AN Accra High Court has fixed December 19, 2007, for the hearing of a motion for an order of interlocutory injunction filed by the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) against the four political parties with representation in Parliament and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) for violating the Political Parties Law relating to the foreign funding of political parties.
The court on Monday took a very serious view of the matter and stated that the defendants were being given the chance to appear in court on the next adjourned date.
The matter was adjourned after a former General Secretary of the PNC, Mr Gabriel Pwamang who was in court had prayed for an adjournment because the defendants had not filed their affidavits in opposition although they had entered appearance.
The DPP said that the Dutch-IMD- IEA funding for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), National Democratic Congress (NDC), People’s National Convention (PNC) and the Convention People’s Party (CPP) was illegal and unlawful as it violates section 24 and 25 of the Political Parties Law 2000, Act 574.
It said that there were 10 registered political parties in Ghana whose activities were governed by the political parties law section 23 of which states that only citizens of Ghana may contribute in cash or kind of funds of a political party.
The section further states that a firm, partnership or enterprise owned by a citizen or a company registered under the laws of Ghana at least 75 per cent of whose capital was owned by citizen was for the purposes of the Act a citizen.
Section 24 of the Act states that a non-citizen shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation or loan whether in cash or in kind to the funds held by or for the benefit of a political party shall be demand or accept a contribution, donation or loan from a non-citizen.
The DPP is seeking for an order of interlocutory injunction against the defendants to suspend with immediate effect further operations of the Dutch-IMD- IEA programme for the funding of the parties because the programme introduced discrimination into the multiparty system and destroyed the level playing field component of democracy.
It is also seeking an order to enable the defendants to refund all the moneys paid to them under the programme or faced sanctions which could include being restrained from taking part in further elections.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is seeking an order to enable the defendants to furnish the court with all records on the operations of the Dutch IMD-IEA funding scheme, especially records on moneys paid or spent and received by the four political parties.
According to the DPP, the moneys should be refunded to the Electoral Commission (EC) in accordance with the requirement of Section 25 (c) of the political party law.
In an affidavit to support the motion, the DPP said that since 2002, the NPP had sought to exhaust every internal channels of redress against the decision of the Dutch NGO to extend financial assistance to the four political parties in breach of the law.
According to the DPP, section 25 of the Act stipulated that when any person contravened sections 23 and 24, in addition to any penalty that might be imposed under the Act, any amount whether in cash or in kind shall be forfeited to the state and the amount shall be recovered from the political party as a debt owed the state.
It said that in spite of the firm provisions debarring foreign bodies from giving financial assistance directly or indirectly to political parties, the Dutch NGO reached an agreement with the IEA by which the four political parties were given assistance in cash and kind to the detriment of the other political parties, thereby creating an uneven playing field in the political arena in contravention of the law.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
PRESEC BURSER REMANDED
Story: Stephen Sah
THE Accra Circuit Court has remanded the Immediate Past Bursar of the Presbyterian Boys' Secondary School (PRESEC), Legon, Mr Gyeni Sampong, for allegedly stealing more than GH¢200,000 (¢2 billion) belonging to the school.
Mr Sampong, who is facing one count of stealing public property, will appear again on December 18, 2007, by which time investigations into the matter might have been completed.
His plea was not taken.
According to the facts of the case, as narrated to the court by Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Abichab Boye, the Director-General of the Ghana Education Service (GES) made a report to the Greater Accra Regional Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service and Mr Sampong was arrested.
After preliminary investigations, he was charged and arraigned.
The prosecutor said in a hand-written letter to the Audit Report Implementation Committee (ARIC) of the GES, Mr Sampong accepted the findings of an audit team which he had up till then rejected and promised to refund the money.
The letter, he said, was co-signed by Mr Joseph Jecty Asare, the Immediate Past Headmaster, as a witness, and the former bursar proposed to pay the money in instalments, starting with a ¢70 million down payment at the end of November. After that, he was to pay ¢10 million every month.
He said following allegations of impropriety against the bursar, the GES set up a committee of inquiry to probe the affairs of the school.
After preliminary investigations, the committee, which was chaired by Mr Charles Antwi Konadu, a Deputy Chief Internal Auditor of the GES, recommended, among others, that the school's accounts be audited from the 2002/2003 academic year to August 2006.
Other recommendations of the committee, which was commissioned by the then Director of Education for the Greater Accra Region, Mrs Akosua Adu, included the transfer of the bursar and the redeployment of the headmaster.
DSP Boye said the audit report on the accounts of the school was completed and inaugurated on December 27, 2006 by Mr J. M. Quao, the Chief Internal Auditor of the GES.
The report, he said, concluded that "the bursar succeeded in wilfully suppressing revenue to the tune of ¢2,030,942,525.00, resulting in cash flow problems in the school”.
It, therefore, recommended that the amount be retrieved in full from the bursar and paid to the school's bank account and appropriate disciplinary action taken against Mr Sampong.
THE Accra Circuit Court has remanded the Immediate Past Bursar of the Presbyterian Boys' Secondary School (PRESEC), Legon, Mr Gyeni Sampong, for allegedly stealing more than GH¢200,000 (¢2 billion) belonging to the school.
Mr Sampong, who is facing one count of stealing public property, will appear again on December 18, 2007, by which time investigations into the matter might have been completed.
His plea was not taken.
According to the facts of the case, as narrated to the court by Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Abichab Boye, the Director-General of the Ghana Education Service (GES) made a report to the Greater Accra Regional Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service and Mr Sampong was arrested.
After preliminary investigations, he was charged and arraigned.
The prosecutor said in a hand-written letter to the Audit Report Implementation Committee (ARIC) of the GES, Mr Sampong accepted the findings of an audit team which he had up till then rejected and promised to refund the money.
The letter, he said, was co-signed by Mr Joseph Jecty Asare, the Immediate Past Headmaster, as a witness, and the former bursar proposed to pay the money in instalments, starting with a ¢70 million down payment at the end of November. After that, he was to pay ¢10 million every month.
He said following allegations of impropriety against the bursar, the GES set up a committee of inquiry to probe the affairs of the school.
After preliminary investigations, the committee, which was chaired by Mr Charles Antwi Konadu, a Deputy Chief Internal Auditor of the GES, recommended, among others, that the school's accounts be audited from the 2002/2003 academic year to August 2006.
Other recommendations of the committee, which was commissioned by the then Director of Education for the Greater Accra Region, Mrs Akosua Adu, included the transfer of the bursar and the redeployment of the headmaster.
DSP Boye said the audit report on the accounts of the school was completed and inaugurated on December 27, 2006 by Mr J. M. Quao, the Chief Internal Auditor of the GES.
The report, he said, concluded that "the bursar succeeded in wilfully suppressing revenue to the tune of ¢2,030,942,525.00, resulting in cash flow problems in the school”.
It, therefore, recommended that the amount be retrieved in full from the bursar and paid to the school's bank account and appropriate disciplinary action taken against Mr Sampong.
A-G'S RETIRING AGE NOW BEFORE SUPREME COURT
(A - G’s retiring age now before Supreme Court)
THE controversy over the retiring age and the continued stay in office of the Auditor General, Mr Dua Agyeman, is now a matter before the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the Accra Fast Track High Court, which was hearing a writ filed by Mr Johnson Asiedu-Nketia, General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging the continued stay in office of Mr Agyeman has adjourned the matter sine die.
The court adjourned the matter after it granted an application by the Attorney-General praying for the adjournment because the matter had been referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation by a Member of Parliament (MP), Mr P. C. Ofori Appiah.
For the MP, the Auditor General is not a public officer appointed under Article 70 of the constitution so as to remain in office until he attains the compulsory retiring age comparable to justices of the Court of Appeal.
According to the court, it did not have the mandate to try the matter and thus adjourned to await the outcome of the highest court of the land.
The court said under the constitution the Supreme Court was the only court with jurisdiction to deal with all matters related to the enforcement and interpretation of the constitution.
Mr Asiedu-Nketia is seeking several declarations, including that by virtue of Article 199 of the Constitution and section 10(a) of the Audit Service Act 2000 (Act 584), Mr Agyeman is disqualified to be the Auditor General of Ghana because he is more than 60 years old.
According to him, the appointment by the President of Mr Agyeman was unconstitutional, illegal and void and that his continued stay in office was inconsistent with the constitution.
The NDC General Secretary was, therefore, seeking an order to perpetually restrain Mr Agyeman from holding himself out as the Auditor General.
While the matter is pending, the Attorney General (A - G) , who was also joined as the second defendant, filed a defence to raise issues that called for the interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court, which was charged with that responsibility.
The A-G argued that Mr Agyeman held his office by virtue of Article 70 of the Constitution, which empowered the President to make certain appointments in consultation with the Council of State.
The appointments, the A-G noted, included those of the Commissioner for the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice and his deputies, the Auditor General, the District Assembly Common Fund Administrator, the chairman and other members of the Public Services Commission.
The rest are the Lands Commission, governing bodies of public corporations, the National Council for Higher Education, however, described and the holders of such other offices as may be prescribed by the constitution or by any law not inconsistent with the constitution.
The defence argued that the article removed the Auditor General from the category of public officials covered by Article 199 of the constitution which provided that a public officer shall, except as otherwise provided in the constitution, retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
The MP for Asikuma Odoben Brakwa is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to seek interpretation to the combined effects of Articles 17, 70, 71, 144, 145, 146 and 182 of the 1992 Constitution and on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution as regards the retiring age of the Auditor General.
He is seeking declarations among which are that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution, the Auditor General is not a public officer within the contemplation of and for the purposes of Articles 191, 195 and 199 of the constitution, that section 10 (4) of Act 584 is inconsistent with and in contravention of the constitution and is thus null and void.
In addition, he said that except for the grounds stated in Article 146 of the constitution, the Auditor General may remain in office until he/she attains the compulsory retiring age which is comparable to that of justices of the Court of Appeal.
THE controversy over the retiring age and the continued stay in office of the Auditor General, Mr Dua Agyeman, is now a matter before the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the Accra Fast Track High Court, which was hearing a writ filed by Mr Johnson Asiedu-Nketia, General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging the continued stay in office of Mr Agyeman has adjourned the matter sine die.
The court adjourned the matter after it granted an application by the Attorney-General praying for the adjournment because the matter had been referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation by a Member of Parliament (MP), Mr P. C. Ofori Appiah.
For the MP, the Auditor General is not a public officer appointed under Article 70 of the constitution so as to remain in office until he attains the compulsory retiring age comparable to justices of the Court of Appeal.
According to the court, it did not have the mandate to try the matter and thus adjourned to await the outcome of the highest court of the land.
The court said under the constitution the Supreme Court was the only court with jurisdiction to deal with all matters related to the enforcement and interpretation of the constitution.
Mr Asiedu-Nketia is seeking several declarations, including that by virtue of Article 199 of the Constitution and section 10(a) of the Audit Service Act 2000 (Act 584), Mr Agyeman is disqualified to be the Auditor General of Ghana because he is more than 60 years old.
According to him, the appointment by the President of Mr Agyeman was unconstitutional, illegal and void and that his continued stay in office was inconsistent with the constitution.
The NDC General Secretary was, therefore, seeking an order to perpetually restrain Mr Agyeman from holding himself out as the Auditor General.
While the matter is pending, the Attorney General (A - G) , who was also joined as the second defendant, filed a defence to raise issues that called for the interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court, which was charged with that responsibility.
The A-G argued that Mr Agyeman held his office by virtue of Article 70 of the Constitution, which empowered the President to make certain appointments in consultation with the Council of State.
The appointments, the A-G noted, included those of the Commissioner for the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice and his deputies, the Auditor General, the District Assembly Common Fund Administrator, the chairman and other members of the Public Services Commission.
The rest are the Lands Commission, governing bodies of public corporations, the National Council for Higher Education, however, described and the holders of such other offices as may be prescribed by the constitution or by any law not inconsistent with the constitution.
The defence argued that the article removed the Auditor General from the category of public officials covered by Article 199 of the constitution which provided that a public officer shall, except as otherwise provided in the constitution, retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
The MP for Asikuma Odoben Brakwa is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to seek interpretation to the combined effects of Articles 17, 70, 71, 144, 145, 146 and 182 of the 1992 Constitution and on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution as regards the retiring age of the Auditor General.
He is seeking declarations among which are that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution, the Auditor General is not a public officer within the contemplation of and for the purposes of Articles 191, 195 and 199 of the constitution, that section 10 (4) of Act 584 is inconsistent with and in contravention of the constitution and is thus null and void.
In addition, he said that except for the grounds stated in Article 146 of the constitution, the Auditor General may remain in office until he/she attains the compulsory retiring age which is comparable to that of justices of the Court of Appeal.
ECOBANK UNCOVERTS ¢4 BILLION FRAUD
Story: Stephen Sah
OFFICIALS of ECOBANK Ghana Limited have uncovered a fraud in which three persons are alleged to have withdrawn more than ¢4 billion belonging to two customers of the bank in Accra.
The main architect of the deal, Solomon Agbeko alias Joseph Blankson, whose arrest will open the lid on how the moneys were stolen, is on the run but two of his accomplices were yesterday remanded in prison custody by an Accra circuit court on a charge of stealing.
They are Bernard Kofi Sallah, a driver, and Kwasi Adai, a farmer. Their pleas were not taken and they would appear again on December 19, 2007.
Prosecuting, Police Chief Inspector Peter Benneh told the court that while investigations into the matter were under way, it has been established that the group managed to steal ¢3,123,102,524.26 and ¢1,023,863,381.88 from the accounts of Ibis Ghana Ltd and Far East Mercantile Ltd, respectively.
The facts as narrated to the court did not bring out how the thefts were made but the prosecutor said Sallah, who was a customer to the bank, early this year accompanied Agbeko to the Ring Road Central branch of ECOBANK to serve as a guarantor to enable Agbeko to open an account.
Chief Inspector Benneh said when the two got to the bank, the bank officials detected that Sallah, who was a savings account holder, did not qualify to serve as a guarantor for someone who wanted to open an account with the bank.
However, he said, Sallah drew the attention of Simon Akakpo, a staff of the bank whom he claimed was his friend, to their plight and allegedly said Akakpo gave the go-ahead to enable him (Sallah) to serve as a guarantor for Agbeko.
The prosecutor said based on the instruction of Akakpo, the account was opened for Agbeko, who after that went to the Silver Star Tower branch of ECOBANK to open another account which was guaranteed by Sallah.
He said between February 14, 2007 and March 21, 2007, Agbeko used the two accounts to withdraw the money from the accounts of the two companiesSince Agbeko was at large, he said, the bank officials relied on the information they had on Sallah to arrest the accused persons. During interrogation, it was discovered that Agbeko paid one of the cheques with a face value of ¢168 million that belonged to Ibis Ghana Ltd into the accounts of Adai to be cashed for him.
Chief Inspector Benneh said Adai, after cashing the money for Agbeko, was said to have received ¢25 million for his role in bringing the deal to fruition.
OFFICIALS of ECOBANK Ghana Limited have uncovered a fraud in which three persons are alleged to have withdrawn more than ¢4 billion belonging to two customers of the bank in Accra.
The main architect of the deal, Solomon Agbeko alias Joseph Blankson, whose arrest will open the lid on how the moneys were stolen, is on the run but two of his accomplices were yesterday remanded in prison custody by an Accra circuit court on a charge of stealing.
They are Bernard Kofi Sallah, a driver, and Kwasi Adai, a farmer. Their pleas were not taken and they would appear again on December 19, 2007.
Prosecuting, Police Chief Inspector Peter Benneh told the court that while investigations into the matter were under way, it has been established that the group managed to steal ¢3,123,102,524.26 and ¢1,023,863,381.88 from the accounts of Ibis Ghana Ltd and Far East Mercantile Ltd, respectively.
The facts as narrated to the court did not bring out how the thefts were made but the prosecutor said Sallah, who was a customer to the bank, early this year accompanied Agbeko to the Ring Road Central branch of ECOBANK to serve as a guarantor to enable Agbeko to open an account.
Chief Inspector Benneh said when the two got to the bank, the bank officials detected that Sallah, who was a savings account holder, did not qualify to serve as a guarantor for someone who wanted to open an account with the bank.
However, he said, Sallah drew the attention of Simon Akakpo, a staff of the bank whom he claimed was his friend, to their plight and allegedly said Akakpo gave the go-ahead to enable him (Sallah) to serve as a guarantor for Agbeko.
The prosecutor said based on the instruction of Akakpo, the account was opened for Agbeko, who after that went to the Silver Star Tower branch of ECOBANK to open another account which was guaranteed by Sallah.
He said between February 14, 2007 and March 21, 2007, Agbeko used the two accounts to withdraw the money from the accounts of the two companiesSince Agbeko was at large, he said, the bank officials relied on the information they had on Sallah to arrest the accused persons. During interrogation, it was discovered that Agbeko paid one of the cheques with a face value of ¢168 million that belonged to Ibis Ghana Ltd into the accounts of Adai to be cashed for him.
Chief Inspector Benneh said Adai, after cashing the money for Agbeko, was said to have received ¢25 million for his role in bringing the deal to fruition.
Monday, December 10, 2007
TWO BRITISH GIRLS TO BE SENTENCED NEXT YEAR
Story: Stephen Sah
ANXIOUS local and foreign journalists and many people who thronged the Juvenile Court premises in Accra to hear the sentence of the two British juveniles found in possession of six kilogrammes of cocaine were disappointed because the sentence was deferred.
According to a court source, the sentence of the two girls had been deferred until January 9, 2008 to await a social services report considered crucial to assist the court in delivering the sentence.
On November 21, 2007, the court found the two guilty of conspiracy and possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
It, however, deferred their sentence to yesterday to await the report which is expected to give a profile and background on the juveniles from the British authorities.
Very early in the morning, journalists, especially photographers, positioned themselves at vantage areas in anticipation of catching a glimpse of the girls who have been kept away from the prying lenses of the cameras.
A vehicle believed to be conveying the girls later arrived and reversed to the frontage of a back door followed by photographers.
At the last sitting of the court, lawyers of the girls declared their intention to appeal against the convictions.
The trial of the girls was heard in camera because the law did not permit cases involving juveniles to be heard in open court but that did not take away its intense public attention.
In all, seven prosecution witnesses and one defence witness were said to have testified in the trial, which lasted about four months.
The girls pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority and maintained that they were lured into Ghana by two men who left them to their fate.
They were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 2, 2007.
Each had in her possession three kilogrammes of cocaine hidden in her laptop bag.
ANXIOUS local and foreign journalists and many people who thronged the Juvenile Court premises in Accra to hear the sentence of the two British juveniles found in possession of six kilogrammes of cocaine were disappointed because the sentence was deferred.
According to a court source, the sentence of the two girls had been deferred until January 9, 2008 to await a social services report considered crucial to assist the court in delivering the sentence.
On November 21, 2007, the court found the two guilty of conspiracy and possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
It, however, deferred their sentence to yesterday to await the report which is expected to give a profile and background on the juveniles from the British authorities.
Very early in the morning, journalists, especially photographers, positioned themselves at vantage areas in anticipation of catching a glimpse of the girls who have been kept away from the prying lenses of the cameras.
A vehicle believed to be conveying the girls later arrived and reversed to the frontage of a back door followed by photographers.
At the last sitting of the court, lawyers of the girls declared their intention to appeal against the convictions.
The trial of the girls was heard in camera because the law did not permit cases involving juveniles to be heard in open court but that did not take away its intense public attention.
In all, seven prosecution witnesses and one defence witness were said to have testified in the trial, which lasted about four months.
The girls pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority and maintained that they were lured into Ghana by two men who left them to their fate.
They were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 2, 2007.
Each had in her possession three kilogrammes of cocaine hidden in her laptop bag.
Story: Stephen Sah
(A - G’s retiring age now before Supreme Court)
THE controversy over the retiring age and the continued stay in office of the Auditor General, Mr Dua Agyeman, is now a matter before the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the Accra Fast Track High Court, which was hearing a writ filed by Mr Johnson Asiedu-Nketia, General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging the continued stay in office of Mr Agyeman has adjourned the matter sine die.
The court adjourned the matter after it granted an application by the Attorney-General praying for the adjournment because the matter had been referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation by a Member of Parliament (MP), Mr P. C. Ofori Appiah.
For the MP, the Auditor General is not a public officer appointed under Article 70 of the constitution so as to remain in office until he attains the compulsory retiring age comparable to justices of the Court of Appeal.
According to the court, it did not have the mandate to try the matter and thus adjourned to await the outcome of the highest court of the land.
The court said under the constitution the Supreme Court was the only court with jurisdiction to deal with all matters related to the enforcement and interpretation of the constitution.
Mr Asiedu-Nketia is seeking several declarations, including that by virtue of Article 199 of the Constitution and section 10(a) of the Audit Service Act 2000 (Act 584), Mr Agyeman is disqualified to be the Auditor General of Ghana because he is more than 60 years old.
According to him, the appointment by the President of Mr Agyeman was unconstitutional, illegal and void and that his continued stay in office was inconsistent with the constitution.
The NDC General Secretary was, therefore, seeking an order to perpetually restrain Mr Agyeman from holding himself out as the Auditor General.
While the matter is pending, the Attorney General (A - G) , who was also joined as the second defendant, filed a defence to raise issues that called for the interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court, which was charged with that responsibility.
The A-G argued that Mr Agyeman held his office by virtue of Article 70 of the Constitution, which empowered the President to make certain appointments in consultation with the Council of State.
The appointments, the A-G noted, included those of the Commissioner for the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice and his deputies, the Auditor General, the District Assembly Common Fund Administrator, the chairman and other members of the Public Services Commission.
The rest are the Lands Commission, governing bodies of public corporations, the National Council for Higher Education, however, described and the holders of such other offices as may be prescribed by the constitution or by any law not inconsistent with the constitution.
The defence argued that the article removed the Auditor General from the category of public officials covered by Article 199 of the constitution which provided that a public officer shall, except as otherwise provided in the constitution, retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
The MP for Asikuma Odoben Brakwa is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to seek interpretation to the combined effects of Articles 17, 70, 71, 144, 145, 146 and 182 of the 1992 Constitution and on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution as regards the retiring age of the Auditor General.
He is seeking declarations among which are that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution, the Auditor General is not a public officer within the contemplation of and for the purposes of Articles 191, 195 and 199 of the constitution, that section 10 (4) of Act 584 is inconsistent with and in contravention of the constitution and is thus null and void.
In addition, he said that except for the grounds stated in Article 146 of the constitution, the Auditor General may remain in office until he/she attains the compulsory retiring age which is comparable to that of justices of the Court of Appeal.
(A - G’s retiring age now before Supreme Court)
THE controversy over the retiring age and the continued stay in office of the Auditor General, Mr Dua Agyeman, is now a matter before the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the Accra Fast Track High Court, which was hearing a writ filed by Mr Johnson Asiedu-Nketia, General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging the continued stay in office of Mr Agyeman has adjourned the matter sine die.
The court adjourned the matter after it granted an application by the Attorney-General praying for the adjournment because the matter had been referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation by a Member of Parliament (MP), Mr P. C. Ofori Appiah.
For the MP, the Auditor General is not a public officer appointed under Article 70 of the constitution so as to remain in office until he attains the compulsory retiring age comparable to justices of the Court of Appeal.
According to the court, it did not have the mandate to try the matter and thus adjourned to await the outcome of the highest court of the land.
The court said under the constitution the Supreme Court was the only court with jurisdiction to deal with all matters related to the enforcement and interpretation of the constitution.
Mr Asiedu-Nketia is seeking several declarations, including that by virtue of Article 199 of the Constitution and section 10(a) of the Audit Service Act 2000 (Act 584), Mr Agyeman is disqualified to be the Auditor General of Ghana because he is more than 60 years old.
According to him, the appointment by the President of Mr Agyeman was unconstitutional, illegal and void and that his continued stay in office was inconsistent with the constitution.
The NDC General Secretary was, therefore, seeking an order to perpetually restrain Mr Agyeman from holding himself out as the Auditor General.
While the matter is pending, the Attorney General (A - G) , who was also joined as the second defendant, filed a defence to raise issues that called for the interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court, which was charged with that responsibility.
The A-G argued that Mr Agyeman held his office by virtue of Article 70 of the Constitution, which empowered the President to make certain appointments in consultation with the Council of State.
The appointments, the A-G noted, included those of the Commissioner for the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice and his deputies, the Auditor General, the District Assembly Common Fund Administrator, the chairman and other members of the Public Services Commission.
The rest are the Lands Commission, governing bodies of public corporations, the National Council for Higher Education, however, described and the holders of such other offices as may be prescribed by the constitution or by any law not inconsistent with the constitution.
The defence argued that the article removed the Auditor General from the category of public officials covered by Article 199 of the constitution which provided that a public officer shall, except as otherwise provided in the constitution, retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
The MP for Asikuma Odoben Brakwa is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to seek interpretation to the combined effects of Articles 17, 70, 71, 144, 145, 146 and 182 of the 1992 Constitution and on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution as regards the retiring age of the Auditor General.
He is seeking declarations among which are that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution, the Auditor General is not a public officer within the contemplation of and for the purposes of Articles 191, 195 and 199 of the constitution, that section 10 (4) of Act 584 is inconsistent with and in contravention of the constitution and is thus null and void.
In addition, he said that except for the grounds stated in Article 146 of the constitution, the Auditor General may remain in office until he/she attains the compulsory retiring age which is comparable to that of justices of the Court of Appeal.
COURT TO HEAR NANA KONADU CASE IN DECEMBER
05/12/07
Story: Stephen Sah
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed December 18, 2007 to give its ruling on the application for stay of proceedings in the case in which Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and two others are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
The court fixed the date after it had listened to a brief response on points of law made by Mr Tony Lither, counsel for the accused persons.
Counsel had, on November 15, 2007, prayed the court to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit pending on the same matter or in the interim dismiss the case and stated that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Nana Konadu, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL), and Caridem as an entity filed the application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of the GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Also standing trial alongside the applicants are Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses running into billions of cedis to public property in 1995 following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery, which was acquired by CDCL, which was owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
He said the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.
He said the effect of the application was to interfere with the powers of the Attorney-General in Article 88 of the Constitution.
Nana Konadu was accompanied to court by his husband, ex-President Rawlings.
Attendance by sympathisers of the former first lady was unprecedented, as the large crowd treated themselves to brass band music on the court premises.
They carried large National Democratic Congress (NDC) flags and mobbed the former President and it took his security a hectic time to control the enthusiastic crowd.
Story: Stephen Sah
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed December 18, 2007 to give its ruling on the application for stay of proceedings in the case in which Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and two others are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
The court fixed the date after it had listened to a brief response on points of law made by Mr Tony Lither, counsel for the accused persons.
Counsel had, on November 15, 2007, prayed the court to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit pending on the same matter or in the interim dismiss the case and stated that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Nana Konadu, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL), and Caridem as an entity filed the application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of the GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Also standing trial alongside the applicants are Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses running into billions of cedis to public property in 1995 following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery, which was acquired by CDCL, which was owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
He said the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.
He said the effect of the application was to interfere with the powers of the Attorney-General in Article 88 of the Constitution.
Nana Konadu was accompanied to court by his husband, ex-President Rawlings.
Attendance by sympathisers of the former first lady was unprecedented, as the large crowd treated themselves to brass band music on the court premises.
They carried large National Democratic Congress (NDC) flags and mobbed the former President and it took his security a hectic time to control the enthusiastic crowd.
COURT TO HEAR NANA KONADU CASE IN DECEMBER
05/12/07
Story: Stephen Sah
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed December 18, 2007 to give its ruling on the application for stay of proceedings in the case in which Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and two others are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
The court fixed the date after it had listened to a brief response on points of law made by Mr Tony Lither, counsel for the accused persons.
Counsel had, on November 15, 2007, prayed the court to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit pending on the same matter or in the interim dismiss the case and stated that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Nana Konadu, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL), and Caridem as an entity filed the application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of the GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Also standing trial alongside the applicants are Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses running into billions of cedis to public property in 1995 following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery, which was acquired by CDCL, which was owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
He said the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.
He said the effect of the application was to interfere with the powers of the Attorney-General in Article 88 of the Constitution.
Nana Konadu was accompanied to court by his husband, ex-President Rawlings.
Attendance by sympathisers of the former first lady was unprecedented, as the large crowd treated themselves to brass band music on the court premises.
They carried large National Democratic Congress (NDC) flags and mobbed the former President and it took his security a hectic time to control the enthusiastic crowd.
Story: Stephen Sah
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed December 18, 2007 to give its ruling on the application for stay of proceedings in the case in which Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and two others are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
The court fixed the date after it had listened to a brief response on points of law made by Mr Tony Lither, counsel for the accused persons.
Counsel had, on November 15, 2007, prayed the court to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit pending on the same matter or in the interim dismiss the case and stated that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Nana Konadu, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL), and Caridem as an entity filed the application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of the GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Also standing trial alongside the applicants are Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses running into billions of cedis to public property in 1995 following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery, which was acquired by CDCL, which was owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
He said the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.
He said the effect of the application was to interfere with the powers of the Attorney-General in Article 88 of the Constitution.
Nana Konadu was accompanied to court by his husband, ex-President Rawlings.
Attendance by sympathisers of the former first lady was unprecedented, as the large crowd treated themselves to brass band music on the court premises.
They carried large National Democratic Congress (NDC) flags and mobbed the former President and it took his security a hectic time to control the enthusiastic crowd.
Friday, August 24, 2007
COURT RESTRAINS KASAPA SALE
THE Accra Fast Track High Court last Wednesday restrained an attempt by Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd (HTIL), the majority shareholder in Kasapa Telecom Ltd, to sell the company.
The court granted a motion ex-parte application for interlocutory injunction moved by Mr Atta Akyea, counsel for Kludjeson International Ltd, the plaintiff and claimant of a 20 per cent interest in Kasapa.
It said the order was valid for 10 days and subject to renewal and also affected Certwell Ltd, the second defendant/respondent.
Despite the fact that there is court action pending in Ghana, Hutchison Ltd through their agents, HSBC Bank Plc of South Africa, have offered Kasapa for sale and closed bidding on August 10, 2007.
According to the Kasapa Information Memorandum, “bidders were expected to deliver a written indicative offer (the "Indicative Offer”) not later than 12 p.m. South African time” on the said date to Andrew Hunt at HSBC in South Africa.
“The selection of parties for Phase II of the bidding process will entirely and exclusively be within HTIL’s discretion. HTIL reserves the right to reject any Indicative Offer, without offering any reason for its discretion,” the memorandum stated.
It said the memorandum had been prepared by HSBC Bank Plc (including, where applicable, its subsidiaries and affiliates on behalf of HTIL and was being made available to a number of recipients to assist them in deciding whether to proceed with a further investigation of Kasapa.
Furthermore, it was not intended to form the basis of any investment activity or any decision to purchase HTIL’s 100 per cent shareholding in the company.
“This Memorandum is being made available only to parties who have signed and returned the confidentiality agreement between HTIL (for HSBC acting as an agent on behalf of HTIL) and the recipient (Confidentiality Agreement), and the recipient is, therefore, bound by that confidentiality agreement in respect of all information,” it said.
It noted that HTIL was contemplating selling its 100 per cent shareholding in Kuwata Ltd, a company with an indirect 100 per cent interest in Kasapa, and that both Kuwata and Certwell Ltd were holding companies with no operational activity.
Kasapa, it noted, was HTIL’s only operation in sub-Saharan Africa.
Regarding litigation and other issues, the memorandum said, Kludjeson International, a former 20 per cent shareholder of Kasapa, initiated proceedings in the Ghanaian courts in October 2001 against Kasapa and several individuals, including members of the management.
It said Kludjeson International alleged that the Managing Director of Kasapa had not been properly appointed and, therefore, a number of actions taken by the management of Kasapa were improper.
“Kasapa successfully defended the action and in April 2005, a judgement was entered in favour of Kasapa and the other defendants.
“However, in a separate action brought by Kludjeson International before a different judge, the court on April 25, 2007, ruled, among others things, that the present Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer had not been properly appointed to their current positions and to the Board of Directors ( as directors or alternates), and that the change of the company’s name from Celltel Ltd to Kasapa was void,” it said.
It said the company had appealed against the April 25, 2007 decision on various grounds, including the fact that the court dealt with matters which had already been adjudicated in favour of Kasapa in the April 2005 judgement.
“A stay of execution had been granted pending resolution of the appeal. Management has sought legal advice and believes that this matter will be resolved in favour of Kasapa,” the memorandum said.
However, in his affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte, Mr Kwame Kludjeson, director and shareholder of Kludjeson International, stated that the company was incorporated under the laws of Ghana, carrying telecommunications business and a shareholder of Celltel, which name was purportedly changed to Kasapa but the original name was restored by a High Court judgement of April 12, 2007.
He said by a share purchase agreement and a shareholders’ agreement both executed on March 30, 1998 between Kludjeson International and HTIL, it was agreed that HTIL purchase 80 per cent shares in the company, leaving Kludjeson International with 20 per cent.
Mr Kludjeson said to induce Kludjeson International to finalise the agreements that would transfer to HTIL its equity of the company, HTIL by a shareholders’ resolution dated June 10, 1998, disclosed that it was nominating Certwell Ltd, which it falsely represented as its subsidiary, to hold the shares in the company on its behalf.
The plaintiff said based on that reliance, it agreed to transfer 80 per cent of the shares in the company to HTIL and the company was led by HTIL to believe that it was at all material times dealing with HTIL through Certwell.
Kludjeson International stated that it subsequently discovered that at all material times Certwell was not a wholly owned subsidiary of HTIL, contrary to the representation it made; rather Certwell was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kuwata Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Island and a total stranger to the arrangements between them.
The share offer, it said, was being done clandestinely under confidential cover and unless the court swiftly restrained the defendants from disposing of the shares, Kludjeson International would suffer irreparable damage.
The court granted a motion ex-parte application for interlocutory injunction moved by Mr Atta Akyea, counsel for Kludjeson International Ltd, the plaintiff and claimant of a 20 per cent interest in Kasapa.
It said the order was valid for 10 days and subject to renewal and also affected Certwell Ltd, the second defendant/respondent.
Despite the fact that there is court action pending in Ghana, Hutchison Ltd through their agents, HSBC Bank Plc of South Africa, have offered Kasapa for sale and closed bidding on August 10, 2007.
According to the Kasapa Information Memorandum, “bidders were expected to deliver a written indicative offer (the "Indicative Offer”) not later than 12 p.m. South African time” on the said date to Andrew Hunt at HSBC in South Africa.
“The selection of parties for Phase II of the bidding process will entirely and exclusively be within HTIL’s discretion. HTIL reserves the right to reject any Indicative Offer, without offering any reason for its discretion,” the memorandum stated.
It said the memorandum had been prepared by HSBC Bank Plc (including, where applicable, its subsidiaries and affiliates on behalf of HTIL and was being made available to a number of recipients to assist them in deciding whether to proceed with a further investigation of Kasapa.
Furthermore, it was not intended to form the basis of any investment activity or any decision to purchase HTIL’s 100 per cent shareholding in the company.
“This Memorandum is being made available only to parties who have signed and returned the confidentiality agreement between HTIL (for HSBC acting as an agent on behalf of HTIL) and the recipient (Confidentiality Agreement), and the recipient is, therefore, bound by that confidentiality agreement in respect of all information,” it said.
It noted that HTIL was contemplating selling its 100 per cent shareholding in Kuwata Ltd, a company with an indirect 100 per cent interest in Kasapa, and that both Kuwata and Certwell Ltd were holding companies with no operational activity.
Kasapa, it noted, was HTIL’s only operation in sub-Saharan Africa.
Regarding litigation and other issues, the memorandum said, Kludjeson International, a former 20 per cent shareholder of Kasapa, initiated proceedings in the Ghanaian courts in October 2001 against Kasapa and several individuals, including members of the management.
It said Kludjeson International alleged that the Managing Director of Kasapa had not been properly appointed and, therefore, a number of actions taken by the management of Kasapa were improper.
“Kasapa successfully defended the action and in April 2005, a judgement was entered in favour of Kasapa and the other defendants.
“However, in a separate action brought by Kludjeson International before a different judge, the court on April 25, 2007, ruled, among others things, that the present Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer had not been properly appointed to their current positions and to the Board of Directors ( as directors or alternates), and that the change of the company’s name from Celltel Ltd to Kasapa was void,” it said.
It said the company had appealed against the April 25, 2007 decision on various grounds, including the fact that the court dealt with matters which had already been adjudicated in favour of Kasapa in the April 2005 judgement.
“A stay of execution had been granted pending resolution of the appeal. Management has sought legal advice and believes that this matter will be resolved in favour of Kasapa,” the memorandum said.
However, in his affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte, Mr Kwame Kludjeson, director and shareholder of Kludjeson International, stated that the company was incorporated under the laws of Ghana, carrying telecommunications business and a shareholder of Celltel, which name was purportedly changed to Kasapa but the original name was restored by a High Court judgement of April 12, 2007.
He said by a share purchase agreement and a shareholders’ agreement both executed on March 30, 1998 between Kludjeson International and HTIL, it was agreed that HTIL purchase 80 per cent shares in the company, leaving Kludjeson International with 20 per cent.
Mr Kludjeson said to induce Kludjeson International to finalise the agreements that would transfer to HTIL its equity of the company, HTIL by a shareholders’ resolution dated June 10, 1998, disclosed that it was nominating Certwell Ltd, which it falsely represented as its subsidiary, to hold the shares in the company on its behalf.
The plaintiff said based on that reliance, it agreed to transfer 80 per cent of the shares in the company to HTIL and the company was led by HTIL to believe that it was at all material times dealing with HTIL through Certwell.
Kludjeson International stated that it subsequently discovered that at all material times Certwell was not a wholly owned subsidiary of HTIL, contrary to the representation it made; rather Certwell was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kuwata Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Island and a total stranger to the arrangements between them.
The share offer, it said, was being done clandestinely under confidential cover and unless the court swiftly restrained the defendants from disposing of the shares, Kludjeson International would suffer irreparable damage.
NDEGO AGAIN
THE searchlight at two of the ongoing narcotic trials in the country yesterday focussed on a key potential witness, Ben Ndego, the interdicted official of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB), on whom a subpoena was served last week.
Ndego had earlier been mentioned in the trial involving Alhaji Issa Abass and Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, as the one who authorised the recording of a conversation that took place at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the former Director General of Police Operations.
Then yesterday, in a different trial also involving the attempted exportation of Indian hemp, Ndego was again mentioned as the official who instructed a team of policemen not to effect the arrest of a narcotic suspect, when the arresting team went to the suspect’s house at Dansoman.
That intervention by Ndego, according to the police investigator, allowed the main suspect to abscond and in his place, a freelance journalist, Yaw Osafo Djan, was arrested and sacrificed for the offence by way of getting remanded by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on February 28, 2006.
He was, however, granted bail yesterday after the court heard his story and a corroboration by the investigator that on the instructions of Mr Ndego, the police allowed the main suspect to abscond.
In the Abass and Tagor trial, Ndego’s lawyer yesterday informed the court that the NACOB man was willing to testify in the case on condition that the defence would pay for his travelling expenses.
That was contained in a letter written on behalf of Mr Ndego by his solicitors, Dery and Co., to the effect that Mr Ndego was currently studying in the United Kingdom and was willing to testify in the case provided his travelling expenses would be taken care of.
In a letter dated August 23, 2007, Mr Ndego said his attention had been drawn to a Daily Graphic publication that he was to appear and testify in the case in which Abass and Tagor were alleged to have dealt in narcotic drugs.
The letter, which was read to the court by the Registrar of the Fast Track High Court on the instructions of the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice J. Dotse, was copied to the defence lawyers.
Abass had, in his evidence-in-chief, admitted that a meeting, which took place at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, was recorded by him based on instructions from Mr Ndego.
Following futile attempts to serve a personal subpoena on Mr Ndego to testify in the trial, the court ordered the subpoena to be posted on his house at Kasoa, on the notice boards of the court and as a publication in the Daily Graphic.
Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have both pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the Fast Track High Court.
Reacting to the contents of the letter, counsel for Abass, Mr Mohammed Atta, prayed the court to order NACOB to recall Mr Ndego for purposes of the trial but the trial judge disagreed on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to grant counsel's request.
Mr Justice Dotse further stated that Mr Ndego was not a party in the case and for that reason the court could not give such an order.
Mr Atta then prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable the defence to confer with Mr Ndego's solicitors.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to August 29, 2007 and expressed the hope that the defence team would come back ready to facilitate the trial.
Earlier, a defence witness, Kingsley Manteaw, alias Gonu, informed the court that the investigator in the case, Mr Charles Adaba and other police officers whom he only named as Sulley, Nana and the ‘pot-bellied man’ (later identified only as Mohammed) allegedly allowed the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, to abscond.
Gonu, who claimed he was arrested three days after Abass had informed the court that he (Gonu) and another witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allegedly allowed Sheriff to abscond, said he was currently being held for murder, although, he was not identified by witnesses in an identification parade organised by the police.
The witness said he agreed to assist the police to apprehend Sheriff and Killer, a Korean national who is also a cocaine suspect, because the police had assured him (Gonu) that they would free Abass if he was able to assist them.
According to the witness, who testified in Twi through an interpreter, the police also promised to give him and Nana Yaw ¢40 million if they were able to assist them (police) to apprehend any of the suspects.
He said he and Nana Yaw provided the police with vital information, resulting in the arrest of workers on the boat which was used to cart the cocaine, as well as Killer's wife and brother.
Gonu further stated that he and Nana Yaw took the police officers to Ada, where Sheriff was said to have attended a funeral but on reaching there, the police allowed the suspect to abscond.
He informed the court that he visited Abass and informed him of what had happened at Ada, adding that he later went to the police to claim the ¢40 million he had been promised but the police kept giving him excuses.
Gonu alleged that the police eventually took back the mobile phone they had given him (Gonu) to provide them (police) with vital information, adding that he and Nana Yaw were not given the ¢40 million.
The witness, who expressed his disappointment with the action of the police, said he heard through the media that he and Nana Yaw were expected to testify in the case involving Abass and Tagor.
Narrating how he was arrested for allegedly murdering Nii Kwatei Quartey, Gonu said he was with his mother when two colleagues of his called him and informed him that they could help him to retrieve his Golf car which had been impounded by the police on expiration of a Togolese number plate.
He said he took along ¢1 million which had been demanded by the two, who claimed they had links with the police, and went towards the Tema Motorway Roundabout where they said they would meet him (Gonu).
On reaching the Tema Motorway Roundabout, the witness said, the two handed over the car keys to him and he gave them the ¢1 million. He said when he was about to turn on the ignition, eight police officers from the Ashaiman Police Station effected his arrest.
He said the police began to assault him upon his arrest, handcuffed him and took him to the Ashaiman Police Station cells.
The witnes said he was threatened by Mr Adaba not to inform the court that he (Mr Adaba) was among police officers who went to Ada to arrest Sheriff.
During cross-examination by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, witness told the court that the trip he undertook with the police to Ada was not a wild goose chase because they spotted Sheriff.
He insisted that Mr Adaba was at Ada when the prosecution suggested to him that Mr Adaba was not among the police officers who were detailed to go to Ada and effect the arrest of Sheriff.
He also refuted claims by the prosecution that he was arrested on July 22, 2007 and not July 27, 2007 as he stated, adding that his mother could attest to the fact that he was arrested on July 27, 2007.
The witness, who said amid laughter from the audience in the courtroom that he knew Abass was standing trial because of Sheriff, stated that he did not know anything about the conversation which took place in Mr Boakye's house.
Gonu informed the court during cross-examination by counsel for Tagor, Mr Ellis Owusu Fordjour, that he was put on parade among other suspects for the public to identify but was not pointed at by anybody.
He said the identification parade was organised on July 31, 2007 and he was arraigned on August 6, 2007.
Ndego had earlier been mentioned in the trial involving Alhaji Issa Abass and Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, as the one who authorised the recording of a conversation that took place at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the former Director General of Police Operations.
Then yesterday, in a different trial also involving the attempted exportation of Indian hemp, Ndego was again mentioned as the official who instructed a team of policemen not to effect the arrest of a narcotic suspect, when the arresting team went to the suspect’s house at Dansoman.
That intervention by Ndego, according to the police investigator, allowed the main suspect to abscond and in his place, a freelance journalist, Yaw Osafo Djan, was arrested and sacrificed for the offence by way of getting remanded by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on February 28, 2006.
He was, however, granted bail yesterday after the court heard his story and a corroboration by the investigator that on the instructions of Mr Ndego, the police allowed the main suspect to abscond.
In the Abass and Tagor trial, Ndego’s lawyer yesterday informed the court that the NACOB man was willing to testify in the case on condition that the defence would pay for his travelling expenses.
That was contained in a letter written on behalf of Mr Ndego by his solicitors, Dery and Co., to the effect that Mr Ndego was currently studying in the United Kingdom and was willing to testify in the case provided his travelling expenses would be taken care of.
In a letter dated August 23, 2007, Mr Ndego said his attention had been drawn to a Daily Graphic publication that he was to appear and testify in the case in which Abass and Tagor were alleged to have dealt in narcotic drugs.
The letter, which was read to the court by the Registrar of the Fast Track High Court on the instructions of the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice J. Dotse, was copied to the defence lawyers.
Abass had, in his evidence-in-chief, admitted that a meeting, which took place at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, was recorded by him based on instructions from Mr Ndego.
Following futile attempts to serve a personal subpoena on Mr Ndego to testify in the trial, the court ordered the subpoena to be posted on his house at Kasoa, on the notice boards of the court and as a publication in the Daily Graphic.
Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have both pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the Fast Track High Court.
Reacting to the contents of the letter, counsel for Abass, Mr Mohammed Atta, prayed the court to order NACOB to recall Mr Ndego for purposes of the trial but the trial judge disagreed on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to grant counsel's request.
Mr Justice Dotse further stated that Mr Ndego was not a party in the case and for that reason the court could not give such an order.
Mr Atta then prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable the defence to confer with Mr Ndego's solicitors.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to August 29, 2007 and expressed the hope that the defence team would come back ready to facilitate the trial.
Earlier, a defence witness, Kingsley Manteaw, alias Gonu, informed the court that the investigator in the case, Mr Charles Adaba and other police officers whom he only named as Sulley, Nana and the ‘pot-bellied man’ (later identified only as Mohammed) allegedly allowed the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, to abscond.
Gonu, who claimed he was arrested three days after Abass had informed the court that he (Gonu) and another witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allegedly allowed Sheriff to abscond, said he was currently being held for murder, although, he was not identified by witnesses in an identification parade organised by the police.
The witness said he agreed to assist the police to apprehend Sheriff and Killer, a Korean national who is also a cocaine suspect, because the police had assured him (Gonu) that they would free Abass if he was able to assist them.
According to the witness, who testified in Twi through an interpreter, the police also promised to give him and Nana Yaw ¢40 million if they were able to assist them (police) to apprehend any of the suspects.
He said he and Nana Yaw provided the police with vital information, resulting in the arrest of workers on the boat which was used to cart the cocaine, as well as Killer's wife and brother.
Gonu further stated that he and Nana Yaw took the police officers to Ada, where Sheriff was said to have attended a funeral but on reaching there, the police allowed the suspect to abscond.
He informed the court that he visited Abass and informed him of what had happened at Ada, adding that he later went to the police to claim the ¢40 million he had been promised but the police kept giving him excuses.
Gonu alleged that the police eventually took back the mobile phone they had given him (Gonu) to provide them (police) with vital information, adding that he and Nana Yaw were not given the ¢40 million.
The witness, who expressed his disappointment with the action of the police, said he heard through the media that he and Nana Yaw were expected to testify in the case involving Abass and Tagor.
Narrating how he was arrested for allegedly murdering Nii Kwatei Quartey, Gonu said he was with his mother when two colleagues of his called him and informed him that they could help him to retrieve his Golf car which had been impounded by the police on expiration of a Togolese number plate.
He said he took along ¢1 million which had been demanded by the two, who claimed they had links with the police, and went towards the Tema Motorway Roundabout where they said they would meet him (Gonu).
On reaching the Tema Motorway Roundabout, the witness said, the two handed over the car keys to him and he gave them the ¢1 million. He said when he was about to turn on the ignition, eight police officers from the Ashaiman Police Station effected his arrest.
He said the police began to assault him upon his arrest, handcuffed him and took him to the Ashaiman Police Station cells.
The witnes said he was threatened by Mr Adaba not to inform the court that he (Mr Adaba) was among police officers who went to Ada to arrest Sheriff.
During cross-examination by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, witness told the court that the trip he undertook with the police to Ada was not a wild goose chase because they spotted Sheriff.
He insisted that Mr Adaba was at Ada when the prosecution suggested to him that Mr Adaba was not among the police officers who were detailed to go to Ada and effect the arrest of Sheriff.
He also refuted claims by the prosecution that he was arrested on July 22, 2007 and not July 27, 2007 as he stated, adding that his mother could attest to the fact that he was arrested on July 27, 2007.
The witness, who said amid laughter from the audience in the courtroom that he knew Abass was standing trial because of Sheriff, stated that he did not know anything about the conversation which took place in Mr Boakye's house.
Gonu informed the court during cross-examination by counsel for Tagor, Mr Ellis Owusu Fordjour, that he was put on parade among other suspects for the public to identify but was not pointed at by anybody.
He said the identification parade was organised on July 31, 2007 and he was arraigned on August 6, 2007.
THE Accra Fast Track High will next Monday determine the fate of Mr Napoleon Kpoh as he fights his purported removal from office as General Secretary of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU).
The court fixed the date for its ruling on the matter after both counsel for the embattled ICU General Secretary and the National Executive Council (NEC) of the union had argued in respect of a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed by Mr Kpoh.
While the ICU boss is seeking the court’s order to restrain the NEC and for that matter five national executive members from removing him from office and interfere with the performance of his functions as General Secretary, the defendants had similarly filed the same action to restrain him from purporting to act as such.
Mr Kpoh together with the National Chairman of the ICU instituted the action against the defendants, namely, the two Deputy General Secretaries (Operations and Administration), National Vice-Chairman, and First and Second National Trustees, all of the ICU.
Bus loads of placard-bearing protesters of the ICU stormed the court premises amidst chanting to the effect that Mr Kpoh should give way to others to manage the affairs of the union.
But for the police presence, nobody knew what would have happened after the court sitting, as the protesters tried to prevent Mr Kpoh’s car from leaving the premises.
He was hooted at as his car was escorted by a police vehicle amidst chants of “Kpoh must go, Kpoh must go”.
Some of the inscriptions on the placards read “If reason fails force will prevail”, “Napo stop signing the cheques”, “NEC Ayekoo”, and “Napo leave the little-minded members alone”.
The NEC, the second highest decision-making body after the delegates conference of the ICU, declared after last Thursday’s acrimonious meeting that it was dissatisfied with the leadership’s preparation towards congress and had, therefore, constituted an Interim Management Committee (IMC) without the General Secretary.
However, Mr Kpoh maintained that all governing body meetings of the ICU were, by the union’s constitution, to be presided over by the National Chairman, Mr A. Y. B. Salifu, but the National Chairman was excluded from that meeting; therefore, his purported removal was null and void.
At the court’s sitting, counsel for the defendants, Mr Albert Adaare, said that his instructions were that the positions of the first to fifth defendants had been vacant since August 10, 2007, and for that reason, he was representing the NEC.
But counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr C.K. Koka, replied that the defendants were in office and if they intended to struck their names then that was not the proper procedure.
In the heat of the arguments, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Ofori Atta, stated that it would entertain everything except the papers filed in the morning.
Mr Koka argued that the tenure of the ICU General Secretary had not ended and that the normal practice was that it ended at the ICU delegates’ conference where the General Secretary presented a report about his stewardship.
“It is at the delegates’ conference that the General Secretary is required to give a report and the Chief Labour Officer dissolves the old executive,” counsel said, and added that the ICU Constitution provided that the NEC had no power to change the decision of the conference.
According to him, by the constitution, it was the National Chairman who was to preside over all governing body meetings of the ICU but the National Chairman was excluded from the meeting at which the purported decision to sack Mr Kpoh was taken.
“A decision of the union passed without the National Chairman and the General Secretary is a nullity because the chairman must preside over such issues,” counsel stated, adding that if the basis for removing the General Secretary was a nullity then the action was illegal.
He said those purporting to have sacked the General Secretary did not have the capacity to even hold the meeting to change the decision of a delegates’ conference and as had been the practice, a caretaker administration should have been constituted until the next delegates’ conference.
Mr Koka said those purporting to have removed Mr Kpoh were doing that in order to remain in office through the “back door because some of those being sent out are part of the NEC”.
Responding, Mr Adaare said the remedy being sought in the court was equitable and that the tenure of office of the General Secretary was clearly stated in the ICU constitution.
“Their tenure has expired and it is the ruling of the court which can extend that mandate,” counsel said, and maintained that nobody had been sacked from office except that their tenure had expired.
He said by their action the plaintiffs were seeking to perpetuate their interest and tenure of office to the suffering of the common union members and, therefore, the action should be refused.
The court fixed the date for its ruling on the matter after both counsel for the embattled ICU General Secretary and the National Executive Council (NEC) of the union had argued in respect of a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed by Mr Kpoh.
While the ICU boss is seeking the court’s order to restrain the NEC and for that matter five national executive members from removing him from office and interfere with the performance of his functions as General Secretary, the defendants had similarly filed the same action to restrain him from purporting to act as such.
Mr Kpoh together with the National Chairman of the ICU instituted the action against the defendants, namely, the two Deputy General Secretaries (Operations and Administration), National Vice-Chairman, and First and Second National Trustees, all of the ICU.
Bus loads of placard-bearing protesters of the ICU stormed the court premises amidst chanting to the effect that Mr Kpoh should give way to others to manage the affairs of the union.
But for the police presence, nobody knew what would have happened after the court sitting, as the protesters tried to prevent Mr Kpoh’s car from leaving the premises.
He was hooted at as his car was escorted by a police vehicle amidst chants of “Kpoh must go, Kpoh must go”.
Some of the inscriptions on the placards read “If reason fails force will prevail”, “Napo stop signing the cheques”, “NEC Ayekoo”, and “Napo leave the little-minded members alone”.
The NEC, the second highest decision-making body after the delegates conference of the ICU, declared after last Thursday’s acrimonious meeting that it was dissatisfied with the leadership’s preparation towards congress and had, therefore, constituted an Interim Management Committee (IMC) without the General Secretary.
However, Mr Kpoh maintained that all governing body meetings of the ICU were, by the union’s constitution, to be presided over by the National Chairman, Mr A. Y. B. Salifu, but the National Chairman was excluded from that meeting; therefore, his purported removal was null and void.
At the court’s sitting, counsel for the defendants, Mr Albert Adaare, said that his instructions were that the positions of the first to fifth defendants had been vacant since August 10, 2007, and for that reason, he was representing the NEC.
But counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr C.K. Koka, replied that the defendants were in office and if they intended to struck their names then that was not the proper procedure.
In the heat of the arguments, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Ofori Atta, stated that it would entertain everything except the papers filed in the morning.
Mr Koka argued that the tenure of the ICU General Secretary had not ended and that the normal practice was that it ended at the ICU delegates’ conference where the General Secretary presented a report about his stewardship.
“It is at the delegates’ conference that the General Secretary is required to give a report and the Chief Labour Officer dissolves the old executive,” counsel said, and added that the ICU Constitution provided that the NEC had no power to change the decision of the conference.
According to him, by the constitution, it was the National Chairman who was to preside over all governing body meetings of the ICU but the National Chairman was excluded from the meeting at which the purported decision to sack Mr Kpoh was taken.
“A decision of the union passed without the National Chairman and the General Secretary is a nullity because the chairman must preside over such issues,” counsel stated, adding that if the basis for removing the General Secretary was a nullity then the action was illegal.
He said those purporting to have sacked the General Secretary did not have the capacity to even hold the meeting to change the decision of a delegates’ conference and as had been the practice, a caretaker administration should have been constituted until the next delegates’ conference.
Mr Koka said those purporting to have removed Mr Kpoh were doing that in order to remain in office through the “back door because some of those being sent out are part of the NEC”.
Responding, Mr Adaare said the remedy being sought in the court was equitable and that the tenure of office of the General Secretary was clearly stated in the ICU constitution.
“Their tenure has expired and it is the ruling of the court which can extend that mandate,” counsel said, and maintained that nobody had been sacked from office except that their tenure had expired.
He said by their action the plaintiffs were seeking to perpetuate their interest and tenure of office to the suffering of the common union members and, therefore, the action should be refused.
EX-NACOB OFFICIAL TO TESTIFY IN COCAINE TRIAL
ATTENTION at the cocaine trial involving Alhaji Issa Abass and Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, has shifted to the whereabouts of a key defence witness, Mr Ben Ndego, who is also an official of the Narcotic Control Board (NACOB), and a potential witness called Konu.
Following futile attempts to serve a personal subpoena on Mr Ndego, the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the trial ordered the subpoena to be posted on the witness’s house at Kasoa, on the notice boards of the court and in the Daily Graphic.
But in the case of Konu, whom Alhaji Abass mentioned as a witness who had been picked by the police, the Tema Regional Crime Officer of the Ghana Police Service was in court to explain that the man they were holding is Gonu, aka Kingsley Manteaw, who was being held in connection with the murder of Nii Kwatei Quartey.
According to the court, the posting of Ndego’s subpoena shall remain in force for seven days and after that if Mr Ndego had not made himself available to the court, appropriate measures would be taken as would be requested by the defence counsel.
Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal Judge, sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, gave the directive after the court’s registrar had informed the court about the fruitless effort to get Mr Ndego to be served with the subpoena.
The court registrar told the court that on August 13, 2007, when servers went to the house, they did not meet Mr Ndego; rather they met a man in the house and posted the service on the house and took some photographs.
Mr Ndego is being invited at the instance of Alhaji Abass, who told the court during his evidence-in-chief that the NACOB official instructed him to record the conversation that took place in the house of ACP Kofi Boakye, which has become the subject of the trial.
Alhaji Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have both pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Later, a driver called Nana Yaw (not real name) appeared before the court to testify as a defence witness for Alhaji Abass.
Led in evidence by Mr Mohammed Atta, counsel for Alhaji Abass, the witness said he knew the accused person but did not know Tagor.
The witness said that he was at home sometime last year when Alhaji Abass called him to his office, where he met some CID personnel, who discussed with him how he could assist them to arrest Killer and Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man.
He named the CID personnel to include Inspector Charles Adabah, whom he identified in the court, Inspector Justice Nana Oppong, Alhaji and Sulley.
The witness narrated how he and Konu led the police to the house of Killer and how the police allegedly allowed Sheriff to abscond when he was trailed to a funeral at Big Ada.
Nana Yaw claimed that the police even gave them three mobile phones to facilitate communication between them and also offered to give them ¢40 million as reward but they were given only ¢2 million.
He said when the police went to the house of Killer, they did not meet him but they managed to get some photographs of him.
According to him, he later heard that Sheriff was attending a funeral at Big Ada and, therefore, informed the police about it and he, together with Konu, led them to the place.
He said before they arrived at the funeral grounds, the police team placed themselves at vantage points while he went to look for Sheriff.
“I saw Sheriff’s wife first and a macho man. Not quite, I saw Sheriff in a black suit spotting a hair cut and immediately he saw me, he headed for his car”, the witness said through an Akan interpreter.
He said that he left to inform the police that Sheriff was about to move away in a Toyota Land Cruiser with tinted glasses.
Nana Yaw said they all left the place in order to arrest Sheriff and while going Konu’s VW Golf developed an electrical fault so he stopped his motorbike to assist him.
He said when they opened the bonnet of the car, Sheriff came to pass at top speed and the police remarked that if they knew that they would have informed a nearby police barrier about the car’s registration number.
The witness said all the same the police gave Sheriff a chase and when he and Konu got to the motorway end of the road they saw the police car and they were informed by the policemen that they did not see Sheriff in his car but rather his wife and brother.
“I insisted that Sheriff was in the Land Cruiser”, he stated and added that the police gave him ¢100,000 to buy fuel.
According to him, he did not want to involve himself in the matter but for the ¢40 million reward promised him because every now and then he received telephone calls in which the callers threatened his life.
During cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, the witness said he did not know anything about the conversation that took place in ACP Boakye’s house.
He disagreed that Inspector Adabah could not have been part of the team that embarked on the operation to Big Ada because he was stationed at the Police Headquarters while those who went on the operation were from the Accra Regional Police.
“I am able to identify him (Inspector Adabah) because of the way he dresses,” the witness said.
According to the sequence of events as recorded in the diary of action, the police went to Big Ada but on reaching there, they realised that the funeral was being held at Kasei, where they proceeded to only to be informed that Sheriff left about 10 or 15 minutes earlier.
On Abass’s other witness, Chief Superintendent Joshua Tetteh Dogbeda, denied that the police had in their custody a man called Konu as was being claimed by the suspect.
He said it was rather Gonu, who was arrested in Accra with other suspects and brought to Tema in connection of the murder of Nii Quartey.
That was after counsel for Alhaji Issa Abass had informed the court that his client’s witnesses were scared of testifying because one of them had been arrested.
Following that explanation, the court said that it did not know whether Alhaji Abbas did not pronounce Gonu well or not and if he appeared to be the same identity, then he was in lawful custody.
Alhaji Abass, in his evidence-in-chief on July 24, 2007 , told the court that Konu was a potential witness in the case but he was arrested after he had informed the court in his (Abass’s) evidence that Konu and another potential witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allowed Sheriff Asem Dakeh, the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine, to abscond.
Following futile attempts to serve a personal subpoena on Mr Ndego, the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the trial ordered the subpoena to be posted on the witness’s house at Kasoa, on the notice boards of the court and in the Daily Graphic.
But in the case of Konu, whom Alhaji Abass mentioned as a witness who had been picked by the police, the Tema Regional Crime Officer of the Ghana Police Service was in court to explain that the man they were holding is Gonu, aka Kingsley Manteaw, who was being held in connection with the murder of Nii Kwatei Quartey.
According to the court, the posting of Ndego’s subpoena shall remain in force for seven days and after that if Mr Ndego had not made himself available to the court, appropriate measures would be taken as would be requested by the defence counsel.
Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal Judge, sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, gave the directive after the court’s registrar had informed the court about the fruitless effort to get Mr Ndego to be served with the subpoena.
The court registrar told the court that on August 13, 2007, when servers went to the house, they did not meet Mr Ndego; rather they met a man in the house and posted the service on the house and took some photographs.
Mr Ndego is being invited at the instance of Alhaji Abass, who told the court during his evidence-in-chief that the NACOB official instructed him to record the conversation that took place in the house of ACP Kofi Boakye, which has become the subject of the trial.
Alhaji Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have both pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Later, a driver called Nana Yaw (not real name) appeared before the court to testify as a defence witness for Alhaji Abass.
Led in evidence by Mr Mohammed Atta, counsel for Alhaji Abass, the witness said he knew the accused person but did not know Tagor.
The witness said that he was at home sometime last year when Alhaji Abass called him to his office, where he met some CID personnel, who discussed with him how he could assist them to arrest Killer and Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man.
He named the CID personnel to include Inspector Charles Adabah, whom he identified in the court, Inspector Justice Nana Oppong, Alhaji and Sulley.
The witness narrated how he and Konu led the police to the house of Killer and how the police allegedly allowed Sheriff to abscond when he was trailed to a funeral at Big Ada.
Nana Yaw claimed that the police even gave them three mobile phones to facilitate communication between them and also offered to give them ¢40 million as reward but they were given only ¢2 million.
He said when the police went to the house of Killer, they did not meet him but they managed to get some photographs of him.
According to him, he later heard that Sheriff was attending a funeral at Big Ada and, therefore, informed the police about it and he, together with Konu, led them to the place.
He said before they arrived at the funeral grounds, the police team placed themselves at vantage points while he went to look for Sheriff.
“I saw Sheriff’s wife first and a macho man. Not quite, I saw Sheriff in a black suit spotting a hair cut and immediately he saw me, he headed for his car”, the witness said through an Akan interpreter.
He said that he left to inform the police that Sheriff was about to move away in a Toyota Land Cruiser with tinted glasses.
Nana Yaw said they all left the place in order to arrest Sheriff and while going Konu’s VW Golf developed an electrical fault so he stopped his motorbike to assist him.
He said when they opened the bonnet of the car, Sheriff came to pass at top speed and the police remarked that if they knew that they would have informed a nearby police barrier about the car’s registration number.
The witness said all the same the police gave Sheriff a chase and when he and Konu got to the motorway end of the road they saw the police car and they were informed by the policemen that they did not see Sheriff in his car but rather his wife and brother.
“I insisted that Sheriff was in the Land Cruiser”, he stated and added that the police gave him ¢100,000 to buy fuel.
According to him, he did not want to involve himself in the matter but for the ¢40 million reward promised him because every now and then he received telephone calls in which the callers threatened his life.
During cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, the witness said he did not know anything about the conversation that took place in ACP Boakye’s house.
He disagreed that Inspector Adabah could not have been part of the team that embarked on the operation to Big Ada because he was stationed at the Police Headquarters while those who went on the operation were from the Accra Regional Police.
“I am able to identify him (Inspector Adabah) because of the way he dresses,” the witness said.
According to the sequence of events as recorded in the diary of action, the police went to Big Ada but on reaching there, they realised that the funeral was being held at Kasei, where they proceeded to only to be informed that Sheriff left about 10 or 15 minutes earlier.
On Abass’s other witness, Chief Superintendent Joshua Tetteh Dogbeda, denied that the police had in their custody a man called Konu as was being claimed by the suspect.
He said it was rather Gonu, who was arrested in Accra with other suspects and brought to Tema in connection of the murder of Nii Quartey.
That was after counsel for Alhaji Issa Abass had informed the court that his client’s witnesses were scared of testifying because one of them had been arrested.
Following that explanation, the court said that it did not know whether Alhaji Abbas did not pronounce Gonu well or not and if he appeared to be the same identity, then he was in lawful custody.
Alhaji Abass, in his evidence-in-chief on July 24, 2007 , told the court that Konu was a potential witness in the case but he was arrested after he had informed the court in his (Abass’s) evidence that Konu and another potential witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allowed Sheriff Asem Dakeh, the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine, to abscond.
TEMA CRIME OFFICER TESTIFIES IN COKE TRIAL
THE Tema Regional Crime Officer of the Ghana Police Service has appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court to explain that they have arrested Kingsley Manteaw alias Gonu in connection with the murder of Nii Kwatei Quartey.
Chief Superintendent Joshua Tetteh Dogbeda, however, denied that the police have in their custody a man called Konu as being claimed by Alhaji Issa Abass, one of two persons standing trial for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
The Crime Officer’s appearance was on the orders of the judge that the Tema Regional Commander of the Ghana Police Service, the Regional Crime Officer or their representative should come and explain the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of Konu.
Chief Supt Dogbeda said Gonu was arrested in Accra with other suspects and brought to Tema in connection of the murder of Nii Quartey.
That was after counsel for Alhaji Issa Abass had informed the court that his client’s witnesses were scared of testifying because one of them had been arrested.
Following that explanation, the court said that it did not know whether Alhaji Abbas did not pronounce Gonu well or not and if he appeared to be the same identity then he was in lawful custody.
Alhaji Abass in his evidence-in-chief on July 24, 2007 , told the court that Konu was a potential witness in the case but he was arrested after he had informed the court in his (Abass’s) statement that Konu and another potential witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allowed Sheriff Asem Dakeh, the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine to abscond.
Abass had said in his evidence-in-chief that he had detailed two young men to assist police officers to identify Sheriff alias the Limping Man, at a funeral at Ada but instead of arresting the drug importer, the policemen deliberately allowed him to abscond.
He said at the funeral ground, Sheriff, who knew the young men, started moving towards his car when he saw them, adding that as Sheriff left the funeral ground in his four-wheel drive, the two men who had helped to identify him demanded an explanation for the lackadaisical posture of the policemen, upon which they were told that they (the policemen) were driving a vehicle with a smaller engine which could not chase Sheriff’s 4X4 vehicle.
He said subsequent to that, the police arrested Sheriff’s wife, as well as the wife and brother of another drug suspect called Killer, but they let both of them off the hook.
Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the Fast Track High Court.
Initially, Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons. But fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Chief Superintendent Joshua Tetteh Dogbeda, however, denied that the police have in their custody a man called Konu as being claimed by Alhaji Issa Abass, one of two persons standing trial for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
The Crime Officer’s appearance was on the orders of the judge that the Tema Regional Commander of the Ghana Police Service, the Regional Crime Officer or their representative should come and explain the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of Konu.
Chief Supt Dogbeda said Gonu was arrested in Accra with other suspects and brought to Tema in connection of the murder of Nii Quartey.
That was after counsel for Alhaji Issa Abass had informed the court that his client’s witnesses were scared of testifying because one of them had been arrested.
Following that explanation, the court said that it did not know whether Alhaji Abbas did not pronounce Gonu well or not and if he appeared to be the same identity then he was in lawful custody.
Alhaji Abass in his evidence-in-chief on July 24, 2007 , told the court that Konu was a potential witness in the case but he was arrested after he had informed the court in his (Abass’s) statement that Konu and another potential witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allowed Sheriff Asem Dakeh, the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine to abscond.
Abass had said in his evidence-in-chief that he had detailed two young men to assist police officers to identify Sheriff alias the Limping Man, at a funeral at Ada but instead of arresting the drug importer, the policemen deliberately allowed him to abscond.
He said at the funeral ground, Sheriff, who knew the young men, started moving towards his car when he saw them, adding that as Sheriff left the funeral ground in his four-wheel drive, the two men who had helped to identify him demanded an explanation for the lackadaisical posture of the policemen, upon which they were told that they (the policemen) were driving a vehicle with a smaller engine which could not chase Sheriff’s 4X4 vehicle.
He said subsequent to that, the police arrested Sheriff’s wife, as well as the wife and brother of another drug suspect called Killer, but they let both of them off the hook.
Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the Fast Track High Court.
Initially, Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons. But fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
POST MASTER ARRESTS NARCOTIC SUSPECT AT FUNERAL
THE Ejisu Post Master of Ghana Post Company, who was arrested for accepting an EMS parcel containing Cannabis Sativa (Indian hemp) for postage to the United Kingdom, got himself out of trouble when he arrested the sender at a funeral in Kumasi.
Mr Richard Tawiah had earlier been remanded by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on a charge of abetment of crime relating to narcotic drug.
After his release on bail, Tawiah was either to look for the sender, Abena Boatema, alias Juliana Osei, or face the brunt of the law, but there was divine intervention as he spotted her having fun at a funeral in Kumasi.
That also almost landed Tawiah in another trouble because when he approached the lady, she fabricated a story that the Post Master wanted to rape her but that was not convincing enough to save her from being arrested and taken to the police station for onward transfer to Accra.
Following the arrest of Juliana, a trader, the tribunal has discharged Tawiah, who pleaded not guilty to the charge on his first appearance on February 13, 2007.
He was subsequently used as a prosecution witness against Juliana.
Juliana faces three counts of attempted exportation of Cannabis Sativa and another count of possession of that substance.
She was alleged to have attempted to respectively export 2.930 kilogrammes, 2.910 kilogrammes and 3.200 kilogrammes of the substance to Mr Opoku Adusei, Mr Osei Boateng and Mr Oppong Mensah, who are all in the UK.
She is also charged with possession of 8.186 kilogrammes of the substance.
According to the facts of the case, on December 21, last year, CEPS officials at the Aviance enforcement section in Accra intercepted three EMS parcels each containing two long compressed dried leaves wrapped in brown cellotape suspected to be Indian hemp and was to be posted to the UK.
They made a report to the Narcotic Control Board and investigations led to the arrest of the Post Master of the Ejisu branch of Ghana Post, where the parcels were posted.
Mr Tawiah said during interrogation that Juliana was the person who brought the substance to be posted to the UK and on examination, he thought the substances were herbal medication for male potency.
Mr Richard Tawiah had earlier been remanded by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on a charge of abetment of crime relating to narcotic drug.
After his release on bail, Tawiah was either to look for the sender, Abena Boatema, alias Juliana Osei, or face the brunt of the law, but there was divine intervention as he spotted her having fun at a funeral in Kumasi.
That also almost landed Tawiah in another trouble because when he approached the lady, she fabricated a story that the Post Master wanted to rape her but that was not convincing enough to save her from being arrested and taken to the police station for onward transfer to Accra.
Following the arrest of Juliana, a trader, the tribunal has discharged Tawiah, who pleaded not guilty to the charge on his first appearance on February 13, 2007.
He was subsequently used as a prosecution witness against Juliana.
Juliana faces three counts of attempted exportation of Cannabis Sativa and another count of possession of that substance.
She was alleged to have attempted to respectively export 2.930 kilogrammes, 2.910 kilogrammes and 3.200 kilogrammes of the substance to Mr Opoku Adusei, Mr Osei Boateng and Mr Oppong Mensah, who are all in the UK.
She is also charged with possession of 8.186 kilogrammes of the substance.
According to the facts of the case, on December 21, last year, CEPS officials at the Aviance enforcement section in Accra intercepted three EMS parcels each containing two long compressed dried leaves wrapped in brown cellotape suspected to be Indian hemp and was to be posted to the UK.
They made a report to the Narcotic Control Board and investigations led to the arrest of the Post Master of the Ejisu branch of Ghana Post, where the parcels were posted.
Mr Tawiah said during interrogation that Juliana was the person who brought the substance to be posted to the UK and on examination, he thought the substances were herbal medication for male potency.
Monday, August 06, 2007
COUNSEL MAKES SUBMISSION OF NO CASE
COUNSEL for the four crew members of MV Benjamin, the vessel which was allegedly used to import 77 slabs of cocaine, yesterday urged the Fast Track High Court to acquit and discharge the accused persons because the prosecution woefully failed to establish a prima facie case against them.
The lawyers described the trial of the suspects as “panic prosecution” in their submissions of no case because according to them, the police knew that Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, was the one who imported the cocaine.
According to them, since Sheriff was allowed to escape, their clients were being prosecuted as a face saving effort because of the defect or default of the Narcotic Control Board.
“There is no doubt about who imported or did business relating to narcotics. The prosecution know. These are people who found themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time”, said Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons.
They are standing trial with the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who were alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
The Arhin brothers are facing two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
In his argument, Mr Osei Owusu said the prosecution failed to establish a clear case of possession against his clients because the legal meaning of the offence meant his clients should have acted physically to control the object.
According to him, possession in its legal meaning connoted to “ own, control or occupy or monopolise an object and also exercise power or influence over an object”.
Counsel said the prosecution’s evidence should have told the court that the accused persons had the power to control and authority to use and manage the object to the exclusion of others and when the evidence did not give that indication, then there was no case for which his clients should be called upon to answer.
Mr Osei Owusu said the ingredient of the offence required that the accused persons should have knowledge of the nature and quality of the object and a prosecution devoid of that was fatal.
He said of all the 13 witnesses who testified for the prosecution, none of them indicated that his clients had knowledge of the nature and quality of the cocaine and that they had no exclusive control or access to it or it belonged to them.
According to the counsel, evidence adduced before the court indicated that his clients had no access to the locked hatch of the vessel where the cocaine was concealed in a locked black bag, therefore, they could not be held for having a mental knowledge of the cocaine.
“Even in the hatch the cocaine had been locked under seal in a black bag and no evidence was led to link my clients to it so for that reason no case has been made against them since the Captain and Chief Engineer of the vessel, who were owners of the cocaine, locked it in the hatch and kept the key to themselves,” Mr Osei Owusu said.
Regarding the charge of engaging in a prohibited business related to narcotics, counsel argued that no evidence was led to that effect since the Internal Revenue Service Act defined business as a trade, profession, or vocation, all of which the prosecution failed to link the accused persons to.
He said the prosecution should have linked his clients to the act of promoting narcotics business and their modus operandi, their business associates, among other things but it failed and rather tendered the business certificates of Sheriff.
Counsel said even when the accused persons were recruited as sailors and when they realised that they had spent so much time in arriving at Tema as they had been informed, they challenged the Captain who asked them to shut up.
He said the Captain pulled a gun when the accused persons challenged him on the high seas so they kept quiet in order not to change the course of the journey but to obey instructions for fear of their lives because they had been informed that the vessel was going to Tema or to tow a distressed vessel, among other reasons for the journey.
Mr Solomon Korli, counsel for the two Chinese, associated himself with the submission of his colleague and stated that the prosecution’s evidence was contradictory since Yin Xing was not a regular crew member of the vessel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah adjourned the case to August 9, 2007, to enable the prosecution to reply to the submissions of the defence team.
The lawyers described the trial of the suspects as “panic prosecution” in their submissions of no case because according to them, the police knew that Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, was the one who imported the cocaine.
According to them, since Sheriff was allowed to escape, their clients were being prosecuted as a face saving effort because of the defect or default of the Narcotic Control Board.
“There is no doubt about who imported or did business relating to narcotics. The prosecution know. These are people who found themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time”, said Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons.
They are standing trial with the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who were alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
The Arhin brothers are facing two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
In his argument, Mr Osei Owusu said the prosecution failed to establish a clear case of possession against his clients because the legal meaning of the offence meant his clients should have acted physically to control the object.
According to him, possession in its legal meaning connoted to “ own, control or occupy or monopolise an object and also exercise power or influence over an object”.
Counsel said the prosecution’s evidence should have told the court that the accused persons had the power to control and authority to use and manage the object to the exclusion of others and when the evidence did not give that indication, then there was no case for which his clients should be called upon to answer.
Mr Osei Owusu said the ingredient of the offence required that the accused persons should have knowledge of the nature and quality of the object and a prosecution devoid of that was fatal.
He said of all the 13 witnesses who testified for the prosecution, none of them indicated that his clients had knowledge of the nature and quality of the cocaine and that they had no exclusive control or access to it or it belonged to them.
According to the counsel, evidence adduced before the court indicated that his clients had no access to the locked hatch of the vessel where the cocaine was concealed in a locked black bag, therefore, they could not be held for having a mental knowledge of the cocaine.
“Even in the hatch the cocaine had been locked under seal in a black bag and no evidence was led to link my clients to it so for that reason no case has been made against them since the Captain and Chief Engineer of the vessel, who were owners of the cocaine, locked it in the hatch and kept the key to themselves,” Mr Osei Owusu said.
Regarding the charge of engaging in a prohibited business related to narcotics, counsel argued that no evidence was led to that effect since the Internal Revenue Service Act defined business as a trade, profession, or vocation, all of which the prosecution failed to link the accused persons to.
He said the prosecution should have linked his clients to the act of promoting narcotics business and their modus operandi, their business associates, among other things but it failed and rather tendered the business certificates of Sheriff.
Counsel said even when the accused persons were recruited as sailors and when they realised that they had spent so much time in arriving at Tema as they had been informed, they challenged the Captain who asked them to shut up.
He said the Captain pulled a gun when the accused persons challenged him on the high seas so they kept quiet in order not to change the course of the journey but to obey instructions for fear of their lives because they had been informed that the vessel was going to Tema or to tow a distressed vessel, among other reasons for the journey.
Mr Solomon Korli, counsel for the two Chinese, associated himself with the submission of his colleague and stated that the prosecution’s evidence was contradictory since Yin Xing was not a regular crew member of the vessel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah adjourned the case to August 9, 2007, to enable the prosecution to reply to the submissions of the defence team.
UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT KILLINGS
My senior colleague, Kofi Akordor, almost took the wind out of my sail with his piece on this subject of contract killings which seem to be engulfing our otherwise peaceful country and shaking consciences. Be that as it may, it is necessary that I also let go this piece to offer some sociological touches to the stormy argument on the subject.
In fact, following the recent barbaric killings, particularly of journalist Samuel Ennin in Kumasi and Mr Rokko Frimpong, a top GCB official in Tema, Ghanaians have tended to associate these dastardly acts and probably others which did not attract much public cognisance with contract killings. This has led to lots of noise being bandied about and the debate seems not to be abating once no clues have been found to arrest the culprits or prevent them from committing their outrageous crimes.
Joined in this unfortunate debate are serial callers to various phone-in programmes on the FM stations who have assumed the title social commentators and some politicians, as well, all of whom are trying to score points from this monstrous model.
Is contract killing a new term which is creeping into the lexicon of Ghanaian media practitioners or the entire Ghanaian public? Is it just that we have been oblivious of a practice which might have been with us for sometime without us recognising it until now because of its magnitude or media reportage?
So far as there are no statistics or figures to buttress this definition, it will not be out of place to say that this seeming crime is rarely known. But should we keep mute and look on unconcerned as a nation?
We need to be careful in analysing this serious issue so that we do not take for granted what gained currency in our country in 2000 as the serial killing of women and also the shrinking of sex organs (mostly relating to males). The latter phenomenon after all, was peripatetic as it transcended the boarders of this country. How about the ritual killings and all that?
A contract killing (also contract murder or murder-for-hire) has been defined as a murder in which a killer is hired by another person to murder for material reward, usually money. These killers are sometimes known as contract killers, hit men (sometimes hitmen), or assassins.
In some advanced countries, and with the advancement in information and communication technology (ICT), some web-sites have even been created by people advertising themselves as hit killers or assassins.
In most countries with judicial systems such as ours, a contract to kill a person is unenforceable by law, since the customer cannot sue for specific performance likewise the contract killer, to sue for his pay. So it is like the cliché “man pass man” doing business.
However, when caught both can be found guilty of homicide.
It is my candid opinion that this model of killing is not new to Ghana. It has, actually, existed since history can tell us except that it is now assuming such magnitude with the advent of media pluralism and probably globalisation.
We are being exposed to the magnitude that we are all witnessing because of our free and pluralistic media environment in which nothing happens without being heard on the radio stations or in the press. If you remember the impact of the media, particularly radio, during the last two general elections, then you understand the point I am trying to drive at.
As a result of increased and improved communication and our being part of the global village, we have become associated with a faster news dissemination and reception. Therefore, foreign action-packed and Mafia-like films and lately, films from neighbouring countries have been storehouses to this practice.
Contract killing appeals to some criminals partially because it can be used to establish an "airtight" alibi for the person who takes out the contract.
The person who actually commits the murder may have little or no direct connection to the victim, making it much more difficult for investigators to establish what has happened. Although, it is also a fact that the killers may be taken round and shown where to strike.
In communities where such killings have gained currency and have been extensively studied, it has been established that contract killings are often, though not always, associated with organised crime, primarily because career criminals are likely to know contract killers, and believe contracting a murder will lessen the likelihood of being caught.
Depending on the region and era, contract killers have frequently been used to silence witnesses testifying against criminals and their likes, to eliminate rival criminals, people in relationships, rivals in relationships, politicians and people with similar interests such as dispute over property.
There are yet others who contract a murder in an attempt to reap some kind of financial windfall, usually as a beneficiary of the victim's wealth (or is it property?), or as heir to their estate. At least the latter motive had been known to predominate because there have been reported cases in both matrilineal and patrilineal communities where nephews and eldest sons, brothers or even parents clandestinely connive with others to indulge in this crime.
Come to think of the ritual murders in which case the hitmen are hired to slay their victims for money? Of the reported cases in the Ghanaian media, we often heard that even after the victims had been killed their mutilated bodies are displayed or left in the open to attract the communities’ attention in order to achieve the desired result. It is a truism that even in cases where relatives offer their relations to be killed for ritual purposes, they are motivated by money and then are hired to do the killing.
In terms of relationships, the most common motive usually involves simply ending an intimate relationship, albeit for an array of reasons.
There have been instances where contract killers make their crime an obvious murder, but may also try to make the death appear to be a suicide or even an accident, or may hide or destroy the body so that it is not clear to authorities that the victim is dead, only that they have disappeared.
Australians seem to have some kind of answer to what price to place on human life. A particular study of more than 150 contract killings in that country indicated that the average payment was $16,500.
A joint study into attempted and completed contract killings by the Australian Institute of Criminology and South Australian Police found the most common motive was not drugs or organised crime, but domestic violence disputes.
The main motivation for contract killing related to the category of dissolution of a relationship and within that there were reasons such as child custody, issues of money, and just issues of couples disagreeing to the point that one is driven to try and eliminate the other.
Payment for the actual killing (usually referred to as a "hit"), is normally divided by paying part of the total price to the contract killer beforehand, and the remainder after the successful completion of the hit.
The actual amount for a particular hit will obviously vary considerably based on things such as: The hit man in particular and his standards and usual fee, the difficulty and danger in accomplishing the actual "hit" based upon who the person to be killed is, where they are and any likely police, security and media attention, and also specifically if the client wants the target to be killed in a specific manner (to appear as an accident, for example).
A study by the Australian Institute of Criminology of 162 attempted or actual contract murders in Australia from 1989 to 2002 showed that the most common reason for murder for hire was "in relation to the dissolution of an intimate relationship". The study also found that the average payment for a "hit" was Australian $12,700 and the most commonly used weapons were firearms. According to the study, contract killings accounted for two per cent of murders in Australia during that time period.
It said that contract killings made up a relatively similar percentage of all killings elsewhere. For example, they made up about five per cent of all murders in Scotland from 1993 to 2002.
In the case of journalist Ennin, while his murder can pass off as a contract killing, it also best fits into a mistaken identity or armed robbery, judging from the way it was executed, more so when no clues had been found it is also difficult to arrive at such a conclusion.
However, in the case of the GCB boss, it will be difficult to blame it on armed robbery, since his killers just walked straight to his house, demanded to see him and then p-a-w, the trigger was pulled to kill him.
Should we take the police serious when they say that it was premature for anybody to describe the recent murders as contract killings? To a greater extent, we must accept this explanation considering some of the points I have made above regarding no strong and valid conclusions having been made.
Are the police really on top of their job as a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dr K.K. Manfo, made us to believe during a recent press confab, despite the feeling of insecurity in the country?
The police capo was quoted as saying that ongoing police investigations would determine if the killings were done for money. How is that going to be determined, when in most of the killings the killers had outsmarted the security agencies?
Once the police have not been able to make any meaningful headway in arresting the killers, what we need to do is to discard our lackadaisical attitude in handling issues in this country. It is no secret that Ghanaians are noted for not taking seriously threats of death, which appear to us like mere jargons and which could easily be said to anybody.
Need we discuss the situation in heightened terms when we have been trained not to ask questions and probe people for whatever they say or tell us but take what we are told hook, line and sinker?
It’s rather and most unfortunate that on flimsy pleadings very nasty things which could have been avoided happen to our people. If we have the probing mind, nobody can just walk into our houses and do what they like or want and walk away. After all, when they do come, our children or anybody who first have an encounter with them would easily let them in without asking our supposed visitor (s) a word, and where he/she is coming from and stuffs like that.
Even the planning of our buildings do not help much. In societies where some of these killings have been on a higher magnitude, they just cannot easily take place in peoples’ backyards. Such hitmen find it difficult to do their dirty jobs because the buildings have been structured in such a way that before an intruder or visitor got closer the insider might have noticed him or her already so that any suspicious character would be found out and denied access, except the perpetrator is from within.
Our security agencies need to liaise with social scientists to devise means of studying what is emerging as contract killings before they get out of hand. We need to rethink about these killings to save dear ones because Ghana needs each and every citizen to contribute their quota towards national development.
In fact, following the recent barbaric killings, particularly of journalist Samuel Ennin in Kumasi and Mr Rokko Frimpong, a top GCB official in Tema, Ghanaians have tended to associate these dastardly acts and probably others which did not attract much public cognisance with contract killings. This has led to lots of noise being bandied about and the debate seems not to be abating once no clues have been found to arrest the culprits or prevent them from committing their outrageous crimes.
Joined in this unfortunate debate are serial callers to various phone-in programmes on the FM stations who have assumed the title social commentators and some politicians, as well, all of whom are trying to score points from this monstrous model.
Is contract killing a new term which is creeping into the lexicon of Ghanaian media practitioners or the entire Ghanaian public? Is it just that we have been oblivious of a practice which might have been with us for sometime without us recognising it until now because of its magnitude or media reportage?
So far as there are no statistics or figures to buttress this definition, it will not be out of place to say that this seeming crime is rarely known. But should we keep mute and look on unconcerned as a nation?
We need to be careful in analysing this serious issue so that we do not take for granted what gained currency in our country in 2000 as the serial killing of women and also the shrinking of sex organs (mostly relating to males). The latter phenomenon after all, was peripatetic as it transcended the boarders of this country. How about the ritual killings and all that?
A contract killing (also contract murder or murder-for-hire) has been defined as a murder in which a killer is hired by another person to murder for material reward, usually money. These killers are sometimes known as contract killers, hit men (sometimes hitmen), or assassins.
In some advanced countries, and with the advancement in information and communication technology (ICT), some web-sites have even been created by people advertising themselves as hit killers or assassins.
In most countries with judicial systems such as ours, a contract to kill a person is unenforceable by law, since the customer cannot sue for specific performance likewise the contract killer, to sue for his pay. So it is like the cliché “man pass man” doing business.
However, when caught both can be found guilty of homicide.
It is my candid opinion that this model of killing is not new to Ghana. It has, actually, existed since history can tell us except that it is now assuming such magnitude with the advent of media pluralism and probably globalisation.
We are being exposed to the magnitude that we are all witnessing because of our free and pluralistic media environment in which nothing happens without being heard on the radio stations or in the press. If you remember the impact of the media, particularly radio, during the last two general elections, then you understand the point I am trying to drive at.
As a result of increased and improved communication and our being part of the global village, we have become associated with a faster news dissemination and reception. Therefore, foreign action-packed and Mafia-like films and lately, films from neighbouring countries have been storehouses to this practice.
Contract killing appeals to some criminals partially because it can be used to establish an "airtight" alibi for the person who takes out the contract.
The person who actually commits the murder may have little or no direct connection to the victim, making it much more difficult for investigators to establish what has happened. Although, it is also a fact that the killers may be taken round and shown where to strike.
In communities where such killings have gained currency and have been extensively studied, it has been established that contract killings are often, though not always, associated with organised crime, primarily because career criminals are likely to know contract killers, and believe contracting a murder will lessen the likelihood of being caught.
Depending on the region and era, contract killers have frequently been used to silence witnesses testifying against criminals and their likes, to eliminate rival criminals, people in relationships, rivals in relationships, politicians and people with similar interests such as dispute over property.
There are yet others who contract a murder in an attempt to reap some kind of financial windfall, usually as a beneficiary of the victim's wealth (or is it property?), or as heir to their estate. At least the latter motive had been known to predominate because there have been reported cases in both matrilineal and patrilineal communities where nephews and eldest sons, brothers or even parents clandestinely connive with others to indulge in this crime.
Come to think of the ritual murders in which case the hitmen are hired to slay their victims for money? Of the reported cases in the Ghanaian media, we often heard that even after the victims had been killed their mutilated bodies are displayed or left in the open to attract the communities’ attention in order to achieve the desired result. It is a truism that even in cases where relatives offer their relations to be killed for ritual purposes, they are motivated by money and then are hired to do the killing.
In terms of relationships, the most common motive usually involves simply ending an intimate relationship, albeit for an array of reasons.
There have been instances where contract killers make their crime an obvious murder, but may also try to make the death appear to be a suicide or even an accident, or may hide or destroy the body so that it is not clear to authorities that the victim is dead, only that they have disappeared.
Australians seem to have some kind of answer to what price to place on human life. A particular study of more than 150 contract killings in that country indicated that the average payment was $16,500.
A joint study into attempted and completed contract killings by the Australian Institute of Criminology and South Australian Police found the most common motive was not drugs or organised crime, but domestic violence disputes.
The main motivation for contract killing related to the category of dissolution of a relationship and within that there were reasons such as child custody, issues of money, and just issues of couples disagreeing to the point that one is driven to try and eliminate the other.
Payment for the actual killing (usually referred to as a "hit"), is normally divided by paying part of the total price to the contract killer beforehand, and the remainder after the successful completion of the hit.
The actual amount for a particular hit will obviously vary considerably based on things such as: The hit man in particular and his standards and usual fee, the difficulty and danger in accomplishing the actual "hit" based upon who the person to be killed is, where they are and any likely police, security and media attention, and also specifically if the client wants the target to be killed in a specific manner (to appear as an accident, for example).
A study by the Australian Institute of Criminology of 162 attempted or actual contract murders in Australia from 1989 to 2002 showed that the most common reason for murder for hire was "in relation to the dissolution of an intimate relationship". The study also found that the average payment for a "hit" was Australian $12,700 and the most commonly used weapons were firearms. According to the study, contract killings accounted for two per cent of murders in Australia during that time period.
It said that contract killings made up a relatively similar percentage of all killings elsewhere. For example, they made up about five per cent of all murders in Scotland from 1993 to 2002.
In the case of journalist Ennin, while his murder can pass off as a contract killing, it also best fits into a mistaken identity or armed robbery, judging from the way it was executed, more so when no clues had been found it is also difficult to arrive at such a conclusion.
However, in the case of the GCB boss, it will be difficult to blame it on armed robbery, since his killers just walked straight to his house, demanded to see him and then p-a-w, the trigger was pulled to kill him.
Should we take the police serious when they say that it was premature for anybody to describe the recent murders as contract killings? To a greater extent, we must accept this explanation considering some of the points I have made above regarding no strong and valid conclusions having been made.
Are the police really on top of their job as a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dr K.K. Manfo, made us to believe during a recent press confab, despite the feeling of insecurity in the country?
The police capo was quoted as saying that ongoing police investigations would determine if the killings were done for money. How is that going to be determined, when in most of the killings the killers had outsmarted the security agencies?
Once the police have not been able to make any meaningful headway in arresting the killers, what we need to do is to discard our lackadaisical attitude in handling issues in this country. It is no secret that Ghanaians are noted for not taking seriously threats of death, which appear to us like mere jargons and which could easily be said to anybody.
Need we discuss the situation in heightened terms when we have been trained not to ask questions and probe people for whatever they say or tell us but take what we are told hook, line and sinker?
It’s rather and most unfortunate that on flimsy pleadings very nasty things which could have been avoided happen to our people. If we have the probing mind, nobody can just walk into our houses and do what they like or want and walk away. After all, when they do come, our children or anybody who first have an encounter with them would easily let them in without asking our supposed visitor (s) a word, and where he/she is coming from and stuffs like that.
Even the planning of our buildings do not help much. In societies where some of these killings have been on a higher magnitude, they just cannot easily take place in peoples’ backyards. Such hitmen find it difficult to do their dirty jobs because the buildings have been structured in such a way that before an intruder or visitor got closer the insider might have noticed him or her already so that any suspicious character would be found out and denied access, except the perpetrator is from within.
Our security agencies need to liaise with social scientists to devise means of studying what is emerging as contract killings before they get out of hand. We need to rethink about these killings to save dear ones because Ghana needs each and every citizen to contribute their quota towards national development.
UNIQUE TRUST LOSES APPEAL
THE Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Unique Trust Financial Services Limited against a judgement of an Accra High Court that the company should pay ¢400 million to Ghatalia Limited for the wrongful sale of its goods.
The court, however, said instead of the ¢400 million which was due Ghatalia Limited, Unique Trust should pay ¢375.2 million and costs of ¢50 million with interest at the prevailing bank rate since July 22, 2005 and additional costs of ¢10 million.
The facts that led to the action at the High Court and the subsequent appeal were that Ghatalia imported assorted goods from Italy to Ghana for sale.
When the goods arrived at the Tema port, the company, due to financial constraints, was unable to clear the goods and, therefore, approached Unique Trust for a loan facility of ¢100 million on March 7, 2003.
The facility was to attract interest at the rate of nine per cent per month payable within 90 days and secured by the imported goods, which were kept in Unique Trust’s warehouse at Tema.
Ghatalia was able to pay ¢24.8 million and was unable to pay any extra money to Unique Trust until another company called West Coast Company Limited paid ¢25 million at the instance of Ghatalia to Unique Trust.
Subsequent to the payment of the ¢25 million on behalf of Ghatalia, the company could not make any further payment to Unique Trust.
Therefore, Unique Trust, without notice to Ghatalia, sold the remaining goods and offered no accounts or particulars of the sale to the company.
“Indeed, the quantity of the goods, their prices and date(s) of the sale were not supplied to the plaintiff (Ghatalia)”, said Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, who read the court’s unanimous decision.
The court was presided over by Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey, with Mr Justice Osafo Sampong as the other member.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said aggrieved by the conduct of Unique Trust, Ghatalia commenced action at the High Court, while Unique Trust counter-claimed ¢252,511,997.26 being the payment of outstanding balance owed it.
He said according to Unique Trust, the amount realised from the sale of the assorted goods was only ¢50 million.
According to him, the trial judge entered judgement for Ghatalia on most of the reliefs sought and also entered judgement for Unique Trust for ¢255,511,997.29 but failed to award interest on it.
He said counsel for Unique Trust argued that by the terms of the loan agreement, Unique Trust had the power to sell the goods without reference to Ghatalia but that was ignored by the trial judge and in his opinion, the trial judge found unconvincing how a serious clause could be inserted in ink in the schedule of the agreement where the goods were described and not in the body of the agreement itself.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said another point raised by Unique Trust against the judgement was that the trial judge relied on an Authority Note to Stefano Pace to empower Unique Trust to sell the goods.
He said the trial judge was right when he questioned that the authority note did not give authority to Mr Pace to authorise Unique Trust to sell the goods on default as alleged because he did not understand why four of the directors of Ghatalia signed the authority note and Mr Pace could bypass the company’s representative in Ghana, Mr D.T. Darko, who, on record, executed the loan agreement, to authorise the sale of the goods.
On why the trial judge did not award interest in favour of Unique Trust, the judge said it was clear that it unilaterally abrogated the contract and proceeded to sell the goods illegally and it would be unconscionable under the circumstance for any court to award interest since there was no existing contract left for enforcement under the circumstance.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said since Ghatalia sold ¢24.8 million of the goods, it was wrong for the trial judge to have granted the company the entire amount of ¢400 million and, therefore, set aside that order and replaced it with ¢375.2 million.
The court, however, said instead of the ¢400 million which was due Ghatalia Limited, Unique Trust should pay ¢375.2 million and costs of ¢50 million with interest at the prevailing bank rate since July 22, 2005 and additional costs of ¢10 million.
The facts that led to the action at the High Court and the subsequent appeal were that Ghatalia imported assorted goods from Italy to Ghana for sale.
When the goods arrived at the Tema port, the company, due to financial constraints, was unable to clear the goods and, therefore, approached Unique Trust for a loan facility of ¢100 million on March 7, 2003.
The facility was to attract interest at the rate of nine per cent per month payable within 90 days and secured by the imported goods, which were kept in Unique Trust’s warehouse at Tema.
Ghatalia was able to pay ¢24.8 million and was unable to pay any extra money to Unique Trust until another company called West Coast Company Limited paid ¢25 million at the instance of Ghatalia to Unique Trust.
Subsequent to the payment of the ¢25 million on behalf of Ghatalia, the company could not make any further payment to Unique Trust.
Therefore, Unique Trust, without notice to Ghatalia, sold the remaining goods and offered no accounts or particulars of the sale to the company.
“Indeed, the quantity of the goods, their prices and date(s) of the sale were not supplied to the plaintiff (Ghatalia)”, said Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, who read the court’s unanimous decision.
The court was presided over by Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey, with Mr Justice Osafo Sampong as the other member.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said aggrieved by the conduct of Unique Trust, Ghatalia commenced action at the High Court, while Unique Trust counter-claimed ¢252,511,997.26 being the payment of outstanding balance owed it.
He said according to Unique Trust, the amount realised from the sale of the assorted goods was only ¢50 million.
According to him, the trial judge entered judgement for Ghatalia on most of the reliefs sought and also entered judgement for Unique Trust for ¢255,511,997.29 but failed to award interest on it.
He said counsel for Unique Trust argued that by the terms of the loan agreement, Unique Trust had the power to sell the goods without reference to Ghatalia but that was ignored by the trial judge and in his opinion, the trial judge found unconvincing how a serious clause could be inserted in ink in the schedule of the agreement where the goods were described and not in the body of the agreement itself.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said another point raised by Unique Trust against the judgement was that the trial judge relied on an Authority Note to Stefano Pace to empower Unique Trust to sell the goods.
He said the trial judge was right when he questioned that the authority note did not give authority to Mr Pace to authorise Unique Trust to sell the goods on default as alleged because he did not understand why four of the directors of Ghatalia signed the authority note and Mr Pace could bypass the company’s representative in Ghana, Mr D.T. Darko, who, on record, executed the loan agreement, to authorise the sale of the goods.
On why the trial judge did not award interest in favour of Unique Trust, the judge said it was clear that it unilaterally abrogated the contract and proceeded to sell the goods illegally and it would be unconscionable under the circumstance for any court to award interest since there was no existing contract left for enforcement under the circumstance.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said since Ghatalia sold ¢24.8 million of the goods, it was wrong for the trial judge to have granted the company the entire amount of ¢400 million and, therefore, set aside that order and replaced it with ¢375.2 million.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
LECTURER ADVOCATES REVIEW
THE National Co-ordinator of the Educational Quality Implementation Project (EdQual), Dr George K.T. Oduro, has called for a review of the practice of using teachers for official non-teaching and learning activities because that disrupts the process of child learning.
He said teachers should make optimum use of teaching and learning time to convince children of the need to stay in the classroom and study and bemoaned the fact that pupils and students were denied access to their teachers during national election years, for example.
Dr Oduro, who is also a lecturer at the University of Cape Coast Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (IEPA), made the call in an address on the occasion of the graduation and inauguration of a cadet corps at the Creator Schools.
“Should teachers continue to be made electoral officers, polling agents and registration officers at the expense of their pupils? With the upcoming National Identification Programme, will teachers be withdrawn from the classrooms to participate in this national exercise, at the expense of the children?” he quizzed.
He called on the Ghana Education Service (GES) to liaise with the Electoral Commission (EC) and all other stakeholders in child learning to seriously think about a means of controlling the extent to which such official non-teaching/learning activities tended to deprive children of their right to teaching and learning time utilisation.
Speaking on the theme, “Discipline and hard training: Pathway for a bright future”,Dr Oduro said in order for the young ones to be disciplined, there was the need to support schools to be disciplined in the utilisation of teaching-learning time.
He said it was necessary that heads of schools created congenial conditions for young people and provide avenues for their voices to be heard in matters that affected their development because in situations where children felt respected and their views considered in decision making, the foundation for discipline became stronger.
According to Dr Oduro, the school had a critical role to pay in the development of the child because developing the habit of discipline in young people largely depended on the training provided by the school.
“The school is responsible for developing the child morally, physically, intellectually, emotionally, socially and mentally. Yet we tend to give more preference to the intellectual dimension of the school’s mission, to the extent that examination results have become the sole formal criteria for assessing a good school,” he stated.
In so doing, he said, the moral, social and emotional dimensions of the child’s development, which were critical in the development of discipline, were relegated to the background, adding that the school system hardly rewarded good behaviour.
Dr Oduro said if discipline among children was to be promoted, then the school should be encouraged to adopt a holistic approach to child development and reward good behaviour, just as intellectual performance was rewarded.
He commended the staff and management of the Creator Schools for not focusing only on the intellectual development of the child.
He said teachers should make optimum use of teaching and learning time to convince children of the need to stay in the classroom and study and bemoaned the fact that pupils and students were denied access to their teachers during national election years, for example.
Dr Oduro, who is also a lecturer at the University of Cape Coast Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (IEPA), made the call in an address on the occasion of the graduation and inauguration of a cadet corps at the Creator Schools.
“Should teachers continue to be made electoral officers, polling agents and registration officers at the expense of their pupils? With the upcoming National Identification Programme, will teachers be withdrawn from the classrooms to participate in this national exercise, at the expense of the children?” he quizzed.
He called on the Ghana Education Service (GES) to liaise with the Electoral Commission (EC) and all other stakeholders in child learning to seriously think about a means of controlling the extent to which such official non-teaching/learning activities tended to deprive children of their right to teaching and learning time utilisation.
Speaking on the theme, “Discipline and hard training: Pathway for a bright future”,Dr Oduro said in order for the young ones to be disciplined, there was the need to support schools to be disciplined in the utilisation of teaching-learning time.
He said it was necessary that heads of schools created congenial conditions for young people and provide avenues for their voices to be heard in matters that affected their development because in situations where children felt respected and their views considered in decision making, the foundation for discipline became stronger.
According to Dr Oduro, the school had a critical role to pay in the development of the child because developing the habit of discipline in young people largely depended on the training provided by the school.
“The school is responsible for developing the child morally, physically, intellectually, emotionally, socially and mentally. Yet we tend to give more preference to the intellectual dimension of the school’s mission, to the extent that examination results have become the sole formal criteria for assessing a good school,” he stated.
In so doing, he said, the moral, social and emotional dimensions of the child’s development, which were critical in the development of discipline, were relegated to the background, adding that the school system hardly rewarded good behaviour.
Dr Oduro said if discipline among children was to be promoted, then the school should be encouraged to adopt a holistic approach to child development and reward good behaviour, just as intellectual performance was rewarded.
He commended the staff and management of the Creator Schools for not focusing only on the intellectual development of the child.
EX-MINISTER CASE UP IN SUPREME COURT
THE Supreme Court will on November 14, 2007, rule on an application filed by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) seeking to quash a High Court decision that absolved the former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane of wrongdoing.
The court fixed the date today after it had listened to submissions made by counsel for the commission and Dr Anane in the case in which the former minister is battling to save his reputation, which an Accra High Court restored when it cleared him of wrongdoing.
The CHRAJ had appealed against the court’s decision at the Court of Appeal but while the appeal is pending it went to the highest court of the land via the instant application to revoke the court’s supervisory jurisdiction in the matter to quash the trial court’s decision.
Dr Anane resigned his post after the commission found him guilty of abuse of power and conflict of interest and recommended that he be removed from office for abusing his office.
The commission recommended, among other things, that Dr Anane should apologise to Parliament for lying under oath and also render another apology to the government for bringing its name into disrepute.
Charges of corruption against the former Minister were dismissed by the commission which found him guilty for lying under oath, after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the parliamentary Appointments Committee during his vetting for the position of Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, Dr Anane had told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
After honourably resigning his post before he could be sacked by the President on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with him, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge absolved Dr Anane of any wrongdoing and quashed the CHRAJ decision against him, declaring it null and void.
Arguing the application at the Supreme Court today, Nene Amegatcher, lead counsel for CHRAJ said the effect of the application was to quash the trial court’s decision that absolved Dr Anane of wrongdoing.
He submitted that the trial judge was invited to look at the true and proper construction of certain provisions in the 1992 Constitution that dealt with the functions of the commission and in the process of doing so the court went into an issue, which was exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court.
Based on that, he said, the application for certiorari was made before the court and if sustained then the Supreme Court ought to give directions to serve as a guide to other courts in the country.
He said CHRAJ could only act when there was an identifiable complainant who must made a written complaint to the commissioner saying that “our case is that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution and history and why CHRAJ was set up, it is not in all cases that we require a complaint.
“There is the majority of issue which are in the public interest which need no formal complaint from any identifiable person”.
When asked by the court why the commission also assumed the role to interpret the constitution by what it did, counsel admitted that was an error on the part of the commission.
In a further question as to why the commission was asking the court restore its decision since that action was in clear violation of the constitution, Nene Amegatcher replied that the commission had the power to handle the issue.
Asked again what language was ambiguous and needed interpretation by the court, counsel quoted Article 218 (a) and (e) on the functions of the commission and stated that what constituted a complaint ought to be interpreted.
He said the words corruption and abuse of power, for instance, had not been defined in the constitution but they had been used in Article 218 (a) and he was of the belief that abuse of power could end up in corruption.
According to counsel, the imports of the articles in the constitution talked about complaints of corruption and instances of alleged corruption, therefore, clarification needed to be sought from the highest court of the land as to the meaning to serve as a direction to the commission.
Nene Amegatcher agreed with the court that in the Dr Anane case although no formal complaint was made to the commission in the current democratic dispensation, allegations could be made even in the media.
He said the trial judge in purporting to interpret Article 287 (1) of the constitution, misrepresented the issue and gave it a new meaning instead of referring it to the Supreme Court.
Mr J.K. Agyemang, counsel for Dr Anane, prayed the court to dismiss the application since all the relevant provisions in Article 218 and 287 were quite clear and unambiguous.
He argued that just as CHRAJ had the right to apply those provisions, the High Court judge also had every right to apply them and stated that the definition of corruption in the constitution and elsewhere were irrelevant, more especially when his client was not found guilty on those charges.
The Supreme Court was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood with Mr Justice S.A Brobbey, Mr Justice S.K Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mr Justice R.T Aninakwah as the members.
In his ruling Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, said CHRAJ was an inferior investigative body without inherent power and so its action was a wrong assumption of jurisdiction.
Consequently, it ordered that the September 15, 2006 decision and subsequent recommendations against Dr Anane be removed from the register of the commission.
According to the court, certain articles of the 1992 Constitution, such as Article 230 and Act 456, as well as CI 7, were binding on the commission to require an identifiable complainant who should lodge a complaint, either in writing or orally.
“The clear and unambiguous provision of CI 7 is that a complaint made in a newspaper article will not be a basis for investigations by the CHRAJ,” the court ruled, and added that Dr Anane was entitled to a declaration that it was mandatory for the commission to receive a petition or complaint from an identifiable complainant before proceeding with any investigation.
According to the court, “the commission, being an inferior body, is supposed to work within the confines of the law and should not behave like an octopus spreading its tentacles here and there because it has limited powers”.
It said the fact that the commission had in 1995 investigated some ministers of state based on newspaper articles did not make an unlawful act lawful.
“If an error has been done with impunity in the past, it does not have to be entertained and nobody can make what is unlawful lawful,” the court ruled, saying that the commission’s power to investigate was only activated when a complaint was lodged by an identifiable person.
It said for the commission to state that Dr Anane abused his office was a wrong assumption of power and should not be countenanced by the Constitution of the land.
Regarding the commission’s decision relating to perjury, the court ruled that what it should have done, after realising inconsistencies in Dr Anane’s statement to Parliament and the commission, was to refer to them, not to offer sanctions as it did.
The court fixed the date today after it had listened to submissions made by counsel for the commission and Dr Anane in the case in which the former minister is battling to save his reputation, which an Accra High Court restored when it cleared him of wrongdoing.
The CHRAJ had appealed against the court’s decision at the Court of Appeal but while the appeal is pending it went to the highest court of the land via the instant application to revoke the court’s supervisory jurisdiction in the matter to quash the trial court’s decision.
Dr Anane resigned his post after the commission found him guilty of abuse of power and conflict of interest and recommended that he be removed from office for abusing his office.
The commission recommended, among other things, that Dr Anane should apologise to Parliament for lying under oath and also render another apology to the government for bringing its name into disrepute.
Charges of corruption against the former Minister were dismissed by the commission which found him guilty for lying under oath, after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the parliamentary Appointments Committee during his vetting for the position of Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, Dr Anane had told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
After honourably resigning his post before he could be sacked by the President on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with him, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge absolved Dr Anane of any wrongdoing and quashed the CHRAJ decision against him, declaring it null and void.
Arguing the application at the Supreme Court today, Nene Amegatcher, lead counsel for CHRAJ said the effect of the application was to quash the trial court’s decision that absolved Dr Anane of wrongdoing.
He submitted that the trial judge was invited to look at the true and proper construction of certain provisions in the 1992 Constitution that dealt with the functions of the commission and in the process of doing so the court went into an issue, which was exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court.
Based on that, he said, the application for certiorari was made before the court and if sustained then the Supreme Court ought to give directions to serve as a guide to other courts in the country.
He said CHRAJ could only act when there was an identifiable complainant who must made a written complaint to the commissioner saying that “our case is that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution and history and why CHRAJ was set up, it is not in all cases that we require a complaint.
“There is the majority of issue which are in the public interest which need no formal complaint from any identifiable person”.
When asked by the court why the commission also assumed the role to interpret the constitution by what it did, counsel admitted that was an error on the part of the commission.
In a further question as to why the commission was asking the court restore its decision since that action was in clear violation of the constitution, Nene Amegatcher replied that the commission had the power to handle the issue.
Asked again what language was ambiguous and needed interpretation by the court, counsel quoted Article 218 (a) and (e) on the functions of the commission and stated that what constituted a complaint ought to be interpreted.
He said the words corruption and abuse of power, for instance, had not been defined in the constitution but they had been used in Article 218 (a) and he was of the belief that abuse of power could end up in corruption.
According to counsel, the imports of the articles in the constitution talked about complaints of corruption and instances of alleged corruption, therefore, clarification needed to be sought from the highest court of the land as to the meaning to serve as a direction to the commission.
Nene Amegatcher agreed with the court that in the Dr Anane case although no formal complaint was made to the commission in the current democratic dispensation, allegations could be made even in the media.
He said the trial judge in purporting to interpret Article 287 (1) of the constitution, misrepresented the issue and gave it a new meaning instead of referring it to the Supreme Court.
Mr J.K. Agyemang, counsel for Dr Anane, prayed the court to dismiss the application since all the relevant provisions in Article 218 and 287 were quite clear and unambiguous.
He argued that just as CHRAJ had the right to apply those provisions, the High Court judge also had every right to apply them and stated that the definition of corruption in the constitution and elsewhere were irrelevant, more especially when his client was not found guilty on those charges.
The Supreme Court was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood with Mr Justice S.A Brobbey, Mr Justice S.K Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mr Justice R.T Aninakwah as the members.
In his ruling Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, said CHRAJ was an inferior investigative body without inherent power and so its action was a wrong assumption of jurisdiction.
Consequently, it ordered that the September 15, 2006 decision and subsequent recommendations against Dr Anane be removed from the register of the commission.
According to the court, certain articles of the 1992 Constitution, such as Article 230 and Act 456, as well as CI 7, were binding on the commission to require an identifiable complainant who should lodge a complaint, either in writing or orally.
“The clear and unambiguous provision of CI 7 is that a complaint made in a newspaper article will not be a basis for investigations by the CHRAJ,” the court ruled, and added that Dr Anane was entitled to a declaration that it was mandatory for the commission to receive a petition or complaint from an identifiable complainant before proceeding with any investigation.
According to the court, “the commission, being an inferior body, is supposed to work within the confines of the law and should not behave like an octopus spreading its tentacles here and there because it has limited powers”.
It said the fact that the commission had in 1995 investigated some ministers of state based on newspaper articles did not make an unlawful act lawful.
“If an error has been done with impunity in the past, it does not have to be entertained and nobody can make what is unlawful lawful,” the court ruled, saying that the commission’s power to investigate was only activated when a complaint was lodged by an identifiable person.
It said for the commission to state that Dr Anane abused his office was a wrong assumption of power and should not be countenanced by the Constitution of the land.
Regarding the commission’s decision relating to perjury, the court ruled that what it should have done, after realising inconsistencies in Dr Anane’s statement to Parliament and the commission, was to refer to them, not to offer sanctions as it did.
TWO BRITISH TEENAGERS MAKE SECOND APPEARNCE IN COURT
THE two British teenage girls who attempted to smuggle six kilogrammes of cocaine from Ghana to the United Kingdom made a second appearance at an Accra juvenile court yesterday on charges relating to attempting to export and possession of narcotic drugs.
As usual, the two teenagers were brought under very tight security.
Both local and foreign journalists and photographers who thronged the court premises very early did not see how the suspects entered the courtroom.
However, when the suspects were leaving after the morning session, they were found sandwiched by security officials while they had covered their faces.
As if to deceive the media, three ladies were seen with their faces covered and being whisked away into a waiting car.
Although the court sat in camera and officials were tight-lipped over what transpired in court, it was learnt from sources that the pleas of the girls were taken and some witnesses called to testify for the prosecution.
The details of their pleas were not known but since the trial is ongoing, it is presumed that either they pleaded not guilty to the charges or that a plea was entered for them.
Journalists learnt further that the court would reconvene later in the afternoon to continue with the case.
The two teenagers, Yasemin Vatansever and Yatunde Diya, both appeared before the court on July 18, 2007 after they had been discharged by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
Vatansever and Diya were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 2, 2007, and apart from their brief appearance in court at the Regional Tribunal, nothing was heard of them until the news broke out in the British media on July 12, 2007.
Their appearance in court generated a lot of hullabaloo, especially after the photographs of the girls been used by the press.
There had been condemnation and threat of legal action against media practitioners who did not respect the rights of the girls because as juveniles, they were protected under the law from being exposed.
As usual, the two teenagers were brought under very tight security.
Both local and foreign journalists and photographers who thronged the court premises very early did not see how the suspects entered the courtroom.
However, when the suspects were leaving after the morning session, they were found sandwiched by security officials while they had covered their faces.
As if to deceive the media, three ladies were seen with their faces covered and being whisked away into a waiting car.
Although the court sat in camera and officials were tight-lipped over what transpired in court, it was learnt from sources that the pleas of the girls were taken and some witnesses called to testify for the prosecution.
The details of their pleas were not known but since the trial is ongoing, it is presumed that either they pleaded not guilty to the charges or that a plea was entered for them.
Journalists learnt further that the court would reconvene later in the afternoon to continue with the case.
The two teenagers, Yasemin Vatansever and Yatunde Diya, both appeared before the court on July 18, 2007 after they had been discharged by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
Vatansever and Diya were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 2, 2007, and apart from their brief appearance in court at the Regional Tribunal, nothing was heard of them until the news broke out in the British media on July 12, 2007.
Their appearance in court generated a lot of hullabaloo, especially after the photographs of the girls been used by the press.
There had been condemnation and threat of legal action against media practitioners who did not respect the rights of the girls because as juveniles, they were protected under the law from being exposed.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
AFRICAN COMMISSION TO HEAR CASE OF FORMER GNPC BOSS
THE African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has decided to review its decision on the admissibility of the petition filed by former Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) Chief Executive, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata against his trial for causing financial loss to the state.
The new decision was as a result of a submission for reconsideration, which the commission received from Mr Tsikata at its 41st Ordinary session held in Accra from May 16-30, 2007.
The submission for reconsideration was in respect of the petition he made in April last year but was dismissed at the commission’s 40th Ordinary session held from November 15-29, last year in Banjul.
A communication to Mr Tsikata dated June 25, 2007 and signed by Dr Feyi Ogunde said the commission’s latest decision was in line with Rule 118 (2) of its Rules of Procedure.
It aid the review would be done during the commission’s 42nd Ordinary session scheduled for November 15-27, 2007.
It said for that purpose the commission would need to receive and consider fresh or additional submissions on the admissibility of the petition from both Mr Tsikata and the Attorney General, who represented the state.
The commission acknowledged the receipt from Mr Tsikata of a submission for reconsideration of its decision in respect of Communication 322/2006, which was emailed on May 27, 2007, a ruling in normal High Court, a Fast Track High Court submission of no case and Fat Track High Court ruling.
The commission turned down Mr Tsikata’s complaint last year and described it as “inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies”.
It said although the complaint presented a prima facie case of a series of violations of the African Charter, a close look at the file and the submissions indicated that Mr Tsikata was yet to exhaust all the local remedies available to him.
In the light of the submissions, the commission noted that Mr Tsikata’s allegations were in respect of an ongoing/unconcluded trial and that information provided by him even stated that the case was still pending before the courts of Ghana.
“Should the ongoing trial end against the complainant’s favour, he has further rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ghana, in accordance with articles 137 and 131 of the Constitution of Ghana,” the commission noted.
The former GNPC boss had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
He complained to the commission that the charge on which he was being tried constituted a violation of the right against non-retroactive criminalisation under Article 7 (2) of the African Charter and several provisions of the Constitution of Ghana.
He argued that he was being tried for an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time that it was done.
On April 27, 2006, Mr Tsikata’s 10-page complaint of 36 paragraphs in which he chronicled when he was first arraigned before the circuit court in October 2001, his challenge of the constitutionality of the Fast Track Court and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge purposely to review his case, up to the current stage of the case, was received by the commission.
He stated that the manifest determination of the government to ensure, without any reference to the facts and legal issues, that incarceration was the only possible outcome of the criminal proceedings against him unjustly endangered his liberty.
Consequently, he sought the intervention of the commission and urged it to invoke Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure on provisional measures and request the Republic of Ghana not to proceed further with his trial until his case had been heard by the commission.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ghartey, assisted by Marina Atuobi, Nana Serwah Acheampong, both State Attorneys, and Nicholas Fredua Kwarteng, an Assistant State Attorney, also made a submission in reply to the complaint.
He stated that the guidelines for the submission of such cases provided that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies had been exhausted and observed that Tsikata failed to provide any evidence of the domestic legal remedies pursued.
The Attorney-General further argued that Tsikata failed to meet the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, since he could not show that the procedure in the High Court had been protracted or unduly delayed.
“If, indeed, any delay has been occasioned, it would be due to the complainant’s own repeated request for adjournments and interlocutory appeals,” he said.
After Mr Tsikata’s petition was turned down, the Daily Graphic carried the story, which attracted a reaction from him that after sending the petition he did not hear from the commission again until he read its outcome in the Daily Graphic.
In his latest submission, Mr Tsikata said “The decision of the Commission that my complaint was inadmissible was made without the Commission having had the benefit of any further information or argument on admissibility from me for the simple reason that I did not receive the request from the Commission asking me to submit my arguments on admissibility.
“ The Government of Ghana, however, received their communication from the Commission and the Attorney-General responded and alleged, among other things, that I had not exhausted local remedies before submitting my communication to the Commission. My first indication of any intended communications from the Commission to me was when I read about this in a Ghanaian newspaper in January this year”, he said.
He said that after first reading from the Ghanaian newspaper that the Commission had given a decision declaring his communication inadmissible, he sent the Commission an e-mail on 26th January 2007 seeking official confirmation. “After almost a week, when I still had not had a response and when further claims were made in the newspaper about communications to me from the Commission, I sent a further e-mail to the Commission on 1st February 2007. Subsequently, on 13th February 2007, I received an e-mail with a letter dated 5th February 2007 from the Commission Secretariat notifying me officially of the decision of the Commission”, he noted.
He said he was seeking a re-consideration under Rule 118 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission of the decision of the Commission that his petition is inadmissible and added that the situation in his case was quite different from the situation the Commission encountered, for instance, in Motale Zacharia Sakwe/Cameroon 230/99 where the Commission noted “that on the surface of the complaint it appears that the complainant did not exhaust domestic remedies”.
Essentially, he said, the decision of the Commission seemed to have turned on the consideration that, while making references to “several recourses to domestic courts for redress”, I gave “no indication of the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies”.
He said after his letter of April 11, 2007 requesting a reconsideration, he received a letter from the Secretariat sent by e-mail, initially on April 24, 2007 and in a revised form on April 26, 2007, requiring him to “forward the new facts on the exhaustion of local remedies which would serve as the basis for re-opening the Communication by 10th May 2007.”
“After a decision of the Supreme Court upholding my challenge I was brought before a “normal High Court”, where my counsel objected to the charge brought against me on the basis that it infringed Article 19(5) of the Constitution which expresses the same principle as Article 7(2) of the African Charter, which read
“A person shall not be charged with or held to be guilty of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took place constitute an offence” , he said.
According to him, the objection was upheld and the judge indicated that the provision in the Constitution of Ghana was clear in its terms and he did not have to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation and enforcement.
“My counsel, at the close of the case for the prosecution, again raised, among other issues, the violation of my right not to be charged with, nor convicted of, a criminal offence based on an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was done” he said.
He said his counsel also raised the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which reflected the presumption of innocence in Article 7(1) of the African Charter but the trial judge, without giving any reasons, rejected the submission.
“Arriving at a decision of this nature without giving reasons was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Ghana as well as the African Charter. The failure of the trial judge to uphold the submission of no case at the end of the case of the prosecution was a violation of my rights under Article 7 of the African Charter.
“After the decision of the trial judge, I pursued local remedies and my counsel filed an appeal on my behalf to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, in affirming the decision of the trial judge, based itself on a repealed law as the answer to the submissions of my counsel on retroactive criminalisation”, he stated.
He acknowledged that while recourse to a repealed law which he had not even been charged under would be wrong, the majority decision of the Supreme Court claimed that the decision of the Court of Appeal was not based on the repealed law, which was obviously inconsistent with the record of the Court of Appeal judgement.
Therefore, the Supreme Court, he said, failed to enforce his rights under Articles 7 of the African Charter and again, in the exceptional circumstances where the majority decision even failed to consider the provisions of the Evidence Decree, aggrieved by the decision of the Court, he applied, through his counsel, for a review of the Supreme Court and the review panel, presided over by the Chief Justice (CJ), summarily dismissed the review application.
“By going all the way to Supreme Court of Ghana with the issues, inter alia, of retro-active criminalisation and right to fair trial which should have been enforced by the judge in the High Court upon the submission of no case, I exhausted local remedies in respect of those issues and there is no further domestic recourse available to me, hence my recourse to the Commission.
“Indeed, the Supreme Court compounded the denial of my right to a fair trial under the Charter when they decided that, at the stage of a submission of no case, the standard of proof on which the case for the prosecution should be judged by is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but a “lower standard”. This patently erroneous decision, made by the court without any reference to the statute governing the assessment of evidence in trials in Ghana, the Evidence Decree, itself was an explicit denial to me of “the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal” provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter.
The new decision was as a result of a submission for reconsideration, which the commission received from Mr Tsikata at its 41st Ordinary session held in Accra from May 16-30, 2007.
The submission for reconsideration was in respect of the petition he made in April last year but was dismissed at the commission’s 40th Ordinary session held from November 15-29, last year in Banjul.
A communication to Mr Tsikata dated June 25, 2007 and signed by Dr Feyi Ogunde said the commission’s latest decision was in line with Rule 118 (2) of its Rules of Procedure.
It aid the review would be done during the commission’s 42nd Ordinary session scheduled for November 15-27, 2007.
It said for that purpose the commission would need to receive and consider fresh or additional submissions on the admissibility of the petition from both Mr Tsikata and the Attorney General, who represented the state.
The commission acknowledged the receipt from Mr Tsikata of a submission for reconsideration of its decision in respect of Communication 322/2006, which was emailed on May 27, 2007, a ruling in normal High Court, a Fast Track High Court submission of no case and Fat Track High Court ruling.
The commission turned down Mr Tsikata’s complaint last year and described it as “inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies”.
It said although the complaint presented a prima facie case of a series of violations of the African Charter, a close look at the file and the submissions indicated that Mr Tsikata was yet to exhaust all the local remedies available to him.
In the light of the submissions, the commission noted that Mr Tsikata’s allegations were in respect of an ongoing/unconcluded trial and that information provided by him even stated that the case was still pending before the courts of Ghana.
“Should the ongoing trial end against the complainant’s favour, he has further rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ghana, in accordance with articles 137 and 131 of the Constitution of Ghana,” the commission noted.
The former GNPC boss had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
He complained to the commission that the charge on which he was being tried constituted a violation of the right against non-retroactive criminalisation under Article 7 (2) of the African Charter and several provisions of the Constitution of Ghana.
He argued that he was being tried for an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time that it was done.
On April 27, 2006, Mr Tsikata’s 10-page complaint of 36 paragraphs in which he chronicled when he was first arraigned before the circuit court in October 2001, his challenge of the constitutionality of the Fast Track Court and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge purposely to review his case, up to the current stage of the case, was received by the commission.
He stated that the manifest determination of the government to ensure, without any reference to the facts and legal issues, that incarceration was the only possible outcome of the criminal proceedings against him unjustly endangered his liberty.
Consequently, he sought the intervention of the commission and urged it to invoke Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure on provisional measures and request the Republic of Ghana not to proceed further with his trial until his case had been heard by the commission.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ghartey, assisted by Marina Atuobi, Nana Serwah Acheampong, both State Attorneys, and Nicholas Fredua Kwarteng, an Assistant State Attorney, also made a submission in reply to the complaint.
He stated that the guidelines for the submission of such cases provided that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies had been exhausted and observed that Tsikata failed to provide any evidence of the domestic legal remedies pursued.
The Attorney-General further argued that Tsikata failed to meet the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, since he could not show that the procedure in the High Court had been protracted or unduly delayed.
“If, indeed, any delay has been occasioned, it would be due to the complainant’s own repeated request for adjournments and interlocutory appeals,” he said.
After Mr Tsikata’s petition was turned down, the Daily Graphic carried the story, which attracted a reaction from him that after sending the petition he did not hear from the commission again until he read its outcome in the Daily Graphic.
In his latest submission, Mr Tsikata said “The decision of the Commission that my complaint was inadmissible was made without the Commission having had the benefit of any further information or argument on admissibility from me for the simple reason that I did not receive the request from the Commission asking me to submit my arguments on admissibility.
“ The Government of Ghana, however, received their communication from the Commission and the Attorney-General responded and alleged, among other things, that I had not exhausted local remedies before submitting my communication to the Commission. My first indication of any intended communications from the Commission to me was when I read about this in a Ghanaian newspaper in January this year”, he said.
He said that after first reading from the Ghanaian newspaper that the Commission had given a decision declaring his communication inadmissible, he sent the Commission an e-mail on 26th January 2007 seeking official confirmation. “After almost a week, when I still had not had a response and when further claims were made in the newspaper about communications to me from the Commission, I sent a further e-mail to the Commission on 1st February 2007. Subsequently, on 13th February 2007, I received an e-mail with a letter dated 5th February 2007 from the Commission Secretariat notifying me officially of the decision of the Commission”, he noted.
He said he was seeking a re-consideration under Rule 118 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission of the decision of the Commission that his petition is inadmissible and added that the situation in his case was quite different from the situation the Commission encountered, for instance, in Motale Zacharia Sakwe/Cameroon 230/99 where the Commission noted “that on the surface of the complaint it appears that the complainant did not exhaust domestic remedies”.
Essentially, he said, the decision of the Commission seemed to have turned on the consideration that, while making references to “several recourses to domestic courts for redress”, I gave “no indication of the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies”.
He said after his letter of April 11, 2007 requesting a reconsideration, he received a letter from the Secretariat sent by e-mail, initially on April 24, 2007 and in a revised form on April 26, 2007, requiring him to “forward the new facts on the exhaustion of local remedies which would serve as the basis for re-opening the Communication by 10th May 2007.”
“After a decision of the Supreme Court upholding my challenge I was brought before a “normal High Court”, where my counsel objected to the charge brought against me on the basis that it infringed Article 19(5) of the Constitution which expresses the same principle as Article 7(2) of the African Charter, which read
“A person shall not be charged with or held to be guilty of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took place constitute an offence” , he said.
According to him, the objection was upheld and the judge indicated that the provision in the Constitution of Ghana was clear in its terms and he did not have to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation and enforcement.
“My counsel, at the close of the case for the prosecution, again raised, among other issues, the violation of my right not to be charged with, nor convicted of, a criminal offence based on an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was done” he said.
He said his counsel also raised the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which reflected the presumption of innocence in Article 7(1) of the African Charter but the trial judge, without giving any reasons, rejected the submission.
“Arriving at a decision of this nature without giving reasons was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Ghana as well as the African Charter. The failure of the trial judge to uphold the submission of no case at the end of the case of the prosecution was a violation of my rights under Article 7 of the African Charter.
“After the decision of the trial judge, I pursued local remedies and my counsel filed an appeal on my behalf to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, in affirming the decision of the trial judge, based itself on a repealed law as the answer to the submissions of my counsel on retroactive criminalisation”, he stated.
He acknowledged that while recourse to a repealed law which he had not even been charged under would be wrong, the majority decision of the Supreme Court claimed that the decision of the Court of Appeal was not based on the repealed law, which was obviously inconsistent with the record of the Court of Appeal judgement.
Therefore, the Supreme Court, he said, failed to enforce his rights under Articles 7 of the African Charter and again, in the exceptional circumstances where the majority decision even failed to consider the provisions of the Evidence Decree, aggrieved by the decision of the Court, he applied, through his counsel, for a review of the Supreme Court and the review panel, presided over by the Chief Justice (CJ), summarily dismissed the review application.
“By going all the way to Supreme Court of Ghana with the issues, inter alia, of retro-active criminalisation and right to fair trial which should have been enforced by the judge in the High Court upon the submission of no case, I exhausted local remedies in respect of those issues and there is no further domestic recourse available to me, hence my recourse to the Commission.
“Indeed, the Supreme Court compounded the denial of my right to a fair trial under the Charter when they decided that, at the stage of a submission of no case, the standard of proof on which the case for the prosecution should be judged by is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but a “lower standard”. This patently erroneous decision, made by the court without any reference to the statute governing the assessment of evidence in trials in Ghana, the Evidence Decree, itself was an explicit denial to me of “the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal” provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)