ewes while speaking on a private radio station on April 13, 2012. He has been in police custody since April 16, 2012. The presiding judge at the Adjabeng District Magistrate’s Court, Ms Patricia Kwansah, recused herself from hearing the matter after defence lawyers had applied for bail for the MP. She explained that the Chief Justice had, in a circular dated June 17, 2008, directed all magistrate’s courts to refer matters relating to robbery, murder, treason, hijacking, rape and other first degree felony cases to the Chief Justice’s Secretariat for a Higher Court to be assigned. Agyapong has been charged with three counts of treason, treason felony and attempted genocide. His plea was not taken. He, however, raised his hands during the hearing of his case and apologised to the court for the unruly behaviour of his supporters. He also stated that he did not intend to cause mayhem in the country. Party big wigs interacted with him briefly after the presiding judge had risen to her chambers. A Principal State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, had prayed the court to remand Agyapong for two weeks to enable the prosecution to complete investigations into the matter but one of the defence lawyers, Mr Atta Akyea, insisted that there was nothing to investigate. Mr Wiredu, whose car windscreen was smashed by angry sympathisers, informed reporters that it was likely Agyapong would be put before the High Court today. The Magistrate’s Court’s decision threw defence lawyers, party executives and hundreds of sympathisers into a worrying state because they had expected the court to pronounce on a bail application from the defence team. Agyapong, who looked calm, reserved, smiled intermittently and mostly indifferent during the court proceeding, was whisked away in a waiting armoured vehicle at exactly 2:38 p.m. Hundreds of the sympathisers, who besieged the court, were prevented from entering the court premises. They taunted and cursed the police officers who were at the main gate to the court to ensure law and order. Mostly clad in mourning attire, the sympathisers hooted at police officers and attempted to fight their way through to the courtroom but they were kept at bay. The police ignored the insults and acted professionally. The crowd cheered when Agyapong was whisked away. He waved at his supporters while on his way out. Activities at the Central Business District of Accra were brought to a standstill as the huge crowd, mostly NPP activists, sang and chanted war songs. Not even the heavy presence of armed policemen prevented them from making deafening noise which filtered into the courtroom. The crowd marched to the Fast Track High Court premises to follow up on a habeas corpus application filed by the defence team, praying the court to order the police to produce Agyapong. The crowd marched off at exactly 5:00 p.m. upon realising that the application could not be heard yesterday. Police officers detailed to maintain law and order on the court premises drove off at exactly 5:30 p.m. Earlier at the District Magistrate’s sitting, Mr Wiredu informed the court that the prosecution had come to court to pray the court to commit the MP into lawful custody. According to him, the case was fresh and the second to be recorded in the history of the country and for that reason, the prosecution was pleading with the court to give the prosecution two weeks to investigate it. He said the prosecution was yet to prepare the bill of indictment and summary of evidence to pave the way for the committal of the MP to the High Court for trial. Opposing the prosecution’s application, Mr Akyea argued that what Agyapong said did not amount to treason and argued that the charge was a ploy by the prosecution to refuse his client bail. He said it was not the duty of the judiciary to rubber stamp cases of such nature and explained that his client had made an intervention on a radio programme, asserting that if the police did not show interest in the rule of law there would be chaos in Ghana. According to the counsel, Ghanaians were not safe if what his client said could be said to amount to treason, adding that the worst charge the state could have levelled against the MP was the charge of use of intemperate language. He further argued that it was an embarrassment for the state to assert that what the MP said amounted to treason because his client had no arms or any offensive weapon in his house when it was searched. Mr Akyea said treason cases recorded in the past involved several people, and it was, therefore, unfortunate for the Attorney-General to charge the MP because he was only one person who was incapable of toppling the state. Counsel argued that the MP’s comments were not incriminating to warrant the court to refuse him bail. He said it was a great danger to be put before court and remanded without any basis and questioned why the state sought to use the judiciary as a blessing to turn his client into a guinea pig. He, therefore, prayed the court to resist the temptation to remand the MP because the MP voluntarily reported to the police after he was invited. Mr Akyea also informed the court that the MP’s wife was an Ewe and for that reason, his client would not deliberately incite any tribe against Ewes. One of the lawyers for the MP, Mr Ayikoi Otoo, also argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

5 Rioters granted bail

Arpil 18, 2012 (Page 3) Five activists of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) who allegedly threw stones and vandalised vehicles following the arrest and detention of the Member of Parliament for Assin North, Mr Kennedy Agyapong, Tuesday appeared before the Accra Circuit Court. According to the prosecution, the five ? Kwame Oduro, a trader; Samuel Kwaku Gyebi, a caterer; Samuel Nsiah Kwame, a miner; Isaac Kofi Dankwa, a mechanic, and Kwame Affram, an auto mechanic ? blocked the road from the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service through the Ako-Adjei Interchange to the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC) Junction and caused disorder. It said around 8 p.m. on Monday the five and other activists burnt tyres, threw stones and other offensive missiles and subsequently damaged the windscreens of vehicles when they received information that Mr Agyapong had been refused bail for allegedly inciting tribalism and declaring war in the country. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges of rioting and the court, presided over by Ms Audrey Korcuvie-Tay, granted them bail in the sum of GH?50,000, with two sureties each. They will reappear on May 9, 2012. Before granting the accused persons bail, the presiding judge described the current turbulence on the political scene as ?trying times?, chastised the perpetrators and described their misbehavior as ?unpardonable?. Hundreds of supporters, clad in red head and armbands walked several kilometres from the CID Headquarters and the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) to the premises of the Cocoa Affairs Court to lend support to the activists. They were, however, kept at bay by scores of armed policemen who stood at both entrances to the court. Only reporters with identity tags, lawyers and court officials were allowed entry into the court premises. The supporters, mostly NPP activists, stood outside for hours, in the hope of catching a glimpse of Mr Agyapong. They sang war songs while waiting. Although they were disappointed that Mr Agyapong was not brought to court, they cheered and waved at party executives who besieged the court premises. The big wigs present included the Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Professor Mike Oquaye; a former Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Mpiani; a former Minister of Defence, Dr Kwame Addo-Kufuor; the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey; a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Akwasi Osei-Adjei; the General Secretary of the NPP, Mr Kwadwo Owusu-Afriyie; a former Deputy Minister of Energy, Mr K. T. Hammond; the MP for Okere, Mr Dan Botwe, and a host of former ministers and party executives. According to the facts of the case, the accused persons were picked up around 8 p.m. on Monday, April 16, 2012 for rioting. The prosecution said the accused persons barricaded the road between the CID Headquarters and the GBC Junction, burnt vehicle tyres and caused vandalism.

Obinim severely beat me - Hot FM Host

April 13, 2012 (Page 3) A newscaster at Hot FM, a private radio station in Accra, has recounted how the Founder of the International God’s Way Church, Bishop Daniel Obinim, and two others subjected him to severe beating. Mr Paul Kwame Ntim, who is the host of the ‘Nya Asem Hwe’ programme on Hot FM, said Obinim and one of the accused persons, Pastor Kofi Akwettey, stormed his studios around 9:45 p.m. on August 8, 2011, attacked him and vandalised the studio’s glass partition and property worth GH¢130,850. In his evidence-in-chief before the court Thursday, the witness said Obinim used a crowbar to hit his ribs several times and in the process he sustained severe injuries on his ribs, knees, fingers and fingernails. Another person standing trial with Obinim is Pastor Kingsley Baah. According to the prosecution, during the ‘Nya Asem Hwe’ programme, one of the topics discussed was Bishop Obinim’s sexual scandal and the playing of a tape- recording relating to the scandal, while issues relating to the bishop’s wife and the two accused persons were also discussed. On hearing the programme, the accused persons got infuriated and stormed the radio station with a crowbar and unleashed harm on Mr Ntim. According to the newscaster, Obinim attempted to hit his head with the crowbar but he managed to swerve and that resulted in Obinim causing injury to other parts of his body. The accused persons are jointly charged with unlawful entry, conspiracy to cause unlawful damage, causing unlawful damage, conspiracy to commit assault and assault. Bishop Obinim is facing one additional charge of causing harm. They have pleaded not guilty to all the charges and the court, presided over by Ms Audrey Korcuvie-Tay, has admitted them to bail in the sum of GH¢200,000, with three sureties each. Led by a Senior State Attorney, Ms Rebecca Adjalo, Mr Ntim said he was signing off from the Hot FM studios around 9:45 p.m. when he heard the shattering of one of the glass partitions to the studio. The witness told the court that he got up in a bid to escape from the onslaught but Obinim and Akwettey pushed him to a corner in the studio, after which Obinim began hitting his ribs several times with the crowbar. The witness said he was in the studio with a Rev Amoako Atta, two producers, a Mallam Alhassan and two others who had arrived at the studio with the Mallam when Obinim and the other accused persons entered the studio. He further narrated how those with him in the studio, except the Mallam, escaped when Obinim and his junior pastors stormed the studio. According to Mr Ntim, the Mallam who observed the assault unleashed on him managed to snatch the crowbar from Obinim, thereby giving him (Mr Ntim) the opportunity to escape from the studio. He said when he attempted to escape, Akwettey pursued him and held his shirt in an attempt to prevent him from escaping. Mr Ntim said he (Ntim) freed himself from his shirt, which eventually ended up in Akwettey’s hands, scaled a wall and fell on the road facing the radio station. According to him, he ran for half a kilometre and went to the Adabraka Police Station to report the incident. He said his two producers were already at the police station when he got there and while at the police station, the accused persons arrived in the company of policemen. The witness told the court that the accused persons had prevailed upon the police to detain him (witness) because they (accused persons) had been assaulted by the witness. However, the police gave him (witness) a medical form to seek medical attention because of the severity of injuries he had sustained at the hands of Obinim and Akwettey. Mr Ntim also stated that although Baah had been present at the studio, he (Baah) had not attacked him. He said he did not receive any notification from the reception that the accused persons were present and further pointed out that the accused persons were not expected at the studio because they were not part of the programme. Counsel for the accused persons, Mr Kwame Afriyie, is expected to cross-examine Mr Ntim on April 19, 2012.

Two charged for defrauding investor

April 12, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) A FEMALE model and her driver today appeared before the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly defrauding an American investor to the tune of $1, 658, 781 .00 . Sandra Sorice and Yussuf Ahmed Akpakli were alleged to have in March 2010, promised to supply the complainant, Reginald Bauvaux with 831 kilogrammes of cocaine but failed to deliver the gold as well as failed to return the money. However, counsel for Sandra, Mr. Victor K. Adawudu, countered the prosecution’s claim and explained that it was rather the complainant who owed Sandra $1 million. According to him, his client, who was separated with her husband was in an amorous relationship with the complainant but ended the relationship upon realizing that the complainant was a fraudster. They pleaded not guilty to two counts each of conspiracy and defrauding by false pretence. The court, presided over by Mrs Ivy Heward-Mills, granted each of the accused persons bail in the sum of GHC300, 000 with four sureties each. She directed the investigators to ensure that the sureties were persons of repute. The court also directed the accused persons to report to the police every other Monday. The investigator in charge of the case, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Seth Sewornu, arrested a photographer from the Daily Guide newspaper for taking pictures of Sandra outside the courtroom. Sewornu took offence when other journalists prevailed upon him to release the photographer. He drove off with the photographer in his KIA vehicle with registration number GT 80 57 – 10. He, however, released the photographer at the premises of the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) of the Ghana Police Service after court reporters had made frantic calls to the Public Affairs Director of the Ghana Police Service and other superior officers to plead for the release of the photographer. Earlier, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. Adan Dery presented the facts of the case and told the court that the complainant met Sandra in March 2010 and indicated his intention to purchase and export gold to the United States of America (USA). According to the prosecution, Sandra took $1.6 million from the complainant, whose name was not provided to the court and promised to ship the gold to the complainant but failed to do so. The complainant on realizing that Sandra was not in a position to deliver the gold began demanding for a refund of the $1.6 million. The prosecution informed the court that Sandra gave flimsy excuses each time the complainant demanded for the refund of the $1.6 million. The complainant lodged a complaint with the police after all efforts to retrieve his money proved futile. Applying for bail for Sandra, Mr. Adawudu, said the facts presented by the prosecution were inaccurate. He said Sandra lived in Germany with her husband while the complainant was a fugitive on the run. According to counsel Sandra was in a relationship with the complainant but decided to end it after she observed the complainant was dishonest. Counsel’s statement that the accused person was in a relationship with the complainant drew a curious stare and a question from the presiding judge because he had earlier stated Sandra was married. Mr Adawudu, however, clarified quickly and explained that Sandra had separated from her husband and described his client as a woman of substance who would prove her innocence at the appropriate time. Counsel prayed for bail for the accused persons and assured the court that his clients had credible sureties as well as would avail themselves to stand trial. The court enquired from ASP Sewornu whether or not the accused persons were complying with the conditions under a police enquiry bail to which he answered in the affirmative. Mr. Adawudu prayed the court to ensure that the trial was expedited in order for the truth to prevail. He further prayed the court to permit his client to hand over her kids to her husband to enable them to attend school so she can come back to Ghana and stand trial. The court granted her permission to travel and adjourned the case to April 30, 2012.

Moroccan coke woman remanded

April 11, 2012 (Page 3) The 37-year-old Moroccan woman who was picked up by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) for allegedly possessing 2.7 kilogrammes of cocaine was Tueesday remanded by the Accra Circuit Court. The case of Fatima Elouardi, who was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on April 5, 2012, was not heard because it emerged that she spoke only French. There was no French interpreter when the case was called at the circuit court's sitting on Tuesday, a development that prompted the presiding judge to adjourn the case to Wednesday to enable the registrar of the court to procure the services of a French interpreter. Fatima is facing two counts of importation and possession of narcotic drugs. Her plea was not taken. Her alleged accomplice, identified as Youssef Salloum, 41, is on the run. The security agencies have mounted a search for Salloum, a Lebanese resident at Dzorwulu in Accra. Fatima was whisked away by security personnel immediately after the hearing of her case. A Principal State Attorney, Mr Asiamah Sampong, informed the court that investigations were not complete and for that reason it should remand the accused person. However, the court, presided over by Ms Audrey Korcuvie- Tay, insisted the accused person's plea be taken. It later emerged that the accused person was not literate in English. The facts of the case are that Fatima, who travelled from Sao Paulo, Brazil, via Dubai on Emirates Airlines, was arrested with 2.7 kilogrammes of cocaine shortly on arrival at the KIA. Her arrest was as a result of collaboration between NACOB and its international partners who monitored the movement of Fatima and Salloum.