KOJO's DIARY
THE Accra High Court yesterday dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
In the interest of peace and order, the court did not award costs against Dr E.A. Tackie and the other applicants.
The applicants brought an action to the court to cite Dr Blankson, who was installed last year by one of the ruling houses as Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III, and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa.
But the respondents filed a motion to set aside the motion for contempt, which the court upheld and held that the respondents did not flout any order of the Regional House of Chiefs because they were unaware of any application.
According to the court, the bailiff of the house, in his testimony, said that he did not serve any of the respondents with the contempt documents and that the papers which were meant for Dr Blankson were rather served on Madam Esther Mankattah.
It said Numo Tettey and Nii Ababio were not served at all and, therefore, they were unaware of any case against them.
The court, in its decision not to award costs, took into consideration the fact that the parties were from the same family. The decision was also meant to promote peace and order.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Court to rule on Dr Anane's suit against Commission on Human Rights
KOJO's DIARY
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed March 15, 2007 for its ruling in the case in which the former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane, is seeking an order to quash the decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) against him.
That was after the court, presided over by Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, heard arguments put up by counsel for Dr Anane and CHRAJ.
On September 15, 2006, CHRAJ, in its ruling after investigating allegations of corruption, perjury and conflict of interest against the former minister, recommended, among other things, Dr Anane’s removal from office for committing perjury.
The commission, however, dismissed charges of corruption against him but found him guilty of lying under oath after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the Parliamentary Select Committee during his vetting as Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, the former minister told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
Following the CHRAJ report and public agitation, Dr Anane honourably resigned his post before he could be sacked by the President.
Dr Anane, however, on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision and the respondent accordingly filed an affidavit in opposition.
The lead counsel for Dr Anane, Mr J.K. Agyemang, urged the court to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with Dr Anane, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
According to counsel, the jurisdiction and mandate of CHRAJ as an inferior investigative body was clearly set but the commission failed to observe both constitutional and statutory provisions which specified its functions and went outside to arrogate to itself what had not been prescribed.
He said Article 230 of the Constitution, Act 456 and CI 7, for example, directed what had to be done by way of procedure on receiving complaints and the investigation of any such complaint.
Counsel said by those provisions, a complaint was vital to the commission’s work and ought to be made, either in writing or orally, to the national office of CHRAJ or its representative at the district level.
“It expects somebody to make a complaint to the commission or its representative in any of the regional or district offices and where a complaint is made in writing, it shall be signed by the complainant or his agent,” he stated.
Mr Agyemang further stated that where a complaint was made orally, the person to whom it was made should reduce it into writing before the complainant and a CHRAJ official appended their signatures to it.
In the instant case, counsel said there had been no complaint or complainant and said if the commission could make its complaint and investigate it, Parliament would not have elaborated on its functions.
He said for CHRAJ to state that it did not require any complaint to undertake its investigation offended the clear provisions in CI 7 and Act 456 and that gave the commission room to rely on newspaper reports and anonymous complaints or people who hid behind the scenes to lodge spurious complaints.
“Even people who cannot read and write have their oral complaints reduced into writing by the CHRAJ officer who receives it”, he noted, and stated that anything short of that meant the commission acted as a complainant, an investigator and a prosecutor at the same time which should not be the case.
He said the commission infringed on the Constitution in purporting to deal with Dr Anane, adding that on the issue of perjury, it did not have jurisdiction because Dr Anane was not even invited to deal with any such complaint at the commission’s hearing but in its decision it concluded that he had lied on oath.
The lead counsel for the commission, Dr P. E . Bondzi-Simpson, in his response, described Dr Anane’s application as unmeritorious and ought to be dismissed.
He dismissed the assertion by counsel for the applicant that a complaint was always required before the commission could embark on any investigation, saying it did not act out of place because it could either initiate its own investigations or investigate complaints lodged before it.
“An identifiable complainant is not required to lodge a formal complaint,” he stated, and added that that would lead to frustration of the commission’s mandate.
Dr Bondzi-Simpson, however, conceded that in the Dr Anane case, there had been no formal complaint but said that did not mean there were no issues out there which the commission could not investigate.
He argued that the commission could investigate all the allegations against Dr Anane, despite the lack of a formal complaint.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed March 15, 2007 for its ruling in the case in which the former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane, is seeking an order to quash the decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) against him.
That was after the court, presided over by Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, heard arguments put up by counsel for Dr Anane and CHRAJ.
On September 15, 2006, CHRAJ, in its ruling after investigating allegations of corruption, perjury and conflict of interest against the former minister, recommended, among other things, Dr Anane’s removal from office for committing perjury.
The commission, however, dismissed charges of corruption against him but found him guilty of lying under oath after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the Parliamentary Select Committee during his vetting as Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, the former minister told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
Following the CHRAJ report and public agitation, Dr Anane honourably resigned his post before he could be sacked by the President.
Dr Anane, however, on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision and the respondent accordingly filed an affidavit in opposition.
The lead counsel for Dr Anane, Mr J.K. Agyemang, urged the court to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with Dr Anane, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
According to counsel, the jurisdiction and mandate of CHRAJ as an inferior investigative body was clearly set but the commission failed to observe both constitutional and statutory provisions which specified its functions and went outside to arrogate to itself what had not been prescribed.
He said Article 230 of the Constitution, Act 456 and CI 7, for example, directed what had to be done by way of procedure on receiving complaints and the investigation of any such complaint.
Counsel said by those provisions, a complaint was vital to the commission’s work and ought to be made, either in writing or orally, to the national office of CHRAJ or its representative at the district level.
“It expects somebody to make a complaint to the commission or its representative in any of the regional or district offices and where a complaint is made in writing, it shall be signed by the complainant or his agent,” he stated.
Mr Agyemang further stated that where a complaint was made orally, the person to whom it was made should reduce it into writing before the complainant and a CHRAJ official appended their signatures to it.
In the instant case, counsel said there had been no complaint or complainant and said if the commission could make its complaint and investigate it, Parliament would not have elaborated on its functions.
He said for CHRAJ to state that it did not require any complaint to undertake its investigation offended the clear provisions in CI 7 and Act 456 and that gave the commission room to rely on newspaper reports and anonymous complaints or people who hid behind the scenes to lodge spurious complaints.
“Even people who cannot read and write have their oral complaints reduced into writing by the CHRAJ officer who receives it”, he noted, and stated that anything short of that meant the commission acted as a complainant, an investigator and a prosecutor at the same time which should not be the case.
He said the commission infringed on the Constitution in purporting to deal with Dr Anane, adding that on the issue of perjury, it did not have jurisdiction because Dr Anane was not even invited to deal with any such complaint at the commission’s hearing but in its decision it concluded that he had lied on oath.
The lead counsel for the commission, Dr P. E . Bondzi-Simpson, in his response, described Dr Anane’s application as unmeritorious and ought to be dismissed.
He dismissed the assertion by counsel for the applicant that a complaint was always required before the commission could embark on any investigation, saying it did not act out of place because it could either initiate its own investigations or investigate complaints lodged before it.
“An identifiable complainant is not required to lodge a formal complaint,” he stated, and added that that would lead to frustration of the commission’s mandate.
Dr Bondzi-Simpson, however, conceded that in the Dr Anane case, there had been no formal complaint but said that did not mean there were no issues out there which the commission could not investigate.
He argued that the commission could investigate all the allegations against Dr Anane, despite the lack of a formal complaint.
Ga Mantse case hottens up
KOJO's DIARY
THE Accra High Court will on February 14, 2007 determine whether or not the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs has jurisdiction to entertain four petitions brought before it against the enstoolment of Dr Jo Blankson as the Ga Mantse.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Abada, fixed the date today after the completion of arguments in an application on notice for an order of certiorari and prohibition brought by Dr Blankson and his head of family, Nii Akropong III.
The action was against the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs and four interested parties, namely, Dr E.A. Tackie and three others, Winston Nii Teiko Tackie and two others, Nii Agyemankese IV and three others and Nii Owula Kpakpa Blofonyo, a sole petitioner.
That application is one of the issues before the courts in connection with the enstoolment of Dr Blankson last year by one of the ruling houses as the Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III.
Earlier on Tuesday, another Accra High Court dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
The applicants brought the action to cite Dr Blankson and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa to enstool Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse.
Nii Willie Amafio, counsel for Dr Blankson in his argument said while the petitions before the Regional House of Chiefs lacked merit, the House also did not have jurisdiction to entertain or deal with a patently incompetent matter such as the petition.
He said the House of Chiefs dealt with issues related to Chieftaincy and since the petitioners sued Dr Blankson in his personal capacity and not as King Tackie Tawiah III or the Ga Mantse, the petition against him was flawed and at the wrong place.
Similarly, he argued that in the case of Nii Akropong, he was a mere head of family and not a .
"If they had sued Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse then it would have made the House of Chiefs the appropriate forum for the petition, counsel stated and added that the co-respondent, Nii Akropong was also not a chief.
Nii Amafio said the petitioners also lacked the capacity of kingmakers of the Ga state to sue for destoolment and with regard to Dr Tackie and George Nii Tackie, two of the interested party, they contested in the nomination of the Ga Mantse and lost.
Therefore, he said, that stopped them from taking part in any such action.
In the course of the argument tempers flared when Nii Amafio linked Dr Tackie to the contest and said Dr Tackie prepared a Curriculum Vitae for his son to enable him to take part in the contest for the Ga Mantse.
That drew a sharp shout of "liar" from Dr Tackie who was seated in the crowd. The judge, however, calmed down tempers and threatened that the court was not a palace, therefore, anybody found in contempt of it would be sentenced to two days' imprisonment.
Reacting to the submissions, Mr A.G. Buadu, counsel for Nii Blofonyo prayed the court to dismiss the application because it was incompetent while the issue of capacity, referred to by counsel for the respondents, should be left with the appropriate adjudicating body to handle.
Mr Ben Akuette, counsel for Dr Tackie and others and Nii Tackie and others, said the petitions before the House of Chiefs were proper and within the jurisdiction of the House.
According to him, although Dr Blankson and Nii Akropong were not paramount chiefs they purported to have enstooled a Ga Mantse, and, therefore, the issue related to Chieftaincy.
"They attempted to elect a Ga Mantse and so the Regional House of Chiefs is the proper forum for the petitions", he told the court.
The Nii Agyemankese party was not represented in court.
THE Accra High Court will on February 14, 2007 determine whether or not the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs has jurisdiction to entertain four petitions brought before it against the enstoolment of Dr Jo Blankson as the Ga Mantse.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Abada, fixed the date today after the completion of arguments in an application on notice for an order of certiorari and prohibition brought by Dr Blankson and his head of family, Nii Akropong III.
The action was against the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs and four interested parties, namely, Dr E.A. Tackie and three others, Winston Nii Teiko Tackie and two others, Nii Agyemankese IV and three others and Nii Owula Kpakpa Blofonyo, a sole petitioner.
That application is one of the issues before the courts in connection with the enstoolment of Dr Blankson last year by one of the ruling houses as the Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III.
Earlier on Tuesday, another Accra High Court dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
The applicants brought the action to cite Dr Blankson and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa to enstool Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse.
Nii Willie Amafio, counsel for Dr Blankson in his argument said while the petitions before the Regional House of Chiefs lacked merit, the House also did not have jurisdiction to entertain or deal with a patently incompetent matter such as the petition.
He said the House of Chiefs dealt with issues related to Chieftaincy and since the petitioners sued Dr Blankson in his personal capacity and not as King Tackie Tawiah III or the Ga Mantse, the petition against him was flawed and at the wrong place.
Similarly, he argued that in the case of Nii Akropong, he was a mere head of family and not a .
"If they had sued Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse then it would have made the House of Chiefs the appropriate forum for the petition, counsel stated and added that the co-respondent, Nii Akropong was also not a chief.
Nii Amafio said the petitioners also lacked the capacity of kingmakers of the Ga state to sue for destoolment and with regard to Dr Tackie and George Nii Tackie, two of the interested party, they contested in the nomination of the Ga Mantse and lost.
Therefore, he said, that stopped them from taking part in any such action.
In the course of the argument tempers flared when Nii Amafio linked Dr Tackie to the contest and said Dr Tackie prepared a Curriculum Vitae for his son to enable him to take part in the contest for the Ga Mantse.
That drew a sharp shout of "liar" from Dr Tackie who was seated in the crowd. The judge, however, calmed down tempers and threatened that the court was not a palace, therefore, anybody found in contempt of it would be sentenced to two days' imprisonment.
Reacting to the submissions, Mr A.G. Buadu, counsel for Nii Blofonyo prayed the court to dismiss the application because it was incompetent while the issue of capacity, referred to by counsel for the respondents, should be left with the appropriate adjudicating body to handle.
Mr Ben Akuette, counsel for Dr Tackie and others and Nii Tackie and others, said the petitions before the House of Chiefs were proper and within the jurisdiction of the House.
According to him, although Dr Blankson and Nii Akropong were not paramount chiefs they purported to have enstooled a Ga Mantse, and, therefore, the issue related to Chieftaincy.
"They attempted to elect a Ga Mantse and so the Regional House of Chiefs is the proper forum for the petitions", he told the court.
The Nii Agyemankese party was not represented in court.
Ex GNPC boss accuses African Human Rights Commission
KOJO's DIARY
THE former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, has taken a swipe at the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights for being bias in its ruling on his complaint of unfair trial for causing financial loss to the state.
According to him, after he sent his complaint to the commission in April 2006, he never received any acknowledgement whatsoever but only read the decision of the commission on the matter from the Daily Graphic, apparently after the Republic had raised a preliminary objection.
“I have never received an acknowledgement of receipt nor have I been notified of any further steps in respect of the matter,” he said in a reaction he sent to the commission on January 26, 2007.
He expressed surprise at reading the commission’s decision in respect of his complaint.
However, according to the commission, in its decision, Mr Tsikata’s complaint was acknowledged by a letter ACHPR/LP/COM/322/2006/RE of May 2, 2006, providing the references of the complaint and in which he was informed of the scheduled consideration of the matter at the commission’s 38th Ordinary Session to be held in May that year in Banjul.
Furthermore, on June 1, 2006, the commission said it informed the parties of that decision and asked them to provide it with more information on the admissibility of the complaint, in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter.
It also requested the parties to send their written observations to the secretariat within three months after notification of the decision and on August 31, 2006 and September 5, 2006, the secretariat received the submissions of the Republic of Ghana by fax and by mail respectively.
Mr Tsikata said he had never been aware that the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice had raised a preliminary objection, nor that there would be consideration of his complaint at a meeting at which the Attorney-General and his team would be present.
The story in the Daily Graphic actually said the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe 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, which suggested that they were not present when the decision was taken at the commission’s 40th Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia.
Mr Tsikata said it had been his intention to send a supplement to his complaint of April 23, 2006 which would certainly have addressed what appeared to have been a preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General and made it clear that the objection was without merit.
The former GNPC boss asked the commission to furnish him with a copy of the decision, as well as a copy of the preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General.
The commission turned down Mr Tsikata’s complaint 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 Tsikata was yet to exhaust all the local remedies available to him.
In the light of the submissions, the commission noted that 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.
The commission, on April 27, 2006, received 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.
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.
THE former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, has taken a swipe at the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights for being bias in its ruling on his complaint of unfair trial for causing financial loss to the state.
According to him, after he sent his complaint to the commission in April 2006, he never received any acknowledgement whatsoever but only read the decision of the commission on the matter from the Daily Graphic, apparently after the Republic had raised a preliminary objection.
“I have never received an acknowledgement of receipt nor have I been notified of any further steps in respect of the matter,” he said in a reaction he sent to the commission on January 26, 2007.
He expressed surprise at reading the commission’s decision in respect of his complaint.
However, according to the commission, in its decision, Mr Tsikata’s complaint was acknowledged by a letter ACHPR/LP/COM/322/2006/RE of May 2, 2006, providing the references of the complaint and in which he was informed of the scheduled consideration of the matter at the commission’s 38th Ordinary Session to be held in May that year in Banjul.
Furthermore, on June 1, 2006, the commission said it informed the parties of that decision and asked them to provide it with more information on the admissibility of the complaint, in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter.
It also requested the parties to send their written observations to the secretariat within three months after notification of the decision and on August 31, 2006 and September 5, 2006, the secretariat received the submissions of the Republic of Ghana by fax and by mail respectively.
Mr Tsikata said he had never been aware that the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice had raised a preliminary objection, nor that there would be consideration of his complaint at a meeting at which the Attorney-General and his team would be present.
The story in the Daily Graphic actually said the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe 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, which suggested that they were not present when the decision was taken at the commission’s 40th Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia.
Mr Tsikata said it had been his intention to send a supplement to his complaint of April 23, 2006 which would certainly have addressed what appeared to have been a preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General and made it clear that the objection was without merit.
The former GNPC boss asked the commission to furnish him with a copy of the decision, as well as a copy of the preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General.
The commission turned down Mr Tsikata’s complaint 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 Tsikata was yet to exhaust all the local remedies available to him.
In the light of the submissions, the commission noted that 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.
The commission, on April 27, 2006, received 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.
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.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Imposter jailed
KOJO's DIARY
A foreman who faked being one of the good friends of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and succeeded in duping an agronomist of ¢30 million on the pretext of getting him a police auction vehicle has been jailed two years by the Nsawam magistrate court.
The convict, Samuel Alex Bature, informed his victim that the Police Administration was auctioning some vehicles and as a best friend of the IGP, he could assist him to get one.
He, however, bolted after collecting the ¢30 million from his victim.
The facts of the case as presented by Police Inspector Alex Cosmos were that the convict worked with Boateng Stone Quarry at Ahodwo, near Nsawam, while the complainant was an agronomist.
He said in March last year, Bature informed the complainant that the IGP was his best friend and that the Police Administration was auctioning some vehicles.
The prosecutor said Bature collected ¢15 million from the complainant and in return gave him a fake mobile phone number as that of the IGP.
He said Bature told the complainant that the IGP would call him and succeeded in collecting additional ¢15 million.
Inspector Cosmos said later, Bature brought a letter to the complainant to sign, assuring the complainant that the vehicle was ready but Bature could not deliver the vehicle.
Efforts by the complainant to collect his money proved futile hence his decision to make a report to the police.
A foreman who faked being one of the good friends of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and succeeded in duping an agronomist of ¢30 million on the pretext of getting him a police auction vehicle has been jailed two years by the Nsawam magistrate court.
The convict, Samuel Alex Bature, informed his victim that the Police Administration was auctioning some vehicles and as a best friend of the IGP, he could assist him to get one.
He, however, bolted after collecting the ¢30 million from his victim.
The facts of the case as presented by Police Inspector Alex Cosmos were that the convict worked with Boateng Stone Quarry at Ahodwo, near Nsawam, while the complainant was an agronomist.
He said in March last year, Bature informed the complainant that the IGP was his best friend and that the Police Administration was auctioning some vehicles.
The prosecutor said Bature collected ¢15 million from the complainant and in return gave him a fake mobile phone number as that of the IGP.
He said Bature told the complainant that the IGP would call him and succeeded in collecting additional ¢15 million.
Inspector Cosmos said later, Bature brought a letter to the complainant to sign, assuring the complainant that the vehicle was ready but Bature could not deliver the vehicle.
Efforts by the complainant to collect his money proved futile hence his decision to make a report to the police.
VRA battle ready
KOJO's DIARY
THE Volta River Authority (VRA) has filed a counter statement at the Accra Fast Track Court to engage in a legal battle with its former Chief Executive, Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, over his ¢2 billion claim in outstanding entitlements.
The trial judge, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, announced yesterday at the first hearing of the case that the VRA filed its counter statement on Wednesday afternoon and, therefore, he was adjourning the matter.
However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Akoto Ampaw, asked for costs, since, according to him, the suit was filed in December last year for the case to be called later that month.
He argued that the defendant had enough time at its disposal to have filed its defence but it did not do so.
Counsel for the VRA, Mr Kwame Yeboah, said a strict look at the time indicated that the defence was not out of time in the sense that there was a vacation during the period.
The judge intervened and stated that the defence had ample time within which it ought to have filed the statement.
In the end, the application for costs was waived and the case was adjourned to February 6, 2007.
Although the document was not made available to the Daily Graphic, indications were that the authority was not ready to meet the plaintiff’s demand, since he resigned his position without sufficient notice to the authority.
Mr Yeboah, who said he needed the consent of his client before giving out the document, however, stated that the plaintiff did not deserve his claim because he worked for less than two years with the VRA.
If anything at all, he said, it was the plaintiff who ought to have paid the authority some money in lieu of the inadequate notice before his resignation.
Asked why the VRA committed itself and entered into an arrangement with the plaintiff over the payment of his claims, counsel explained that that was subject to review by VRA auditors.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, an energy expert, was, until his separation from the VRA on September 17, 2003, the chief executive of the defendant company whose principal functions include the generation of electrical power in the country.
He is also claiming interest on the entitlement from April 2004 to the date of final payment at the prevailing bank rate, as well as the transfer of ownership of an official car assigned to him, a Volvo saloon, with registration number GW 2505 T.
The plaintiff said it took the VRA considerable time, after his separation from the authority and only consequent upon several demands from him, to eventually write to him formally about his separation entitlements.
He said the VRA letter, dated April 1, 2004, notified him that he was entitled to the cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of resignation in the sum of ¢61,193,560.60, six months’ salary in lieu of notice in the sum of ¢187,949,999.98, as well as ¢1,878,500,000 in gratuity for five years.
The rest include the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from January to March 31, 2004 in the sum of ¢2,665,065.56 and a transfer to him of the ownership of his officially assigned vehicle, although he has the vehicle in his possession.
THE Volta River Authority (VRA) has filed a counter statement at the Accra Fast Track Court to engage in a legal battle with its former Chief Executive, Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, over his ¢2 billion claim in outstanding entitlements.
The trial judge, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, announced yesterday at the first hearing of the case that the VRA filed its counter statement on Wednesday afternoon and, therefore, he was adjourning the matter.
However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Akoto Ampaw, asked for costs, since, according to him, the suit was filed in December last year for the case to be called later that month.
He argued that the defendant had enough time at its disposal to have filed its defence but it did not do so.
Counsel for the VRA, Mr Kwame Yeboah, said a strict look at the time indicated that the defence was not out of time in the sense that there was a vacation during the period.
The judge intervened and stated that the defence had ample time within which it ought to have filed the statement.
In the end, the application for costs was waived and the case was adjourned to February 6, 2007.
Although the document was not made available to the Daily Graphic, indications were that the authority was not ready to meet the plaintiff’s demand, since he resigned his position without sufficient notice to the authority.
Mr Yeboah, who said he needed the consent of his client before giving out the document, however, stated that the plaintiff did not deserve his claim because he worked for less than two years with the VRA.
If anything at all, he said, it was the plaintiff who ought to have paid the authority some money in lieu of the inadequate notice before his resignation.
Asked why the VRA committed itself and entered into an arrangement with the plaintiff over the payment of his claims, counsel explained that that was subject to review by VRA auditors.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, an energy expert, was, until his separation from the VRA on September 17, 2003, the chief executive of the defendant company whose principal functions include the generation of electrical power in the country.
He is also claiming interest on the entitlement from April 2004 to the date of final payment at the prevailing bank rate, as well as the transfer of ownership of an official car assigned to him, a Volvo saloon, with registration number GW 2505 T.
The plaintiff said it took the VRA considerable time, after his separation from the authority and only consequent upon several demands from him, to eventually write to him formally about his separation entitlements.
He said the VRA letter, dated April 1, 2004, notified him that he was entitled to the cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of resignation in the sum of ¢61,193,560.60, six months’ salary in lieu of notice in the sum of ¢187,949,999.98, as well as ¢1,878,500,000 in gratuity for five years.
The rest include the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from January to March 31, 2004 in the sum of ¢2,665,065.56 and a transfer to him of the ownership of his officially assigned vehicle, although he has the vehicle in his possession.
VRA CEO battles in court
THE former chief executive of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, is wrestling the energy company in court over ¢2 billion in outstanding entitlements.
He is also claiming interest on the entitlement from April 2004 to the date of final payment at the prevailing bank rate, as well as the transfer of ownership of an official car assigned to him, a Volvo saloon, with registration number GW 2505 T.
The Accra Fast Track Court 1 will today begin hearing the case, which was filed in November last year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, an energy expert, was, until his separation from the VRA on September 17, 2003, chief executive of the defendant company whose principal functions include the generation of electrical power in the country.
He said it took the VRA considerable time, after his separation from the authority and only consequent upon several demands from him, to eventually write to him formally about his separation entitlements.
The VRA letter, dated April 1, 2004, he said, notified him that he was entitled to the cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of resignation in the sum of ¢61,193,560.60, six months’ salary in lieu of notice in the sum of ¢187,949,999.98, as well as ¢1,878,500,000 in gratuity for five years.
The rest include the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from January to March 31, 2004 in the sum of ¢2,665,065.56 and a transfer to him of the ownership of his officially assigned vehicle, although he has the vehicle in his possession.
According to his statement of claim, the VRA, per its April 1, 2004 letter, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlement by mid-April 2004 and the remaining 30 per cent when he vacated the institutional premises of the authority.
However, he said, the VRA reneged on its arrangement without paying the 70 per cent as a condition for him to vacate the VRA premises and thus he was unable to vacate the premises as agreed upon.
Dr Wereko-Brobby stated that the delay on the part of the VRA in paying his entitlement persisted into 2005 when he, on January 1, 2005, decided to vacate the premises, although he had not been paid.
He said notwithstanding extended correspondence on the matter with the VRA, to date the authority had, contrary to its own undertaking, failed and or refused to pay him his entitlement.
To him, it was clear that unless compelled by a court of competent jurisdiction to so do, the VRA would not and did not intend to pay him what was due him.
He is also claiming interest on the entitlement from April 2004 to the date of final payment at the prevailing bank rate, as well as the transfer of ownership of an official car assigned to him, a Volvo saloon, with registration number GW 2505 T.
The Accra Fast Track Court 1 will today begin hearing the case, which was filed in November last year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, an energy expert, was, until his separation from the VRA on September 17, 2003, chief executive of the defendant company whose principal functions include the generation of electrical power in the country.
He said it took the VRA considerable time, after his separation from the authority and only consequent upon several demands from him, to eventually write to him formally about his separation entitlements.
The VRA letter, dated April 1, 2004, he said, notified him that he was entitled to the cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of resignation in the sum of ¢61,193,560.60, six months’ salary in lieu of notice in the sum of ¢187,949,999.98, as well as ¢1,878,500,000 in gratuity for five years.
The rest include the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from January to March 31, 2004 in the sum of ¢2,665,065.56 and a transfer to him of the ownership of his officially assigned vehicle, although he has the vehicle in his possession.
According to his statement of claim, the VRA, per its April 1, 2004 letter, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlement by mid-April 2004 and the remaining 30 per cent when he vacated the institutional premises of the authority.
However, he said, the VRA reneged on its arrangement without paying the 70 per cent as a condition for him to vacate the VRA premises and thus he was unable to vacate the premises as agreed upon.
Dr Wereko-Brobby stated that the delay on the part of the VRA in paying his entitlement persisted into 2005 when he, on January 1, 2005, decided to vacate the premises, although he had not been paid.
He said notwithstanding extended correspondence on the matter with the VRA, to date the authority had, contrary to its own undertaking, failed and or refused to pay him his entitlement.
To him, it was clear that unless compelled by a court of competent jurisdiction to so do, the VRA would not and did not intend to pay him what was due him.
KOJO's DIARY
KOJO's DIARY
THE husband of Rosita Dosoo, the Cuban Secretary of the fugitive, David Duarte Vasquez, yesterday told the Fast Track Court that he was given a letter by Vasquez to be given to immigration officials at the airport to grant entry visa to Joel Meija Duarte Moises, his cousin.
Mr Noble Bright Dosoo said when he went to the airport he met Moises and after paying the required fee of $100, he was granted the visa which enabled him to stay in the country for 15 days.
He was testifying in the case in which Moises, also known as Joel Melia, a machine operator, is standing trial with Italo Gervasio Rosero Castillo, alias Cabeza Castina, a businessman. They are alleged to have imported 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country.
David Duarte Vasquez, a third accomplice, is on the run.
The accused persons do not speak English and their trial is being facilitated through a Spanish interpreter.
They have pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, illegal importation of narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
They were arrested in a house at East Legon, Accra, on November 24, 2005, while allegedly preparing the substance.
Mr Dosoo stated that the last time he saw Moises was when he led him through the final exit point at the airport where he met Vasquez and handed Moises over to him.
Led in evidence by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the witness said he became associated with Compinchex, a company owned by Vasquez through his wife, who was Vasquez’s secretary.
According to him, he went to visit his wife in her office one day when he met Vasquez who told him that he had given an assignment to his wife but since he was around it would be better he did that for him.
Following that meeting, Mr Dosoo said Vasquez gave him a letter which he took to the airport to secure an entry visa for Moises who he knew as a cousin of Vasquez.
He said at the airport, he told immigration officials that he was expecting someone he did not know but whose name he had.
The witness said the officials directed him to a certain room where entry visa was supposed to be issued and while there he found Moises seated before an immigration officer.
He said after he had told the officer about his mission, the officer told him that the person he was talking about was the one seated in front of him.
He said Moises was asked to pay $100, which he did and he was granted the visa which indicated that Moises could stay in the country for 15 days.
“After that I then accompanied him to the final exit point together with his baggage and handed him over to his cousin and parted company”, he stated and added that at that time Moises had his passport in his breast pocket.
Mr Dosoo said that was the first time that anybody had been brought into the country under such a circumstance by Compinchex.
Counsel for the accused persons, Mr Kwabla Senanu, did not cross-examine the witness.
Earlier, a police detective, Corporal Emmanuel Commey, who was part of the police team which effected the arrest of the accused persons on November 24, 2005, testified.
The court adjourned the hearing to February 7, 2007 and directed the registrar to write to the Institute of Languages to engage the services of another Spanish interpreter.
THE husband of Rosita Dosoo, the Cuban Secretary of the fugitive, David Duarte Vasquez, yesterday told the Fast Track Court that he was given a letter by Vasquez to be given to immigration officials at the airport to grant entry visa to Joel Meija Duarte Moises, his cousin.
Mr Noble Bright Dosoo said when he went to the airport he met Moises and after paying the required fee of $100, he was granted the visa which enabled him to stay in the country for 15 days.
He was testifying in the case in which Moises, also known as Joel Melia, a machine operator, is standing trial with Italo Gervasio Rosero Castillo, alias Cabeza Castina, a businessman. They are alleged to have imported 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country.
David Duarte Vasquez, a third accomplice, is on the run.
The accused persons do not speak English and their trial is being facilitated through a Spanish interpreter.
They have pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, illegal importation of narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
They were arrested in a house at East Legon, Accra, on November 24, 2005, while allegedly preparing the substance.
Mr Dosoo stated that the last time he saw Moises was when he led him through the final exit point at the airport where he met Vasquez and handed Moises over to him.
Led in evidence by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the witness said he became associated with Compinchex, a company owned by Vasquez through his wife, who was Vasquez’s secretary.
According to him, he went to visit his wife in her office one day when he met Vasquez who told him that he had given an assignment to his wife but since he was around it would be better he did that for him.
Following that meeting, Mr Dosoo said Vasquez gave him a letter which he took to the airport to secure an entry visa for Moises who he knew as a cousin of Vasquez.
He said at the airport, he told immigration officials that he was expecting someone he did not know but whose name he had.
The witness said the officials directed him to a certain room where entry visa was supposed to be issued and while there he found Moises seated before an immigration officer.
He said after he had told the officer about his mission, the officer told him that the person he was talking about was the one seated in front of him.
He said Moises was asked to pay $100, which he did and he was granted the visa which indicated that Moises could stay in the country for 15 days.
“After that I then accompanied him to the final exit point together with his baggage and handed him over to his cousin and parted company”, he stated and added that at that time Moises had his passport in his breast pocket.
Mr Dosoo said that was the first time that anybody had been brought into the country under such a circumstance by Compinchex.
Counsel for the accused persons, Mr Kwabla Senanu, did not cross-examine the witness.
Earlier, a police detective, Corporal Emmanuel Commey, who was part of the police team which effected the arrest of the accused persons on November 24, 2005, testified.
The court adjourned the hearing to February 7, 2007 and directed the registrar to write to the Institute of Languages to engage the services of another Spanish interpreter.
KOJO's DIARY
KOJO's DIARY
THE two Chinese facing trial alongside four others in the MV Benjamin cocaine case at the Accra Fast Track High Court now have a counsel to represent them.
The counsel, Mr Solomon Korli, announced his presence in court yesterday when it was the turn of Isaac Arhin and Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons, to cross-examine a prosecution witness, Mr Kingsley Inkum.
The plight of the two Chinese, namely, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, came to the fore during the court’s sitting on January 16, 2007 when the judge and defence counsel expressed reservations about how the inability of the two accused persons to engage the services of lawyers to represent them was impacting on the speedy disposal of the case.
The rest of the accused persons are the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, and Pak Bok Sil, a Korean.
All six accused persons are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes, into the country.
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.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006, while Sil, an engineer, was alleged to have, from December 15, 2005 to February 2006, repaired the vessel in readiness for sail from Takoradi to the high seas to convey 77 parcels of cocaine.
Isaac, a sailor, Philip, a mechanic, Li, a vessel engineer, and Xing, a sailor, were alleged to have, between February 27, 2006 and April 27, 2006, worked on the vessel as members of its crew and sailed from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine to Tema.
The four were also alleged to have had in their possession, without lawful authority, one parcel of cocaine containing 30 slabs, with each slab weighing one kilogramme.
During cross-examination by Mr Korli, who stood in for Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for the Arhin brothers, Mr Inkum said Isaac had been his very good friend, having met him 15 years ago.
The hearing was adjourned to January 29, 2007.
In a related development, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying Prince Tsibu Darko, the Tema-based businessman accused of exporting 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe, adjourned the case to February 27, 2007.
The prosecution asked for the adjournment because it was wrapping up its investigations into the matter.
According to the prosecution, investigations were still going on, while it was working on some leads it had received.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice J. Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, has granted the accused person a ¢1 billion bail with two sureties to be justified.
It, however, ordered the accused person to surrender his passport and any travel document to the registrar of the court before the execution of the bail and also report himself to the police investigator at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service every Wednesday until otherwise directed.
Darko is facing one count of engaging in business related to narcotic drugs and, according to the facts of the case, in the middle of 2005 he allegedly exported 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe without lawful authority.
Darko was first remanded by the Fast Track Court on November 23, 2006, almost 72 hours after another High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abada, had granted him bail in the sum of ¢5 billion with two sureties.
The High Court, on November 20, 2006, granted the accused person bail after his counsel had made an application to that effect but the prosecution had earlier that day entered a nolle prosequi at the circuit court, resulting in the discharge of the accused person.
He was, however, not released on bail because the prosecution preferred fresh charges against him after entering the nolle prosequi at the circuit court.
THE two Chinese facing trial alongside four others in the MV Benjamin cocaine case at the Accra Fast Track High Court now have a counsel to represent them.
The counsel, Mr Solomon Korli, announced his presence in court yesterday when it was the turn of Isaac Arhin and Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons, to cross-examine a prosecution witness, Mr Kingsley Inkum.
The plight of the two Chinese, namely, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, came to the fore during the court’s sitting on January 16, 2007 when the judge and defence counsel expressed reservations about how the inability of the two accused persons to engage the services of lawyers to represent them was impacting on the speedy disposal of the case.
The rest of the accused persons are the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, and Pak Bok Sil, a Korean.
All six accused persons are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes, into the country.
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.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006, while Sil, an engineer, was alleged to have, from December 15, 2005 to February 2006, repaired the vessel in readiness for sail from Takoradi to the high seas to convey 77 parcels of cocaine.
Isaac, a sailor, Philip, a mechanic, Li, a vessel engineer, and Xing, a sailor, were alleged to have, between February 27, 2006 and April 27, 2006, worked on the vessel as members of its crew and sailed from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine to Tema.
The four were also alleged to have had in their possession, without lawful authority, one parcel of cocaine containing 30 slabs, with each slab weighing one kilogramme.
During cross-examination by Mr Korli, who stood in for Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for the Arhin brothers, Mr Inkum said Isaac had been his very good friend, having met him 15 years ago.
The hearing was adjourned to January 29, 2007.
In a related development, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying Prince Tsibu Darko, the Tema-based businessman accused of exporting 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe, adjourned the case to February 27, 2007.
The prosecution asked for the adjournment because it was wrapping up its investigations into the matter.
According to the prosecution, investigations were still going on, while it was working on some leads it had received.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice J. Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, has granted the accused person a ¢1 billion bail with two sureties to be justified.
It, however, ordered the accused person to surrender his passport and any travel document to the registrar of the court before the execution of the bail and also report himself to the police investigator at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service every Wednesday until otherwise directed.
Darko is facing one count of engaging in business related to narcotic drugs and, according to the facts of the case, in the middle of 2005 he allegedly exported 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe without lawful authority.
Darko was first remanded by the Fast Track Court on November 23, 2006, almost 72 hours after another High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abada, had granted him bail in the sum of ¢5 billion with two sureties.
The High Court, on November 20, 2006, granted the accused person bail after his counsel had made an application to that effect but the prosecution had earlier that day entered a nolle prosequi at the circuit court, resulting in the discharge of the accused person.
He was, however, not released on bail because the prosecution preferred fresh charges against him after entering the nolle prosequi at the circuit court.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Tsikata appeals
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
For the second time, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tsatsu Tsikata, had to adjourn judgement in the case.
The court clerk informed parties in the case that the court had fixed the judgemnt for February 22, 2007 because of a notice of appeal it had received from the accused.
On December 7, 2006, judgement in the case was similarily deferred by the trial court because the Court of Appeal had on the previous day fixed December 19, 2006 to give its ruling in the appeal filed by the former GNPC boss to compel the IFC to testify in the case.
Tsikata lost his appeal to compel the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to testify in the case in which he has been charged with causing financial loss to the state but immediately after the Court of Appeal’s unanimous verdict, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
By the rules of the court the accused after the Supreme Court decision has another option of a review should the verdict not go his way. This is likely to extend the judgement.
According to Tsikata, the statutory provisions in respect of the immunity of the IFC, among other reasons, were misrepresented by the Court of Appeal.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a panel member, read the verdict but the court was presided over by Mr Justice S. E. Kanyoke, with Mr Justice F. Kusi Appiah as the other member.
The court had earlier on, on November 29, 2006, dismissed an application filed by the appellant praying the court to make the IFC party to his appeal.
The case had suffered various fates following a resort to the law by the defence and Tuesday’s was no exception, since the outcome of the Supreme Court decision could affect the judgement in the high-profile case which has been pending since 2002.
The Fast Track Court, on January 24, 2006, ruled that the IFC, its employees and assets were immune from judicial processes and, therefore, it could not be called to testify in the matter which Tsikata believed was crucial to his defence.
The court held that if the IFC was not prepared to waive its immunity, the court could not compel it to do so.
Tsikata requested the Court of Appeal to set aside decisions of the trial court and order the IFC to appear, testify and produce documents in its custody in respect of the funding of studies conducted on the Valley Farms project.
The former chief executive of the GNPC 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.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in her duty, since the position taken by the IFC was in support of Legislative Notification (L.N.) 9 which granted the IFC immunity, and said if the IFC and its directors were unwilling to waive that immunity, the court could not do otherwise.
According to the court, its refusal to grant the appeal would not endanger the case of the appellant to warrant the occasion of injustice and fair trial because the rights of the appellant were subject to those of others.
For the second time, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tsatsu Tsikata, had to adjourn judgement in the case.
The court clerk informed parties in the case that the court had fixed the judgemnt for February 22, 2007 because of a notice of appeal it had received from the accused.
On December 7, 2006, judgement in the case was similarily deferred by the trial court because the Court of Appeal had on the previous day fixed December 19, 2006 to give its ruling in the appeal filed by the former GNPC boss to compel the IFC to testify in the case.
Tsikata lost his appeal to compel the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to testify in the case in which he has been charged with causing financial loss to the state but immediately after the Court of Appeal’s unanimous verdict, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
By the rules of the court the accused after the Supreme Court decision has another option of a review should the verdict not go his way. This is likely to extend the judgement.
According to Tsikata, the statutory provisions in respect of the immunity of the IFC, among other reasons, were misrepresented by the Court of Appeal.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a panel member, read the verdict but the court was presided over by Mr Justice S. E. Kanyoke, with Mr Justice F. Kusi Appiah as the other member.
The court had earlier on, on November 29, 2006, dismissed an application filed by the appellant praying the court to make the IFC party to his appeal.
The case had suffered various fates following a resort to the law by the defence and Tuesday’s was no exception, since the outcome of the Supreme Court decision could affect the judgement in the high-profile case which has been pending since 2002.
The Fast Track Court, on January 24, 2006, ruled that the IFC, its employees and assets were immune from judicial processes and, therefore, it could not be called to testify in the matter which Tsikata believed was crucial to his defence.
The court held that if the IFC was not prepared to waive its immunity, the court could not compel it to do so.
Tsikata requested the Court of Appeal to set aside decisions of the trial court and order the IFC to appear, testify and produce documents in its custody in respect of the funding of studies conducted on the Valley Farms project.
The former chief executive of the GNPC 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.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in her duty, since the position taken by the IFC was in support of Legislative Notification (L.N.) 9 which granted the IFC immunity, and said if the IFC and its directors were unwilling to waive that immunity, the court could not do otherwise.
According to the court, its refusal to grant the appeal would not endanger the case of the appellant to warrant the occasion of injustice and fair trial because the rights of the appellant were subject to those of others.
Coke suspect gets bail
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday granted bail in the sum of ¢1 billion with two sureties to be justified to Prince Tsibu Darko, the Tema-based businessman accused of exporting 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice J. Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, however, ordered the accused person to surrender his passport and any travel document to the registrar of the court before the execution of the bail.
It further ordered the accused person to report himself to the police investigator at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service every Wednesday until otherwise directed.
The Medical Director of the Nyaho Clinic, where the accused has been on admission, is also to inform the court whenever the accused is discharged or transferred to another hospital.
The substantive case stands adjourned until January 24, 2007.
Darko was admitted to bail following a fresh application filed by his counsel, Mr Gabriel Pwamang, and argued on January 4, 2007, the ruling of which was fixed for yesterday.
Darko is facing one count of engaging in business related to narcotic drugs and, according to the facts of the case, in the middle of 2005 he allegedly exported 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe without lawful authority.
Earlier on December 22, 2006, the court had refused him bail after a similar application had been made. It was rejected on the grounds that the defence team did not provide sufficient evidence on the accused person’s ill-health to warrant the court to grant him bail.
In dismissing that application, the court held that the defence team should have furnished it with details of the medical report on the accused person and that anything short of that was not sufficient indication to prove that there was a medical emergency for the court to grant bail.
The court, however, gave the defence the chance to support its application with sufficient proof on the accused person’s health.
Following that, the defence made the latest application with supporting affidavits and exhibits of medical reports and prayed that the accused person be admitted to bail because his condition was deteriorating, while the prosecution did not have the facts to prosecute the case.
The prosecution did not oppose the application because of the ill-health of the accused and the fact that investigations into the matter had not been completed.
The lead counsel for the accused, Mr Pwamang, said his client had been in detention since August 9, 2006 when he was arrested, at the instance of the prosecution, for the purpose of concluding investigations into the matter.
“While it is lawful, it is taking a toll on the health of the accused person whose health is getting worse,” counsel said, and added that the accused even collapsed in police detention and had to be rushed to the Nyaho Clinic in Accra where he had still been on admission.
Responding, a Senior State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisa, said the prosecution was not opposed to bail on the grounds that investigations into the matter were going on, coupled with the accused person’s ill health.
Mr Justice Dotse reminded the prosecutor that the accused was brought before the court in November last year on very scanty facts, with the explanation that investigations were ongoing, and asked whether the investigations had revealed any new facts.
He asked the prosecutor to confer with the police investigator as to whether some headway had been made but Mrs Obuobisa, after conferring, said the prosecution had had some leads but that most of the information was beyond the territorial borders of the country.
In his ruling yesterday, Mr Justice Dotse said he did not find any legislative support to the effect that when an accused was standing trial and was in custody, he or she should be granted bail because of ill-health, adding that that was inconsistent with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The hospital, he said, was the best place for the accused person.
He was of the view that the Nyaho Clinic was one of the hospitals with the best health facilities and, therefore, it was dangerous to grant bail in such an application, especially in a country like Ghana where it was not difficult to procure fake medical reports.
Mr Justice Dotse, however, referred to a Supreme Court decision that gave the court discretion to handle matters of such nature when there was an authentic medical report, but he declined to grant bail based on that ground.
On the second ground of lack of factual basis for the trial of the accused person, the judge said it was also the court’s duty to determine whether the facts of the case supported the charge or not.
From the facts of the case, he ruled that the prosecution was not ready to continue with the case, arguing that if the accused person had been intercepted with the 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine, why then was not the prosecution ready to name the country in which the accused person was arrested, the trawler or ship on which the drugs were intercepted and the security officials who effected the arrest.
The judge said in cases where the human rights of people were involved, it was not necessary for the prosecution to always speculate, saying that “if the prosecution cannot provide answers to the questions posed above, then the facts as presented are not well laid and cannot be supported now”.
He said a charge was improperly laid if there was no reasonable evidence to support it and in that instance the court’s power to grant bail was not curtailed by the law.
Darko was first remanded by the Fast Track Court on November 23, 2006, almost 72 hours after another High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abada, had granted him bail in the sum of ¢5 billion with two sureties.
The High Court, on November 20, 2006, granted the accused person bail after his counsel had made an application to that effect but the prosecution had earlier that day entered a nolle prosequi at the circuit court, resulting in the discharge of the accused person.
He was, however, not released on bail because the prosecution preferred fresh charges against him after entering the nolle prosequi at the circuit court.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday granted bail in the sum of ¢1 billion with two sureties to be justified to Prince Tsibu Darko, the Tema-based businessman accused of exporting 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice J. Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, however, ordered the accused person to surrender his passport and any travel document to the registrar of the court before the execution of the bail.
It further ordered the accused person to report himself to the police investigator at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service every Wednesday until otherwise directed.
The Medical Director of the Nyaho Clinic, where the accused has been on admission, is also to inform the court whenever the accused is discharged or transferred to another hospital.
The substantive case stands adjourned until January 24, 2007.
Darko was admitted to bail following a fresh application filed by his counsel, Mr Gabriel Pwamang, and argued on January 4, 2007, the ruling of which was fixed for yesterday.
Darko is facing one count of engaging in business related to narcotic drugs and, according to the facts of the case, in the middle of 2005 he allegedly exported 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe without lawful authority.
Earlier on December 22, 2006, the court had refused him bail after a similar application had been made. It was rejected on the grounds that the defence team did not provide sufficient evidence on the accused person’s ill-health to warrant the court to grant him bail.
In dismissing that application, the court held that the defence team should have furnished it with details of the medical report on the accused person and that anything short of that was not sufficient indication to prove that there was a medical emergency for the court to grant bail.
The court, however, gave the defence the chance to support its application with sufficient proof on the accused person’s health.
Following that, the defence made the latest application with supporting affidavits and exhibits of medical reports and prayed that the accused person be admitted to bail because his condition was deteriorating, while the prosecution did not have the facts to prosecute the case.
The prosecution did not oppose the application because of the ill-health of the accused and the fact that investigations into the matter had not been completed.
The lead counsel for the accused, Mr Pwamang, said his client had been in detention since August 9, 2006 when he was arrested, at the instance of the prosecution, for the purpose of concluding investigations into the matter.
“While it is lawful, it is taking a toll on the health of the accused person whose health is getting worse,” counsel said, and added that the accused even collapsed in police detention and had to be rushed to the Nyaho Clinic in Accra where he had still been on admission.
Responding, a Senior State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisa, said the prosecution was not opposed to bail on the grounds that investigations into the matter were going on, coupled with the accused person’s ill health.
Mr Justice Dotse reminded the prosecutor that the accused was brought before the court in November last year on very scanty facts, with the explanation that investigations were ongoing, and asked whether the investigations had revealed any new facts.
He asked the prosecutor to confer with the police investigator as to whether some headway had been made but Mrs Obuobisa, after conferring, said the prosecution had had some leads but that most of the information was beyond the territorial borders of the country.
In his ruling yesterday, Mr Justice Dotse said he did not find any legislative support to the effect that when an accused was standing trial and was in custody, he or she should be granted bail because of ill-health, adding that that was inconsistent with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The hospital, he said, was the best place for the accused person.
He was of the view that the Nyaho Clinic was one of the hospitals with the best health facilities and, therefore, it was dangerous to grant bail in such an application, especially in a country like Ghana where it was not difficult to procure fake medical reports.
Mr Justice Dotse, however, referred to a Supreme Court decision that gave the court discretion to handle matters of such nature when there was an authentic medical report, but he declined to grant bail based on that ground.
On the second ground of lack of factual basis for the trial of the accused person, the judge said it was also the court’s duty to determine whether the facts of the case supported the charge or not.
From the facts of the case, he ruled that the prosecution was not ready to continue with the case, arguing that if the accused person had been intercepted with the 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine, why then was not the prosecution ready to name the country in which the accused person was arrested, the trawler or ship on which the drugs were intercepted and the security officials who effected the arrest.
The judge said in cases where the human rights of people were involved, it was not necessary for the prosecution to always speculate, saying that “if the prosecution cannot provide answers to the questions posed above, then the facts as presented are not well laid and cannot be supported now”.
He said a charge was improperly laid if there was no reasonable evidence to support it and in that instance the court’s power to grant bail was not curtailed by the law.
Darko was first remanded by the Fast Track Court on November 23, 2006, almost 72 hours after another High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abada, had granted him bail in the sum of ¢5 billion with two sureties.
The High Court, on November 20, 2006, granted the accused person bail after his counsel had made an application to that effect but the prosecution had earlier that day entered a nolle prosequi at the circuit court, resulting in the discharge of the accused person.
He was, however, not released on bail because the prosecution preferred fresh charges against him after entering the nolle prosequi at the circuit court.
Accra gets motor court
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
ACCRA now has a specialised court to solely prosecute motor traffic offenders to bring about enhanced traffic discipline on the roads in the country.
The establishment of the court is to isolate the prosecution of motor traffic cases from other criminal cases in the courts to ensure the speedy and efficient adjudication of motor traffic cases.
The first attempt of such a court was botched in the 1970s when the Trades Union Congress building being used for that purpose was taken away from the Judicial Service.
After that there was no alternative room for that court and it was abandoned.
Inaugurating the court yesterday at the Regional Tribunal premises, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice George Kingsley Acquah, was appalled by the inadequate infrastructure of the service and the poor environment under which judges and other staff operated.
He, therefore, used the presence of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, to draw attention to the problems of the judiciary and prayed for assistance to promote a healthy and speedy adjudication of justice in the country.
The target of the service, he said, was to ensure that working conditions in the judiciary were improved to encourage the workers to give of their best, saying “Let us pray that a little attention is given to the judiciary to motivate the workers” to ensure justice for all.
Mr Justice Acquah stated, for instance, that the efficiency of the Fast Track Court and Commercial Court systems had been due to the availability of resources and that was what was needed in the entire Judicial Service.
He said the wish of the judiciary was to have more motor courts established but that was being hampered by the lack of funding.
“The inability to re-open or re-establish the motor court until now is not due to the shirking of responsibility by the service”, he said, and added that the issue of magistrates or judges to handle motor offences had not been a problem for the service.
The Chief Justice urged the district, metropolitan and municipal assemblies as well as the regional co-ordinating councils to provide the service with the requisite structures to assist in the effective administration of justice in their localities.
He, however, reminded them that notwithstanding their duty to provide those facilities, that responsibility did not empower any assembly, individual or group of individuals to attempt to direct or control the magistrates in the performance of their judicial functions.
Mr Justice Acquah noted that the motor court was to bring sanity into the system and ensure discipline, especially on the roads and warned all road users that the vacation that they enjoyed from prosecution for motor traffic offences for sometime now was over.
The Chief Executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), Mr Joe Osei-Owusu, said it would require attitudinal change and the strict enforcement of the Road Traffic Act 683 to ensure discipline on the roads.
He urged the magistrates who would handle the motor courts to be guided by the objectives of the regulations and not be interested in evaluating their performance based only on fines but the number of drivers, for instance, who were asked to go for retraining, among other measures.
The Commanding Officer of the Motor Traffic and Transport Unit (MTTU) of the Ghana Police Service, ACP Victor Tandoh, commended the Chief Justice for establishing the courts and noted that hearing traffic cases alongside others hampered the efficient adjudication of motor cases.
He said without assistance from all stakeholders the police alone could not play their role effectively to bring discipline to the roads.
The President of the Ghana Bar Association, Mr Solomon Kwami Tetteh, also commended the Chief Justice and urged the magistrates to use their sentencing powers to suspend reckless drivers from driving and also impounded vehicles which were not roadworthy until the right things had been done.
ACCRA now has a specialised court to solely prosecute motor traffic offenders to bring about enhanced traffic discipline on the roads in the country.
The establishment of the court is to isolate the prosecution of motor traffic cases from other criminal cases in the courts to ensure the speedy and efficient adjudication of motor traffic cases.
The first attempt of such a court was botched in the 1970s when the Trades Union Congress building being used for that purpose was taken away from the Judicial Service.
After that there was no alternative room for that court and it was abandoned.
Inaugurating the court yesterday at the Regional Tribunal premises, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice George Kingsley Acquah, was appalled by the inadequate infrastructure of the service and the poor environment under which judges and other staff operated.
He, therefore, used the presence of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, to draw attention to the problems of the judiciary and prayed for assistance to promote a healthy and speedy adjudication of justice in the country.
The target of the service, he said, was to ensure that working conditions in the judiciary were improved to encourage the workers to give of their best, saying “Let us pray that a little attention is given to the judiciary to motivate the workers” to ensure justice for all.
Mr Justice Acquah stated, for instance, that the efficiency of the Fast Track Court and Commercial Court systems had been due to the availability of resources and that was what was needed in the entire Judicial Service.
He said the wish of the judiciary was to have more motor courts established but that was being hampered by the lack of funding.
“The inability to re-open or re-establish the motor court until now is not due to the shirking of responsibility by the service”, he said, and added that the issue of magistrates or judges to handle motor offences had not been a problem for the service.
The Chief Justice urged the district, metropolitan and municipal assemblies as well as the regional co-ordinating councils to provide the service with the requisite structures to assist in the effective administration of justice in their localities.
He, however, reminded them that notwithstanding their duty to provide those facilities, that responsibility did not empower any assembly, individual or group of individuals to attempt to direct or control the magistrates in the performance of their judicial functions.
Mr Justice Acquah noted that the motor court was to bring sanity into the system and ensure discipline, especially on the roads and warned all road users that the vacation that they enjoyed from prosecution for motor traffic offences for sometime now was over.
The Chief Executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), Mr Joe Osei-Owusu, said it would require attitudinal change and the strict enforcement of the Road Traffic Act 683 to ensure discipline on the roads.
He urged the magistrates who would handle the motor courts to be guided by the objectives of the regulations and not be interested in evaluating their performance based only on fines but the number of drivers, for instance, who were asked to go for retraining, among other measures.
The Commanding Officer of the Motor Traffic and Transport Unit (MTTU) of the Ghana Police Service, ACP Victor Tandoh, commended the Chief Justice for establishing the courts and noted that hearing traffic cases alongside others hampered the efficient adjudication of motor cases.
He said without assistance from all stakeholders the police alone could not play their role effectively to bring discipline to the roads.
The President of the Ghana Bar Association, Mr Solomon Kwami Tetteh, also commended the Chief Justice and urged the magistrates to use their sentencing powers to suspend reckless drivers from driving and also impounded vehicles which were not roadworthy until the right things had been done.
3 coke suspects freed
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
THE three persons who were being held for their alleged importation of 15 kilogrammes of suspected cocaine in a consignment of yoghurt shipped into the country were yesterday discharged by an Accra circuit court.
The Managing Director of Market Direct Company Limited, the company which imported the yoghurt, Michael Ayache, Isaac Quansah and Mohammed Salami, both clearing agents, were absolved of the charges after the prosecution told the court that it had withdrawn the charges against them.
They had been charged with the illegal importation of narcotic drugs.
Their pleas were not taken and the court remanded them on their second appearance last Wednesday to reappear yesterday.
That was after Ricardo Gooding, 33, a Panamanian believed to be the principal architect behind the deal, had been arraigned and also remanded to reappear on February 9, 2007.
Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), told the court that based on the assessment of the investigations done so far by the police, the prosecution had decided to withdraw the charges.
"We act on investigations by the police and from what they have done so far we have decided not to press charges and, therefore, we are withdrawing the charges against the accused persons," she said.
What this means is that for now the three persons are free, but should the need arise they can be rearrested, depending on what new evidence comes out in Gooding’s trial.
That statement by the acting DPP did not exact any reply from the defence counsel and as the court ordered the accused persons to leave the dock, they held one another until they came out. Their sympathisers were not left out of the ambience as they hugged and kissed one another.
Mr Sam Okudjeto, counsel for the freed men, last Wednesday prayed the court to release his clients because the factual situation of the case, as presented, negated the charges brought against them.
He said there was no criminology against the accused persons when the particulars of the case were examined and that the suspect alleged to have put the substance in the container had been arrested and sent to court.
Counsel argued that his clients were entitled to their freedom because they were not present when the container was being loaded and especially when the police received information that someone had placed the substance in the container.
However, the acting DPP told the court that the prosecution received the docket on the case from the police for study last Monday.
According to her, the prosecution had to check on a few things outside the country to enable it to decide on the fate of the accused persons.
She said since the prosecution would receive the required information from Interpol last Thursday, the application of the accused persons had to be adjourned to enable the prosecution to decide on the proper people to be charged.
“My Lord, I am speaking with the wisdom of hindsight,” Ms Aikins said.
The court sustained the facts as presented until yesterday.
The facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution, were that on December 12, this year, the Organised Crime Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service had information that some drugs had been concealed in a container loaded with other goods.
The container, with registration number MSKY 6646380 and imported by Market Direct Company Limited, a company located on the Spintex Road in Accra, had arrived from Peru and was awaiting clearance at Maersk Sealand, Tema.
It said when the container was opened on December 12, 2006, in the presence of the police, officials of the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) and the clearing agents, a bag found on top of the imported yoghurt drinks contained 15 slabs of narcotic drugs suspected to be cocaine.
When Ayache was arrested, he denied any knowledge and ownership of the drugs. Therefore, Quansah and Salami were also arrested to assist in investigations.
It said Ayache claimed to have imported the yoghurt on the Internet through an agent known as Claudio Mollo in Argentina.
Gooding was later arrested at Nima on Christmas Eve upon a tip-off.
THE three persons who were being held for their alleged importation of 15 kilogrammes of suspected cocaine in a consignment of yoghurt shipped into the country were yesterday discharged by an Accra circuit court.
The Managing Director of Market Direct Company Limited, the company which imported the yoghurt, Michael Ayache, Isaac Quansah and Mohammed Salami, both clearing agents, were absolved of the charges after the prosecution told the court that it had withdrawn the charges against them.
They had been charged with the illegal importation of narcotic drugs.
Their pleas were not taken and the court remanded them on their second appearance last Wednesday to reappear yesterday.
That was after Ricardo Gooding, 33, a Panamanian believed to be the principal architect behind the deal, had been arraigned and also remanded to reappear on February 9, 2007.
Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), told the court that based on the assessment of the investigations done so far by the police, the prosecution had decided to withdraw the charges.
"We act on investigations by the police and from what they have done so far we have decided not to press charges and, therefore, we are withdrawing the charges against the accused persons," she said.
What this means is that for now the three persons are free, but should the need arise they can be rearrested, depending on what new evidence comes out in Gooding’s trial.
That statement by the acting DPP did not exact any reply from the defence counsel and as the court ordered the accused persons to leave the dock, they held one another until they came out. Their sympathisers were not left out of the ambience as they hugged and kissed one another.
Mr Sam Okudjeto, counsel for the freed men, last Wednesday prayed the court to release his clients because the factual situation of the case, as presented, negated the charges brought against them.
He said there was no criminology against the accused persons when the particulars of the case were examined and that the suspect alleged to have put the substance in the container had been arrested and sent to court.
Counsel argued that his clients were entitled to their freedom because they were not present when the container was being loaded and especially when the police received information that someone had placed the substance in the container.
However, the acting DPP told the court that the prosecution received the docket on the case from the police for study last Monday.
According to her, the prosecution had to check on a few things outside the country to enable it to decide on the fate of the accused persons.
She said since the prosecution would receive the required information from Interpol last Thursday, the application of the accused persons had to be adjourned to enable the prosecution to decide on the proper people to be charged.
“My Lord, I am speaking with the wisdom of hindsight,” Ms Aikins said.
The court sustained the facts as presented until yesterday.
The facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution, were that on December 12, this year, the Organised Crime Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service had information that some drugs had been concealed in a container loaded with other goods.
The container, with registration number MSKY 6646380 and imported by Market Direct Company Limited, a company located on the Spintex Road in Accra, had arrived from Peru and was awaiting clearance at Maersk Sealand, Tema.
It said when the container was opened on December 12, 2006, in the presence of the police, officials of the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) and the clearing agents, a bag found on top of the imported yoghurt drinks contained 15 slabs of narcotic drugs suspected to be cocaine.
When Ayache was arrested, he denied any knowledge and ownership of the drugs. Therefore, Quansah and Salami were also arrested to assist in investigations.
It said Ayache claimed to have imported the yoghurt on the Internet through an agent known as Claudio Mollo in Argentina.
Gooding was later arrested at Nima on Christmas Eve upon a tip-off.
Need to embrace health insurance scheme
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
When the government fulfilled its election promise and started to implement the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) many were those who were and still are sceptical about the effectiveness of such a health care financing policy.
Many people, especially those who belonged to the other side of the political divide, held the perception and resolutely prayed that come what may, the programme will not succeed and should not. Other people who could easily pass off as enlightened because of their level of schooling and who should have done everything to embrace such a laudable initiative were reluctant to join.
During the Christmas break, I engaged a female friend of mine in a lengthy discussion at the back of a street spot in Accra and she passed vain comments about the NHIS. In fact, to her, she did not see how she could be convinced to join such a bogus scheme.
I was shocked to the marrow because she kept giving me the indication that either she had refused to be educated on the scheme or she was flatly giving a dog a bad name?
According to her the scheme was a waste of money because she was someone who did not attend hospital and since throughout the year she might not even fall sick to warrant her visiting the hospital, registering for the scheme was irrelevant.
All her excuses were based on flimsy hearsay and she was explicit that each time she fell sick her first port of call was to go to the pharmacy shop. Maybe, she could be understood because the hospital or clinic had not been able to diagnose her sickness which she believed could be a bout of malaria. But is that expedient?
I then informed her of my experience in the village where my mother, a stark illiterate, who had registered with the scheme expressed her joy at its effectiveness.
You know what? Prior to the implementation of the scheme, the old lady who is hypertensive could not afford to buy even very cheap drugs prescribed for her. Each time that a drug I considered to be less expensive was prescribed for her, she will rush the prescription form to me in Accra and have the drugs purchased for her.
On my visit to the village sometime before the Christmas she elatedly told me, “Kwadwo, now I feel fine. I am now okay and each time I am going for a review all I need is my Taxi fare because I need not purchase any drugs for my ailment”.
When I asked her what her secret was, feigning ignorance of her NHIS status, she replied that because of the scheme, the health officials ( obviously some nurses) had confided in her that the doctors now prescribe the best of medicines for her, which hitherto, she could not have afforded.
So I told my friend about my encounter with the old lady and the need for every Ghanaian to embrace the scheme in 2007. Readily, she agreed and gave me a new year resolution that she would register in 2007 because she did not know much about the NHIS. Even with my ‘little’ knowledge I have been able to win one soul for the scheme so what is needed is education.
What people like my friend however forget is that even with the slightest headache one could spend more at a pharmacy or chemical shop than what is paid for the scheme annually.
Besides, the individual contributions to the scheme make it a pool and for which reason even if one did not visit the hospital for obvious reasons, others, especially the less privileged ones stand to benefit from it. That way, many souls could be saved. Therefore, we should not only think about ourselves but the rest of the society.
Those who still believe in the cash and carry system or any other health financing scheme, should realise that times are changing and we need to keep pace with the changing times. Imagine you getting involved in a freak accident or suddenly falling sick which demand an impromptu visit to the hospital? Its shortcomings notwithstanding, with the current dispensation, one can be saved since no down payment will be made.
This is not to say that the scheme is 100 per cent efficient. No. As a human institution, there are bound to be problems but they are surmountable.
There is no doubt that the scheme might have started off very badly in many areas but all the same we should all embrace it and pray that it works out well.This is incumbent on both the personnel in whose hands the scheme has been entrusted and the contributors. The health care personnel should not let us reminisce over the bad practices which were associated with the cash and carry system where some health facilities corrupted the scheme.
There were instances when some of them did not spend a dime on the exemptions category yet they provided very fat claims to that effect and the proceeds ended up in individual pockets.
Ghana is noted for engaging in unnecessary complacent self-congratulation but recent media reports about the detention of patients by some health institutions for non-settlement of bills makes mockery of our situation and efforts towards national productivity.
Productivity of labour depends on the state of health of a nation since an efficient health care delivery system has tremendous economic value and plays very crucial role in the country’s development prospects.
Some gains seem to have been chalked up in Ghana’s health care delivery system, however, in spite of these persistent efforts by both the past and present government basic health indicators show that the health status of Ghanaians remain relatively poor with life expectancy still low, coupled with the high incidence of infectious diseases and high maternal and infant mortality rates, among other emerging diseases such as buruli ulcer.
The situation is of serious concern , especially when the majority of Ghanaians are poor. This is imperative in view of the fact that the WHO has reported that the problem of health care on the poor sectors of a population is heavy.
Health and poverty, according to the Global Forum for Health, are inextricably linked and that poverty is often associated with ill-health.
I have said that we should not engage in any unnecessary complacent self-congratulation as far as the NHIS is concerned because certain variables will hamper its progress. The pluralistic nature of medical care, namely, home remedy (self medication), the resort to traditional medicine vis-Ã -vis orthodox medical care greatly influence health utilisation.
Also associated with the above is a number of discrete but interrelated variables such as the location, cost, quality, transport and education.
Moreover, perception is a key concept as far as health utilisation is concerned. This is because people share similar beliefs, attitudes and values with others who are members of the same community, which is why when people are sick various descriptions and prescriptions are made, ultimately not making one to seek medical attention at the hospital.
Peoples perception and belief about the efficacy of both traditional medicine and western medicine make them resort to the use of either of the two, and our economy which is predominantly rural, tends to favour the use of traditional medicine. It is not for nothing that one often hears some Ghanaians remark that they were not properly treated when they visited the hospital. This is because their expectations had not been met. Some of them expected to be injected or given a certain kind of medication and if that fails, then to them attending the hospital did not pay off.
It is never too late to do what had not been done in terms of education. And since groups have greater influence on the behaviour of people, avenues should be sought to educate the people using the churches, mosques and even the hospital setting and the medium of the media, particularly radio and television.
We need to do this in order to bridge the unequal distribution of health care facilities which tilt in favour of the urban and southern sectors of the country because the majority of our people are still in the wilderness as far as the NHIS is concerned.
It is lso important that everything should be done to speed up the process, especially in the case of workers whose social securities have been used to offset cost yet it has taken them more than a year for them to receive their NHIS registration cards.
The scheme is of tremendous importance to our people and nobody should be left out. Had I known, it is often said, is always at last.
When the government fulfilled its election promise and started to implement the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) many were those who were and still are sceptical about the effectiveness of such a health care financing policy.
Many people, especially those who belonged to the other side of the political divide, held the perception and resolutely prayed that come what may, the programme will not succeed and should not. Other people who could easily pass off as enlightened because of their level of schooling and who should have done everything to embrace such a laudable initiative were reluctant to join.
During the Christmas break, I engaged a female friend of mine in a lengthy discussion at the back of a street spot in Accra and she passed vain comments about the NHIS. In fact, to her, she did not see how she could be convinced to join such a bogus scheme.
I was shocked to the marrow because she kept giving me the indication that either she had refused to be educated on the scheme or she was flatly giving a dog a bad name?
According to her the scheme was a waste of money because she was someone who did not attend hospital and since throughout the year she might not even fall sick to warrant her visiting the hospital, registering for the scheme was irrelevant.
All her excuses were based on flimsy hearsay and she was explicit that each time she fell sick her first port of call was to go to the pharmacy shop. Maybe, she could be understood because the hospital or clinic had not been able to diagnose her sickness which she believed could be a bout of malaria. But is that expedient?
I then informed her of my experience in the village where my mother, a stark illiterate, who had registered with the scheme expressed her joy at its effectiveness.
You know what? Prior to the implementation of the scheme, the old lady who is hypertensive could not afford to buy even very cheap drugs prescribed for her. Each time that a drug I considered to be less expensive was prescribed for her, she will rush the prescription form to me in Accra and have the drugs purchased for her.
On my visit to the village sometime before the Christmas she elatedly told me, “Kwadwo, now I feel fine. I am now okay and each time I am going for a review all I need is my Taxi fare because I need not purchase any drugs for my ailment”.
When I asked her what her secret was, feigning ignorance of her NHIS status, she replied that because of the scheme, the health officials ( obviously some nurses) had confided in her that the doctors now prescribe the best of medicines for her, which hitherto, she could not have afforded.
So I told my friend about my encounter with the old lady and the need for every Ghanaian to embrace the scheme in 2007. Readily, she agreed and gave me a new year resolution that she would register in 2007 because she did not know much about the NHIS. Even with my ‘little’ knowledge I have been able to win one soul for the scheme so what is needed is education.
What people like my friend however forget is that even with the slightest headache one could spend more at a pharmacy or chemical shop than what is paid for the scheme annually.
Besides, the individual contributions to the scheme make it a pool and for which reason even if one did not visit the hospital for obvious reasons, others, especially the less privileged ones stand to benefit from it. That way, many souls could be saved. Therefore, we should not only think about ourselves but the rest of the society.
Those who still believe in the cash and carry system or any other health financing scheme, should realise that times are changing and we need to keep pace with the changing times. Imagine you getting involved in a freak accident or suddenly falling sick which demand an impromptu visit to the hospital? Its shortcomings notwithstanding, with the current dispensation, one can be saved since no down payment will be made.
This is not to say that the scheme is 100 per cent efficient. No. As a human institution, there are bound to be problems but they are surmountable.
There is no doubt that the scheme might have started off very badly in many areas but all the same we should all embrace it and pray that it works out well.This is incumbent on both the personnel in whose hands the scheme has been entrusted and the contributors. The health care personnel should not let us reminisce over the bad practices which were associated with the cash and carry system where some health facilities corrupted the scheme.
There were instances when some of them did not spend a dime on the exemptions category yet they provided very fat claims to that effect and the proceeds ended up in individual pockets.
Ghana is noted for engaging in unnecessary complacent self-congratulation but recent media reports about the detention of patients by some health institutions for non-settlement of bills makes mockery of our situation and efforts towards national productivity.
Productivity of labour depends on the state of health of a nation since an efficient health care delivery system has tremendous economic value and plays very crucial role in the country’s development prospects.
Some gains seem to have been chalked up in Ghana’s health care delivery system, however, in spite of these persistent efforts by both the past and present government basic health indicators show that the health status of Ghanaians remain relatively poor with life expectancy still low, coupled with the high incidence of infectious diseases and high maternal and infant mortality rates, among other emerging diseases such as buruli ulcer.
The situation is of serious concern , especially when the majority of Ghanaians are poor. This is imperative in view of the fact that the WHO has reported that the problem of health care on the poor sectors of a population is heavy.
Health and poverty, according to the Global Forum for Health, are inextricably linked and that poverty is often associated with ill-health.
I have said that we should not engage in any unnecessary complacent self-congratulation as far as the NHIS is concerned because certain variables will hamper its progress. The pluralistic nature of medical care, namely, home remedy (self medication), the resort to traditional medicine vis-Ã -vis orthodox medical care greatly influence health utilisation.
Also associated with the above is a number of discrete but interrelated variables such as the location, cost, quality, transport and education.
Moreover, perception is a key concept as far as health utilisation is concerned. This is because people share similar beliefs, attitudes and values with others who are members of the same community, which is why when people are sick various descriptions and prescriptions are made, ultimately not making one to seek medical attention at the hospital.
Peoples perception and belief about the efficacy of both traditional medicine and western medicine make them resort to the use of either of the two, and our economy which is predominantly rural, tends to favour the use of traditional medicine. It is not for nothing that one often hears some Ghanaians remark that they were not properly treated when they visited the hospital. This is because their expectations had not been met. Some of them expected to be injected or given a certain kind of medication and if that fails, then to them attending the hospital did not pay off.
It is never too late to do what had not been done in terms of education. And since groups have greater influence on the behaviour of people, avenues should be sought to educate the people using the churches, mosques and even the hospital setting and the medium of the media, particularly radio and television.
We need to do this in order to bridge the unequal distribution of health care facilities which tilt in favour of the urban and southern sectors of the country because the majority of our people are still in the wilderness as far as the NHIS is concerned.
It is lso important that everything should be done to speed up the process, especially in the case of workers whose social securities have been used to offset cost yet it has taken them more than a year for them to receive their NHIS registration cards.
The scheme is of tremendous importance to our people and nobody should be left out. Had I known, it is often said, is always at last.
Judgement in former ministers case
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed February 5, 2007 to deliver its judgement in the trial of Dan Abodakpi, a former Minister of Trade and Industry, who has been charged with causing financial loss to the state.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice S. T. Farkye, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, gave the date after he had listened to some points of law raised by counsel for the accused person in reaction to the prosecution’s address.
Abodakpi is alleged to have conspired with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, to cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
They are charged with causing the transfer of the cedi equivalent of $400,000 during their tenure of office in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration when they co-chaired the TIP.
The former ministers are accused of causing the transfer from the TIP interest account lodged with ECOBANK Ghana Limited into the personal account of the project consultant, Dr Frederick Boadu.
The amount was in respect of a feasibility study for the establishment of a Science and Technology Community Park/Valley Project which was meant to enhance the export of non-traditional products.
However, the prosecution said the accused persons did not do any feasibility study but rather paid for a study proposal.
They are charged with three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state and they both pleaded not guilty to the charges and are on self-recognisance bail to the tune of ¢3 billion each.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
In his response to the court yesterday, Mr Charles Hayibor called for the acquittal and discharge of his client.
That, he said, had become necessary because a vital document which Mrs Agnes Batsa, a former Head of the Bilateral Relations Unit of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, during her testimony, had said was with the police had not been made available to the court.
He said the document, which was the first letter written by the accused person authorising the ministry to pay the first instalment of $100,000 to Dr Boadu, was deliberately not tendered.
As a result, counsel said, the prosecution had failed to prove its case since, at the end of the trial, it had not produced that vital document to assist the court.
Furthermore, Mr Hayibor said where there was documentary evidence as well as oral evidence and where the oral evidence was conflicting, the court ought to rely on the documentary evidence.
He said if Mrs Batsa, during her testimony, had told the court that one of the two letters written by the accused person to authorise payments was with the police, then the court should lean on the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence.
“Since they did not produce that letter, you do not have all the evidence before you,” counsel told the judge.
Mr Hayibor denied portions of the prosecution’s address that the defence had disclaimed the evidence given by Mrs Batsa and rather stated that the import of her evidence was that if the prosecution had produced the said letter, it would have aided the court to determine whether the accused person wrote a letter for the payment of a feasibility study or a proposal.
He used Article 19 (11) of the Constitution to debunk another portion of the prosecution’s address that when a consultant was asked to cost the project he said it would not cost $400,000 but $150,000.
According to counsel, when he asked the consultant, during cross-examination, about the figure, he mentioned $150,000 as the minimum charge by an international consultant without giving the maximum amount.
He said if that was the case of the prosecution, then it ought to have amended the charge sheet to reflect the $250,000 and not the $400,000 it mentioned, since both were two different things.
“By this the prosecution has now changed the reason why we are in court because nowhere in the charge was $250,000 mentioned but $100,000 and $300,000,” counsel stated.
Mr Hayibor urged the court to take a fresh look at the charges against his client vis-Ã -vis the prosecution’s address, since it said the loss occasioned was $250,000.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed February 5, 2007 to deliver its judgement in the trial of Dan Abodakpi, a former Minister of Trade and Industry, who has been charged with causing financial loss to the state.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice S. T. Farkye, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, gave the date after he had listened to some points of law raised by counsel for the accused person in reaction to the prosecution’s address.
Abodakpi is alleged to have conspired with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, to cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
They are charged with causing the transfer of the cedi equivalent of $400,000 during their tenure of office in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration when they co-chaired the TIP.
The former ministers are accused of causing the transfer from the TIP interest account lodged with ECOBANK Ghana Limited into the personal account of the project consultant, Dr Frederick Boadu.
The amount was in respect of a feasibility study for the establishment of a Science and Technology Community Park/Valley Project which was meant to enhance the export of non-traditional products.
However, the prosecution said the accused persons did not do any feasibility study but rather paid for a study proposal.
They are charged with three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state and they both pleaded not guilty to the charges and are on self-recognisance bail to the tune of ¢3 billion each.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
In his response to the court yesterday, Mr Charles Hayibor called for the acquittal and discharge of his client.
That, he said, had become necessary because a vital document which Mrs Agnes Batsa, a former Head of the Bilateral Relations Unit of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, during her testimony, had said was with the police had not been made available to the court.
He said the document, which was the first letter written by the accused person authorising the ministry to pay the first instalment of $100,000 to Dr Boadu, was deliberately not tendered.
As a result, counsel said, the prosecution had failed to prove its case since, at the end of the trial, it had not produced that vital document to assist the court.
Furthermore, Mr Hayibor said where there was documentary evidence as well as oral evidence and where the oral evidence was conflicting, the court ought to rely on the documentary evidence.
He said if Mrs Batsa, during her testimony, had told the court that one of the two letters written by the accused person to authorise payments was with the police, then the court should lean on the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence.
“Since they did not produce that letter, you do not have all the evidence before you,” counsel told the judge.
Mr Hayibor denied portions of the prosecution’s address that the defence had disclaimed the evidence given by Mrs Batsa and rather stated that the import of her evidence was that if the prosecution had produced the said letter, it would have aided the court to determine whether the accused person wrote a letter for the payment of a feasibility study or a proposal.
He used Article 19 (11) of the Constitution to debunk another portion of the prosecution’s address that when a consultant was asked to cost the project he said it would not cost $400,000 but $150,000.
According to counsel, when he asked the consultant, during cross-examination, about the figure, he mentioned $150,000 as the minimum charge by an international consultant without giving the maximum amount.
He said if that was the case of the prosecution, then it ought to have amended the charge sheet to reflect the $250,000 and not the $400,000 it mentioned, since both were two different things.
“By this the prosecution has now changed the reason why we are in court because nowhere in the charge was $250,000 mentioned but $100,000 and $300,000,” counsel stated.
Mr Hayibor urged the court to take a fresh look at the charges against his client vis-Ã -vis the prosecution’s address, since it said the loss occasioned was $250,000.
Ghana's judiciary at 5o
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
BEFORE the advent of colonial rule, the natives of Ghana, then the Gold Coast, adjudicated cases through customary law, with the chief's palace serving as the court. Peace thrived and the people lived in harmony, because the parties in a litigation went home most always satisfied.
Whenever they were not satisfied with any judgement or settlement, they had another option by going to the most senior chief or paramount chief for an appeal. Decisions arrived at on appeal were final and had to be heeded to.
Justice was thus ensured through the prescription of sentences either in the form of punishment and reward or restitution. However, with the arrival of British colonial rule, the Queen of England exercised judicial powers over the Gold Coast.
This article looks at the history of the judicial system in Ghana, the challenges and the way forward in the wake of Ghana's 50th independence anniversary celebration.
Historical records indicate that the Bond of March 6, 1844, signed at Cape Coast between Commander Hill and some local Fanti chiefs, was a document that acknowledged the power and jurisdiction which had been exercised in the territories adjacent to the British forts, as well as other settlements.
It was a declaration that the first object of the law was the protection of individuals and property and that human sacrifices, panyarring (giving others as pawns for debts until such debts are paid back), and other barbaric customs were an abomination and contrary to the law.
The agreement was that serious crimes should be tried by the Queen's Judicial Officers, who should sit with the chiefs to mould the customs of the land to meet the general principles of British Law.
In 1853, the Supreme Court Ordinance was passed to establish the Supreme Court of Her Majesty’s forts and settlements on the Gold Coast, which had in 1850 been severed from Sierra Leone and given its own governor in the person of Commander Hill.
However, by a commission dated February 19, 1866, the Charter of 1850 was revoked and the Gold Coast, together with Sierra Leone, Nigeria and The Gambia were created under the governors of these four states.
The judiciary at the time had a chequered history of several revokes until 1876 when it was firmly established through the Supreme Court Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4 of 1876). The first Judicial Service Commission, consisting of the Chief Justice and two other judges, the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, was set up on May 5, 1954.
That was when the major part of the Gold Coast (Constitution) Order in Council came into operation.
In fact, as with all post independence Constitutions, Article 125 (3) of the 1992 Constitution vests in the Judiciary the power of the Republic to administer the day to day activities of the courts.
Since 1876, Ghana has had 23 Chief Justices with the current Chief Justice, Mr Justice George Kingsley Acquah, being the 11th post-independence Chief Justice, having assumed office in 2003. Sir Arku Korsah was the first post-independence Chief Justice, having served from 1956 to 1963.
Of the 23 Chief Justices, the longest serving officer was Justice Philip Crampton Symly, from 1911 to 1928 while the shortest serving officer was Justice P.A. Smith, from 1878 to 1879.
The mission of the Judicial Service of Ghana is to promote the smooth and efficient administration of justice for the benefit of all manner of persons without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and create an enabling environment for good governance.
Primarily, the courts interpret the law and adjudicate cases to bring about justice in the society.
It is worthy of note that the country's court system is modelled along the line of the British system and embodies both Common Law and Customary Law. A combination of the adversarial, inquisitorial and jury systems of trial are used.
In the adversarial system, the court’s actors serve as impartial referees between the accused and accuser to arrive at conclusions on the basis of the law. In the jury system, however, people who are of the same background as the defendant, mostly in indictable crimes, are selected to listen to the court proceedings and get educated on the law by a judge after which they retire to sit in camera to arrive at a decision on whether one is guilty or not.
In the inquisitorial system, the judge asks questions in order to elicit the truth.
As the mission of the service clearly shows, embarking on such an exercise is not easy, especially when human beings are the major players. This notwithstanding, the service has come a long way to make Ghana a beacon of hope on the African continent.
The courts in Ghana are of two main categories: The superior courts and the lower courts, with the former comprising the Supreme Court, which is the highest court of the land, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Regional Tribunal.
The lower courts, on the other hand, are made up of the circuit court, district court, which, when differently constituted, serves as a juvenile court, and the family tribunal.
The Supreme Court is the final appellate body of the whole court system of the country and it has the original and exclusive jurisdiction in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of the Constitution and all matters arising as to whether an enactment was made in the excess of the powers conferred on Parliament or any other authority or person by law or under the Constitution.
It has appellate jurisdiction to the exclusion of the Court of Appeal, to determine matters relating to the conviction of a person for high treason. Appeals from the National House of Chiefs are also heard by the Supreme Court, which has supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in the country.
The 2005/2006 Annual Report put the number of Supreme Court judges at 14 but some of them have since gone on retirement . The number of justices at the Supreme Court, according to this figure, is even but the number for each panel should always be an odd number so that there could not be a tie when taking decisions.
The Court of Appeal has no original jurisdiction and it serves as the appellate court for all the High Courts, Regional Tribunals and the circuit courts, unless otherwise provided by law.
Article 136 of the Constitution states that the Court of Appeal shall consist of the Chief Justice, not less than 10 other justices of the Court of Appeal and such other justices of the superior court as the Chief Justice may request to sit in the court of Appeal. At any of its sitting, the court is constituted by three justices.
The same 2005/2006 Annual Report gave the number of Appeal Court justices as 21. Again, this could be lower or higher, depending on new promotions and the number of them who have gone on retirement.
It is important to indicate that both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only sit in Accra. However, there are plans by the current Chief Justice to move the Court of Appeal to Kumasi.
Similarly, there is only one High Court but with extensions in major towns, as well as the cities. The High Court is constituted by a single judge, who controls its activities. But in indictable trials the judge is required to sit with a jury or assessors. Unless specified by the Constitution, the High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters, whether civil or criminal and it also has appellate jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by the Constitution or any other law. Under the current dispensation, the High Court serves as the appellate body for appeals from criminal judgement of the circuit court and all appeals from the district court, the juvenile court and the family tribunal.
The 2005/2006 annual report gave the number of High Court judges in the country as 62 and again as indicated already this number could be higher or lower, depending on the number of new promotions and retirements.
Accra and Tema combined have the highest number of High Court extensions and they are followed by the Ashanti and Western regions, Eastern Region, Central and Brong Ahafo, Volta and Northern Region, Upper East and Upper West regions in that order.
Two other divisions of the High Court, namely the Fast Track High Court and Commercial Court, have been created and both operate under an electronic case flow management system. The establishment of the Fast Track division generated a lot of hullabaloo at the time. The commercial courts were also set up following the general dissatisfaction with the resolution of commercial disputes and as per their mandate, they deal exclusively with matters of commercial nature.
This is clearly spelt out under Order 58 of C.I. 47 (High Court Civil Procedure Rules). The difference between this court and the other high courts is with respect to its jurisdiction.
The court procedure is such that some justices of the Court of Appeal can sit with additional responsibility as High Court judges.
Article 142 of the Constitution mandates the Chief Justice to establish in each of the regions a Regional Tribunal with special criminal jurisdiction. The tribunals have the status of the High Court and have jurisdiction to try offences against the state and the public interest as Parliament may by law prescribe.
Previously, the tribunals were operating in Kumasi, Takoradi and Bolgatanga but these have been turned to High Courts except those in Accra and Tamale, which are currently in operation.
The tribunal is constituted by a panel consisting of a Chairman and not less than two other panel members.
The circuit court is at the apex of the lower courts and its jurisdiction include civil actions arising under contract or tort or for recovery of all liquidated claims not exceeding ¢100 million, jurisdiction in all landlord and tenant cases, ownership, possession, occupation and title to land cases.
It also has jurisdiction in application for probate and letters of administration, where the value of property does not exceed ¢100 million and jurisdiction in matters involving children.
Appeals from the circuit court in civil matters go to the Court of Appeal while that of criminal cases go to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
According to the report, there are 57 circuit court judges at post and this presupposes that there are an equal number of courts spread across the country, with the Ashanti Region having the largest share followed by Accra, Eastern and Volta, Brong Ahafo, Central, Western and others in that order.
Some circuit court judges also sit as additional district court magistrates in districts where magistrates have not been appointed.
The District courts make up the largest number of courts in the country and statistically handle the largest number of cases as well.
This has been bolstered by the introduction of the career magistrate programme, the first batch of which passed out in October, 2005. That increased the number of magistrates by about 58 per cent. As of 2006, there were 79 magistrates at post, although the annual report pegged the figure at 80, the additional one being a special assistant to the Chief Justice.
The civil jurisdiction of the district court is just like the circuit court, except that the value is far less (not exceeding ¢50 million). In criminal matters, these courts have jurisdiction to try summarily offences punishable by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units (one penalty unit is ¢120,000), or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
It also has jurisdiction to try attempts to commit suicide and abetment of crime or conspiracy to commit such offences.
The juvenile court is composed of a magistrate and two other persons, one of whom should be a social welfare officer and has power to hear and determine any matter civil or criminal that involves a person under 18 years.
Regrettably, most of the magistrate courts are not sitting as juvenile courts because they have no magistrates. The district court also serves as a family tribunal to hear and determine actions that arise under the Children’s Act 1998 (Act 560), that is matters concerning parentage, custody, access to and maintenance of children, as well as jurisdiction in cases of children in need of special care and protection, in which case the tribunal can render care and supervision orders.
It is constituted by a panel of a Chairman and not less than two or more than five members, including a social welfare officer appointed by the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Director Of Social Welfare.
The effective administration of justice by no means enhances good governance and also promotes democracy.
That the judicial service plays a major role in the development of the country is no fluke and that is why any infractions or slurs on its part put in jeopardy the rule of law, transparency and the speedy administration of justice and upholding the fundamental human rights of the people.
Can the Judiciary be said to have passed the test to promote good governance and the overall development of the country? Life, it has been said, begins at 40 and if so then 50 years (minus colonial encounters) in the life of the Judiciary is no mean an achievement. For this reason, the Judiciary in Ghana is expected to have chalked up some successes, which, no doubt, have been achieved.
However, one critical issue that faces the Judiciary is the public’s unfavourable perception of corruption, the reliance on outdated rules and procedures, inadequate equipment, the lack of exposure to good and current legal practices and unreasonably delays in the adjudication of cases, among others.
These are things to worry about when the current Chief Justice, Mr Justice Acquah, clearly admits that while the truth of some of these complaints may be due to individual frailties, the majority of them could be traced to the unsatisfactory infrastructural facilities and environment under which members of the Judiciary work.
Such a situation obviously gives room for low public confidence, especially among the business community. Sometimes, the mere sight of our court buildings makes one wonders whether the Judiciary deserves its status as the third arm of government.
The numerous problems of the Judiciary notwithstanding, one can heave a sigh of great relief, considering efforts put in place to make it the envy of other countries on the continent.
It is in this area that the Chief Justice should be commended for embarking on a wide range of innovations including the review of some of the court rules and procedures, especially the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C. I. 47, which allow the engagement of private persons or institutions to serve court processes, the development of a code of ethics, the establishment of the complaints unit, the Fast Track system and commercial courts units, as well as the construction of a new Supreme Court administration block complex and the Court of Appeal complex to be built at Adum in Kumasi and also the resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution and the publication of an Annual Report to highlight the annual activities of the service.
In fact, since July 4, 2003, when the Chief Justice assumed office, he has also ensured that corruption in the service is minimised to enhance accountability. He has, therefore, introduced a new system of revenue collection and the HFC Bank has provided a collection point for all court fees and fines from litigants and other court users.
This project, which commenced in June, 2006, is expected to be extended to the regional courts. Another plus for the service is the Chief Justice’s outreach programme, which has been instituted to actively engage all Ghanaians in discussing the challenges facing the administration of justice at the local and district level.
It was no surprise that in June, 2006 the Chief Justice was awarded the highest honour of the land, the Order of the Star of Ghana in recognition of his hard work, dynamic leadership, dedication to work and the many reforms that he had introduced to enhance the administration of justice in the country.
BEFORE the advent of colonial rule, the natives of Ghana, then the Gold Coast, adjudicated cases through customary law, with the chief's palace serving as the court. Peace thrived and the people lived in harmony, because the parties in a litigation went home most always satisfied.
Whenever they were not satisfied with any judgement or settlement, they had another option by going to the most senior chief or paramount chief for an appeal. Decisions arrived at on appeal were final and had to be heeded to.
Justice was thus ensured through the prescription of sentences either in the form of punishment and reward or restitution. However, with the arrival of British colonial rule, the Queen of England exercised judicial powers over the Gold Coast.
This article looks at the history of the judicial system in Ghana, the challenges and the way forward in the wake of Ghana's 50th independence anniversary celebration.
Historical records indicate that the Bond of March 6, 1844, signed at Cape Coast between Commander Hill and some local Fanti chiefs, was a document that acknowledged the power and jurisdiction which had been exercised in the territories adjacent to the British forts, as well as other settlements.
It was a declaration that the first object of the law was the protection of individuals and property and that human sacrifices, panyarring (giving others as pawns for debts until such debts are paid back), and other barbaric customs were an abomination and contrary to the law.
The agreement was that serious crimes should be tried by the Queen's Judicial Officers, who should sit with the chiefs to mould the customs of the land to meet the general principles of British Law.
In 1853, the Supreme Court Ordinance was passed to establish the Supreme Court of Her Majesty’s forts and settlements on the Gold Coast, which had in 1850 been severed from Sierra Leone and given its own governor in the person of Commander Hill.
However, by a commission dated February 19, 1866, the Charter of 1850 was revoked and the Gold Coast, together with Sierra Leone, Nigeria and The Gambia were created under the governors of these four states.
The judiciary at the time had a chequered history of several revokes until 1876 when it was firmly established through the Supreme Court Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4 of 1876). The first Judicial Service Commission, consisting of the Chief Justice and two other judges, the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, was set up on May 5, 1954.
That was when the major part of the Gold Coast (Constitution) Order in Council came into operation.
In fact, as with all post independence Constitutions, Article 125 (3) of the 1992 Constitution vests in the Judiciary the power of the Republic to administer the day to day activities of the courts.
Since 1876, Ghana has had 23 Chief Justices with the current Chief Justice, Mr Justice George Kingsley Acquah, being the 11th post-independence Chief Justice, having assumed office in 2003. Sir Arku Korsah was the first post-independence Chief Justice, having served from 1956 to 1963.
Of the 23 Chief Justices, the longest serving officer was Justice Philip Crampton Symly, from 1911 to 1928 while the shortest serving officer was Justice P.A. Smith, from 1878 to 1879.
The mission of the Judicial Service of Ghana is to promote the smooth and efficient administration of justice for the benefit of all manner of persons without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and create an enabling environment for good governance.
Primarily, the courts interpret the law and adjudicate cases to bring about justice in the society.
It is worthy of note that the country's court system is modelled along the line of the British system and embodies both Common Law and Customary Law. A combination of the adversarial, inquisitorial and jury systems of trial are used.
In the adversarial system, the court’s actors serve as impartial referees between the accused and accuser to arrive at conclusions on the basis of the law. In the jury system, however, people who are of the same background as the defendant, mostly in indictable crimes, are selected to listen to the court proceedings and get educated on the law by a judge after which they retire to sit in camera to arrive at a decision on whether one is guilty or not.
In the inquisitorial system, the judge asks questions in order to elicit the truth.
As the mission of the service clearly shows, embarking on such an exercise is not easy, especially when human beings are the major players. This notwithstanding, the service has come a long way to make Ghana a beacon of hope on the African continent.
The courts in Ghana are of two main categories: The superior courts and the lower courts, with the former comprising the Supreme Court, which is the highest court of the land, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Regional Tribunal.
The lower courts, on the other hand, are made up of the circuit court, district court, which, when differently constituted, serves as a juvenile court, and the family tribunal.
The Supreme Court is the final appellate body of the whole court system of the country and it has the original and exclusive jurisdiction in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of the Constitution and all matters arising as to whether an enactment was made in the excess of the powers conferred on Parliament or any other authority or person by law or under the Constitution.
It has appellate jurisdiction to the exclusion of the Court of Appeal, to determine matters relating to the conviction of a person for high treason. Appeals from the National House of Chiefs are also heard by the Supreme Court, which has supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in the country.
The 2005/2006 Annual Report put the number of Supreme Court judges at 14 but some of them have since gone on retirement . The number of justices at the Supreme Court, according to this figure, is even but the number for each panel should always be an odd number so that there could not be a tie when taking decisions.
The Court of Appeal has no original jurisdiction and it serves as the appellate court for all the High Courts, Regional Tribunals and the circuit courts, unless otherwise provided by law.
Article 136 of the Constitution states that the Court of Appeal shall consist of the Chief Justice, not less than 10 other justices of the Court of Appeal and such other justices of the superior court as the Chief Justice may request to sit in the court of Appeal. At any of its sitting, the court is constituted by three justices.
The same 2005/2006 Annual Report gave the number of Appeal Court justices as 21. Again, this could be lower or higher, depending on new promotions and the number of them who have gone on retirement.
It is important to indicate that both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only sit in Accra. However, there are plans by the current Chief Justice to move the Court of Appeal to Kumasi.
Similarly, there is only one High Court but with extensions in major towns, as well as the cities. The High Court is constituted by a single judge, who controls its activities. But in indictable trials the judge is required to sit with a jury or assessors. Unless specified by the Constitution, the High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters, whether civil or criminal and it also has appellate jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by the Constitution or any other law. Under the current dispensation, the High Court serves as the appellate body for appeals from criminal judgement of the circuit court and all appeals from the district court, the juvenile court and the family tribunal.
The 2005/2006 annual report gave the number of High Court judges in the country as 62 and again as indicated already this number could be higher or lower, depending on the number of new promotions and retirements.
Accra and Tema combined have the highest number of High Court extensions and they are followed by the Ashanti and Western regions, Eastern Region, Central and Brong Ahafo, Volta and Northern Region, Upper East and Upper West regions in that order.
Two other divisions of the High Court, namely the Fast Track High Court and Commercial Court, have been created and both operate under an electronic case flow management system. The establishment of the Fast Track division generated a lot of hullabaloo at the time. The commercial courts were also set up following the general dissatisfaction with the resolution of commercial disputes and as per their mandate, they deal exclusively with matters of commercial nature.
This is clearly spelt out under Order 58 of C.I. 47 (High Court Civil Procedure Rules). The difference between this court and the other high courts is with respect to its jurisdiction.
The court procedure is such that some justices of the Court of Appeal can sit with additional responsibility as High Court judges.
Article 142 of the Constitution mandates the Chief Justice to establish in each of the regions a Regional Tribunal with special criminal jurisdiction. The tribunals have the status of the High Court and have jurisdiction to try offences against the state and the public interest as Parliament may by law prescribe.
Previously, the tribunals were operating in Kumasi, Takoradi and Bolgatanga but these have been turned to High Courts except those in Accra and Tamale, which are currently in operation.
The tribunal is constituted by a panel consisting of a Chairman and not less than two other panel members.
The circuit court is at the apex of the lower courts and its jurisdiction include civil actions arising under contract or tort or for recovery of all liquidated claims not exceeding ¢100 million, jurisdiction in all landlord and tenant cases, ownership, possession, occupation and title to land cases.
It also has jurisdiction in application for probate and letters of administration, where the value of property does not exceed ¢100 million and jurisdiction in matters involving children.
Appeals from the circuit court in civil matters go to the Court of Appeal while that of criminal cases go to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
According to the report, there are 57 circuit court judges at post and this presupposes that there are an equal number of courts spread across the country, with the Ashanti Region having the largest share followed by Accra, Eastern and Volta, Brong Ahafo, Central, Western and others in that order.
Some circuit court judges also sit as additional district court magistrates in districts where magistrates have not been appointed.
The District courts make up the largest number of courts in the country and statistically handle the largest number of cases as well.
This has been bolstered by the introduction of the career magistrate programme, the first batch of which passed out in October, 2005. That increased the number of magistrates by about 58 per cent. As of 2006, there were 79 magistrates at post, although the annual report pegged the figure at 80, the additional one being a special assistant to the Chief Justice.
The civil jurisdiction of the district court is just like the circuit court, except that the value is far less (not exceeding ¢50 million). In criminal matters, these courts have jurisdiction to try summarily offences punishable by a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units (one penalty unit is ¢120,000), or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
It also has jurisdiction to try attempts to commit suicide and abetment of crime or conspiracy to commit such offences.
The juvenile court is composed of a magistrate and two other persons, one of whom should be a social welfare officer and has power to hear and determine any matter civil or criminal that involves a person under 18 years.
Regrettably, most of the magistrate courts are not sitting as juvenile courts because they have no magistrates. The district court also serves as a family tribunal to hear and determine actions that arise under the Children’s Act 1998 (Act 560), that is matters concerning parentage, custody, access to and maintenance of children, as well as jurisdiction in cases of children in need of special care and protection, in which case the tribunal can render care and supervision orders.
It is constituted by a panel of a Chairman and not less than two or more than five members, including a social welfare officer appointed by the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Director Of Social Welfare.
The effective administration of justice by no means enhances good governance and also promotes democracy.
That the judicial service plays a major role in the development of the country is no fluke and that is why any infractions or slurs on its part put in jeopardy the rule of law, transparency and the speedy administration of justice and upholding the fundamental human rights of the people.
Can the Judiciary be said to have passed the test to promote good governance and the overall development of the country? Life, it has been said, begins at 40 and if so then 50 years (minus colonial encounters) in the life of the Judiciary is no mean an achievement. For this reason, the Judiciary in Ghana is expected to have chalked up some successes, which, no doubt, have been achieved.
However, one critical issue that faces the Judiciary is the public’s unfavourable perception of corruption, the reliance on outdated rules and procedures, inadequate equipment, the lack of exposure to good and current legal practices and unreasonably delays in the adjudication of cases, among others.
These are things to worry about when the current Chief Justice, Mr Justice Acquah, clearly admits that while the truth of some of these complaints may be due to individual frailties, the majority of them could be traced to the unsatisfactory infrastructural facilities and environment under which members of the Judiciary work.
Such a situation obviously gives room for low public confidence, especially among the business community. Sometimes, the mere sight of our court buildings makes one wonders whether the Judiciary deserves its status as the third arm of government.
The numerous problems of the Judiciary notwithstanding, one can heave a sigh of great relief, considering efforts put in place to make it the envy of other countries on the continent.
It is in this area that the Chief Justice should be commended for embarking on a wide range of innovations including the review of some of the court rules and procedures, especially the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C. I. 47, which allow the engagement of private persons or institutions to serve court processes, the development of a code of ethics, the establishment of the complaints unit, the Fast Track system and commercial courts units, as well as the construction of a new Supreme Court administration block complex and the Court of Appeal complex to be built at Adum in Kumasi and also the resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution and the publication of an Annual Report to highlight the annual activities of the service.
In fact, since July 4, 2003, when the Chief Justice assumed office, he has also ensured that corruption in the service is minimised to enhance accountability. He has, therefore, introduced a new system of revenue collection and the HFC Bank has provided a collection point for all court fees and fines from litigants and other court users.
This project, which commenced in June, 2006, is expected to be extended to the regional courts. Another plus for the service is the Chief Justice’s outreach programme, which has been instituted to actively engage all Ghanaians in discussing the challenges facing the administration of justice at the local and district level.
It was no surprise that in June, 2006 the Chief Justice was awarded the highest honour of the land, the Order of the Star of Ghana in recognition of his hard work, dynamic leadership, dedication to work and the many reforms that he had introduced to enhance the administration of justice in the country.
Court sits in camera
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
THE Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case in which four police officers allegedly aided a suspect to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine yesterday sat in camera to take evidence from some prosecution witnesses.
Nobody knew who the witnesses were but it was believed that they could be some fishermen from Kpone alleged to have gone to the beach with the accused persons to effect the arrest of the owner of the narcotic drugs.
General Sergeant Daniel Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, General Lance Corporal Peter Bondori and Detective Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah, who is on the run, are accused of collecting money from the owner of the cocaine, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, and allowing him (Sheriff) to abscond with the narcotic drug.
The three have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
Before proceeding to sit in camera, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, upheld an application by the prosecution that the lives of the witnesses were in danger.
Ms Stella Badu, a Senior State Attorney, cited Article 19 (15) of the Constitution and prayed the court to take the evidence of the next set of witnesses in camera because their lives would be in danger if they gave evidence in public.
“They are being sought and their lives are in danger,” she told the court.
The defence counsel opposed the application on the grounds that the court was capable of protecting everybody and, therefore, the application was not justifiable.
Mr Dei Kwarteng, counsel for Yabson, said he did not know whether those seeking to interfere with the lives of the witnesses were the accused persons themselves or not.
He said he did not want to create the impression that those after the lives of the witness were policemen.
Mr Musah Ahmed, counsel for Nyarko, also said it was for the court to determine that the lives of the witnesses were in danger but not through a mere conjecture.
According to him, what the prosecution was trying to do was to allow the witnesses to come to court to tell lies, adding that if that was not the case then they should feel free to testify, since they had not been threatened because even police officers who were arrested together with the accused persons had testified in the case.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case in which four police officers allegedly aided a suspect to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine yesterday sat in camera to take evidence from some prosecution witnesses.
Nobody knew who the witnesses were but it was believed that they could be some fishermen from Kpone alleged to have gone to the beach with the accused persons to effect the arrest of the owner of the narcotic drugs.
General Sergeant Daniel Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, General Lance Corporal Peter Bondori and Detective Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah, who is on the run, are accused of collecting money from the owner of the cocaine, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, and allowing him (Sheriff) to abscond with the narcotic drug.
The three have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
Before proceeding to sit in camera, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, upheld an application by the prosecution that the lives of the witnesses were in danger.
Ms Stella Badu, a Senior State Attorney, cited Article 19 (15) of the Constitution and prayed the court to take the evidence of the next set of witnesses in camera because their lives would be in danger if they gave evidence in public.
“They are being sought and their lives are in danger,” she told the court.
The defence counsel opposed the application on the grounds that the court was capable of protecting everybody and, therefore, the application was not justifiable.
Mr Dei Kwarteng, counsel for Yabson, said he did not know whether those seeking to interfere with the lives of the witnesses were the accused persons themselves or not.
He said he did not want to create the impression that those after the lives of the witness were policemen.
Mr Musah Ahmed, counsel for Nyarko, also said it was for the court to determine that the lives of the witnesses were in danger but not through a mere conjecture.
According to him, what the prosecution was trying to do was to allow the witnesses to come to court to tell lies, adding that if that was not the case then they should feel free to testify, since they had not been threatened because even police officers who were arrested together with the accused persons had testified in the case.
Coke suspect speaks
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
“I AM not into the narcotic business but a plant-hiring business,” Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, has said.
This was contained in his police caution statement which was tendered in court yesterday by a police investigator, Inspector Justice Oppong of the Accra Regional Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, who testified as a prosecution witness.
According to Tagor, he was a business man and got to know the other accomplices in the missing cocaine case through acquaintances.
He said when news about the missing cocaine came out, ACP Kofi Boakye convened a meeting in his house, during which he asked them to put their ears on the ground after questioning them.
According to Tagor, he did not hear from ACP Boakye again until he was summoned to appear before the Justice Georgina Wood Committee which investigated the matter.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Abbas faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abbas, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were earlier arraigned at the circuit court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
The prosecution, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, entered a nolle prosequi at the circuit court, resulting in the discharge of the accused persons.
However, fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abbas, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Inspector Oppong said he took statements from Alhaji Abbas and Tagor on the same day.
Alhaji Abbas also said ACP Boakye told him that Tagor sent the missing cocaine to the Manhyia Palace in Kumasi and was selling it from there.
He also said that in his caution statement to the police, which was tendered in court yesterday by Inspector Oppong, who said he took statements from the accused persons in the presence of their counsel and independent witnesses on August 3, 2006.
Alhaji Abbas said in May last year, ACP Boakye called him to his office and said it was being rumoured that the missing cocaine was being sold in town and asked whether he (Abbas) knew Tagor was involved.
He said while in ACP Boakye’s office, the police officer called Tagor but he did not respond to the call and that prompted him to also try the number but Tagor never responded.
According to Alhaji Abbas, ACP Boakye then informed him that Tagor had sent the drugs to Manhyia but he was going to investigate that information, since he did not want the name of the Asantehene to be tarnished.
He said later on he (Alhaji Abbas), together with the other accomplices who were initially arrested in connection with the case, met at ACP Boakye’s house where they denied knowledge of the missing cocaine.
Alhaji Abbas said he knew all the accomplices except Ababio but he did not have any business with them.
According to him, his current business was registered and he had nothing to do with narcotics, since he was the sole agent in Ghana for Russian vehicles.
Inspector Oppong said because the accused persons were mentioned as having engaged in narcotics, he went to their various homes to conduct searches which yielded nothing.
“There was much less to do but due to the public outcry that the police was interfering with the Georgina Wood Committee, coupled with the accused persons’ inability to co-operate with the police, I was asked to hold on with the investigations until the committee’s report was out,” Inspector Oppong stated.
He said later on the case was taken over by the CID Headquarters for investigations.
During cross-examination by Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, counsel for Tagor, the witness declined to tell the court the one who had authorised him to stop his investigations.
He, however, agreed with counsel that lawyers for the accused persons co-operated with the police.
When asked to provide evidence to show that counsel for the accused persons asked the accused not to co-operate with the police, Inspector Oppong said it was a fact that the accused persons were asked not to attend the hearings of the committee.
Counsel for Alhaji Abbas, Mr Mohammed Attah, during cross-examination, asked the witness whether he talked to ACP Boakye when his name came up. Witness replied in the affirmative and said a statement was taken from ACP Boakye.
Witness said to the best of his knowledge the names of the two accused persons were not included in an exhibit before the court.
Asked further whether he followed up to Manhyia after it was rumoured that the missing cocaine had been taken there, witness replied that that led to the arrest of Alhaji Moro.
“I AM not into the narcotic business but a plant-hiring business,” Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, has said.
This was contained in his police caution statement which was tendered in court yesterday by a police investigator, Inspector Justice Oppong of the Accra Regional Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, who testified as a prosecution witness.
According to Tagor, he was a business man and got to know the other accomplices in the missing cocaine case through acquaintances.
He said when news about the missing cocaine came out, ACP Kofi Boakye convened a meeting in his house, during which he asked them to put their ears on the ground after questioning them.
According to Tagor, he did not hear from ACP Boakye again until he was summoned to appear before the Justice Georgina Wood Committee which investigated the matter.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Abbas faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abbas, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were earlier arraigned at the circuit court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
The prosecution, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, entered a nolle prosequi at the circuit court, resulting in the discharge of the accused persons.
However, fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abbas, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Inspector Oppong said he took statements from Alhaji Abbas and Tagor on the same day.
Alhaji Abbas also said ACP Boakye told him that Tagor sent the missing cocaine to the Manhyia Palace in Kumasi and was selling it from there.
He also said that in his caution statement to the police, which was tendered in court yesterday by Inspector Oppong, who said he took statements from the accused persons in the presence of their counsel and independent witnesses on August 3, 2006.
Alhaji Abbas said in May last year, ACP Boakye called him to his office and said it was being rumoured that the missing cocaine was being sold in town and asked whether he (Abbas) knew Tagor was involved.
He said while in ACP Boakye’s office, the police officer called Tagor but he did not respond to the call and that prompted him to also try the number but Tagor never responded.
According to Alhaji Abbas, ACP Boakye then informed him that Tagor had sent the drugs to Manhyia but he was going to investigate that information, since he did not want the name of the Asantehene to be tarnished.
He said later on he (Alhaji Abbas), together with the other accomplices who were initially arrested in connection with the case, met at ACP Boakye’s house where they denied knowledge of the missing cocaine.
Alhaji Abbas said he knew all the accomplices except Ababio but he did not have any business with them.
According to him, his current business was registered and he had nothing to do with narcotics, since he was the sole agent in Ghana for Russian vehicles.
Inspector Oppong said because the accused persons were mentioned as having engaged in narcotics, he went to their various homes to conduct searches which yielded nothing.
“There was much less to do but due to the public outcry that the police was interfering with the Georgina Wood Committee, coupled with the accused persons’ inability to co-operate with the police, I was asked to hold on with the investigations until the committee’s report was out,” Inspector Oppong stated.
He said later on the case was taken over by the CID Headquarters for investigations.
During cross-examination by Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, counsel for Tagor, the witness declined to tell the court the one who had authorised him to stop his investigations.
He, however, agreed with counsel that lawyers for the accused persons co-operated with the police.
When asked to provide evidence to show that counsel for the accused persons asked the accused not to co-operate with the police, Inspector Oppong said it was a fact that the accused persons were asked not to attend the hearings of the committee.
Counsel for Alhaji Abbas, Mr Mohammed Attah, during cross-examination, asked the witness whether he talked to ACP Boakye when his name came up. Witness replied in the affirmative and said a statement was taken from ACP Boakye.
Witness said to the best of his knowledge the names of the two accused persons were not included in an exhibit before the court.
Asked further whether he followed up to Manhyia after it was rumoured that the missing cocaine had been taken there, witness replied that that led to the arrest of Alhaji Moro.
Sailor testifies
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
A Sailor on the MV Benjamin fishing trawler yesterday told the Accra Fast Track High Court that a small trawler off-loaded 77 cartons of goods wrapped in sacks onto the MV Benjamin on the high seas.
Mr James Kingsley Inkum, the sailor, said the goods looked like cartons of fish but when they were later offloaded into a canoe at the breakwaters of the Tema Harbour, the vessel's chief engineer told him the contents were cocaine.
That was after he had asked the engineer what the contents were.
The contents of the 77 cartons were confirmed by Narcotic Control Board (NACOB) officials who field tested the one carton which was found in the hatch of the vessel after it had docked at the Tema Port.
Mr Inkum was testifying in the case in which the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean, Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, has been accused of importing the narcotic drugs.
The accused persons are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes.
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.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobi, a Principal State Attorney, the witness narrated how he came to be associated with the vessel and its subsequent loading with the narcotic drugs before their arrest.
Giving a background to how the cocaine was imported, the witness identified all the accused persons, except the Korean, with whom, he said, he worked for one and a half years on the vessel before his disengagement in 2004.
According to him, he lost his wife and after the funeral he was paid off, rendering him unemployed for some time. He said he knew Dawson as a director of Dashment Shipping Company Ltd, the company which owned the vessel, while Xian Li, one of the two Chinese, was the engineer.
The second Chinese, he said, joined the vessel in Takoradi when he had been called by Isaac Arhin to rejoin the vessel.
The witness said he was called by Isaac Arhin on March 6, 2006 and informed to go to Takoradi for a job, which he obliged.
He said when he got to Takoradi the following day and went on board the vessel to start work as a cook in the morning, he met Isaac Arhin.
Mr Inkum said he met Isaac Arhin, Bruce Arhin and Xian Li refurbishing the vessel and the following day Xian Li came with two Koreans as he started cooking.
He said after eating, the two Koreans brought Yin Xing, the other Chinese, who came to eat along with them, but after that Xian Li informed him (witness) that Yin Xing was coming to join him in the kitchen.
The witness said the next day Xian Li said they were going to sail to Tema so he would test the engine but when they left Takoradi the vessel sailed for almost two weeks without reaching Tema.
He said he asked Xian Li where they were sailing to and his reply was that they were going to get some parts for the vessel.
"After sailing for another week, a small fishing trawler came near our vessel and offloaded some goods into our vessel. The goods looked like cartons of fish wrapped in sacks. After that we were asked to pack the goods into the hatch of our vessel," he stated.
According to Mr Inkum, after packing the goods, he asked Isaac what the contents were but he replied that they were 77 cartons without stating he contents.
He said the vessel sailed for about three weeks to reach the breakwaters of the Tema Port at 1.30 a.m. and anchored.
He said after anchoring, he went to bed, during which he heard an unusual noise in the vessel which woke him up, only to see a canoe by the side of the vessel.
The witness said the occupants of the canoe entered the hatch of the vessel to offload the 77 cartons into their canoe.
He said while that was happening, he saw another canoe with three occupants in it, one of whom was holding a gun, moving round the vessel while its captain and Xian Li also held guns.
After collecting the goods, he said, the canoe left and it was about 5.00 p.m. that day, during meals time, that he asked Xian Li what the people in the canoe had come to collect.
He said after their meal Xian Li said he would be going to bring some food to replenish their stock before taking them to the main harbour.
Mr Inkum said at about 6.00 a.m. the following day he saw a Naval boat approaching the vessel and not quite long after that Xian Li told them that the Navy people had come to see them.
He said when the Navy men saw them they ordered that they should raise their hands for a search, which took the men to the vessel.
He said after the search, the Navy men started the vessel's engine and took it to the Tema Fishing Harbour where some NACOB officials and more other Navy men entered the vessel to conduct a further search.
The witness said when the hatch of the vessel was opened, one of the 77 cartons was found containing 30 smaller slabs, each weighing one kilogramme.
He said Mr Ben Ndego of NACOB cut open one of the slabs and field-tested for cocaine, which proved positive.
Earlier, when Xian Li cross-examined Sgt Edward Yaw Asante, he denied knowledge of the contents of the cartons and said it was not true that the one parcel of cocaine left on the vessel was meant to pay their salary.
When he asked Sgt Asante what evidence he had to prove that the parcel was meant to pay their salary, Sgt Asante replied that it was Yin Xing who even took him to where it was hidden.
At his turn, Yin Xing denied that he was part of the crew of the vessel and stated that he had only gone on board to eat.
He claimed that he was innocent.
Counsel for the Arhins, Mr D. K. Ameley, who was to cross-examine Mr Inkum, could not do that because of ethical considerations.
Consequently, the judge, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, adjourned the case to next Wednesday to enable them to engage another lawyer to do that for them.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006.
cop testifies in coke case
KOJO's DIARY: Accra BeatANOTHER police detective yesterday testified in the case in which two Venezuelans are facing trial for allegedly importing 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country.
Detective Corporal Richard Appiah Danquah of the Documentation and Visa Fraud Office of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service, gave insight to how the accused persons were arrested on November 24, 2005 in a house at East Legon, Accra.
Joel Meija Duarte Moises, alias Joel Melia, a machine operator, is standing trial with Italo Gervasio Rosero Castillo, alias Cabeza Castina, a businessman and a third accomplice, David Duarte Vasquez, who is on the run.
The accused persons do not speak English and their trial is being facilitated through a Spanish interpreter.
They have pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, illegal importation of narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
They were arrested in a house at East Legon, Accra, on November 24, 2005, while allegedly preparing the substance.
According to Corporal Danquah, he was on duty at the CID Headquarters on November 24, 2005 when his station officer, Inspector George Antwi Tano, summoned him to join a team for an emergency operation in which some cocaine was to be retrieved.
He said that he joined other colleagues at the forecourt of the CID Headquarters and the team leader, Supt Edward Tabiri, then DSP, briefed them on the impending operation to arrest some drug dealers at East Legon without giving any detail.
Corporal Danquah said they boarded three police vehicles and headed towards East Legon. Upon reaching the place Supt Tabiri identified a yellow, one-storey house as where the operation was to take place.
According to him, Supt Tabiri, who led the team, instructed that they should park their vehicles at vantage points and not in front of the gate to the house.
He said some of them were asked to scale the wall and enter the house while others went inside.
"I was among those who were asked to surround the house", he said, and added that as he stood outside the house he saw Castillo enter it.
"I met him talking to a colleague, Constable Ernest Senoo, but I realised there was a communication barrier because Castillo could not speak English or any of the local languages", he said.
During cross-examination by Mr Kwabla Senanu, counsel for the accused persons, witness said he could not remember what time the police team arrived at the East Legon house to embark on the operation but explained that after it they arrived at the office late in the afternoon.
The witness disagreed with counsel that from where he stood during the operation he could not have seen Castillo enter the house and said "I was positioned at the main entrance so I vividly saw him".
KOJO's DIARY
2COKE SUSPECTS REMANDED
THE Greater Accra Regional Tribunal yesterday remanded two suspected drug couriers who were arrested by security officials at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA).
The two suspects, Stephen Buachie Aphram, 61, and Emmanuel Krofa Asamoah, 43, were arrested on January 15 and January 12, 2007, respectively, as they went through departure formalities at the airport.
Their pleas were not taken and they will reappear on February 2, 2007.
Each of them is facing two counts of attempted exportation of narcotic drugs without authority and possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
According to the facts of the cases, Buachie was picked up when he was going through departure formalities to board a British Airways flight to London.
A search in his bag did not reveal anything but his strange movements and demeanour gave him out for officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) to suspect him.
During interrogation, Buachie was said to have admitted swallowing 46 pellets of a substance suspected to be cocaine and he was subsequently sent to the 37 Military Hospital where he later expelled all 46 pellets.
In the case of Asamoah, he was on his way to board a KLM flight to Italy when he was arrested.
He was arrested following suspicion by NACOB officials and was sent for medical examination at the 37 Military Hospital where he also expelled 46 pellets of cocaine.
The substances are to be sent to the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) for test.
THE Greater Accra Regional Tribunal yesterday remanded two suspected drug couriers who were arrested by security officials at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA).
The two suspects, Stephen Buachie Aphram, 61, and Emmanuel Krofa Asamoah, 43, were arrested on January 15 and January 12, 2007, respectively, as they went through departure formalities at the airport.
Their pleas were not taken and they will reappear on February 2, 2007.
Each of them is facing two counts of attempted exportation of narcotic drugs without authority and possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
According to the facts of the cases, Buachie was picked up when he was going through departure formalities to board a British Airways flight to London.
A search in his bag did not reveal anything but his strange movements and demeanour gave him out for officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) to suspect him.
During interrogation, Buachie was said to have admitted swallowing 46 pellets of a substance suspected to be cocaine and he was subsequently sent to the 37 Military Hospital where he later expelled all 46 pellets.
In the case of Asamoah, he was on his way to board a KLM flight to Italy when he was arrested.
He was arrested following suspicion by NACOB officials and was sent for medical examination at the 37 Military Hospital where he also expelled 46 pellets of cocaine.
The substances are to be sent to the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) for test.
KOJO's DIARY
TWO CHINESE DON'T HAVE LEGAL REPS
THE lack of a legal representation for the two Chinese in the MV Benjamin cocaine case appears to be hampering the speedy trial at the Accra Fast Track High Court.
During the court’s sitting the judge and defence counsel expressed reservations about how the inability of the two accused persons to engage the services of lawyers to represent them was impacting on the speedy disposal of the case.
Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing were to cross-examine the first prosecution witness, Detective Sergeant Edward Yaw Asante, but that could not happen because the proceedings had not been made available to the Chinese to enable them to do that.
They are standing trial with the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean, Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians.
The accused persons are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes.
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.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, asked the Chinese interpreter whether he had received a copy of the proceedings so that he could interpret it to the accused persons to enable them to cross-examine the witness.
The judge said that much as that was delaying the trial, it was necessary because even lawyers took down notes to assist them during cross-examination and he did not want the impression to be created that the foreigners were not being offered fair treatment.
Counsel for Dawson, Mr D. K. Ameley, said the inability of the accused persons to engage the services of a lawyer since their arrest in April 2006 was delaying the trial and that it was almost certain that they would not engage lawyers to represent them.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, therefore, adjourned the case to tomorrow and urged the interpreter to get a copy of the proceedings and explain everything to the accused persons.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006.
Sil, an engineer, was alleged to have been in charge of the repairs of the vessel from December 15, 2005 to February 2006 in readiness for sail from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine.
Isaac, a sailor, Philip, a mechanic, Li, a vessel engineer, and Xing, a sailor, were alleged to have, worked on the vessel as members of its crew between February 27, 2006 and April 27, 2006, and that they sailed from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine to Tema.
The four were also alleged to have had in their possession, without lawful authority, one parcel of cocaine containing 30 slabs, with each slab weighing one kilogramme.
THE lack of a legal representation for the two Chinese in the MV Benjamin cocaine case appears to be hampering the speedy trial at the Accra Fast Track High Court.
During the court’s sitting the judge and defence counsel expressed reservations about how the inability of the two accused persons to engage the services of lawyers to represent them was impacting on the speedy disposal of the case.
Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing were to cross-examine the first prosecution witness, Detective Sergeant Edward Yaw Asante, but that could not happen because the proceedings had not been made available to the Chinese to enable them to do that.
They are standing trial with the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean, Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians.
The accused persons are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes.
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.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, asked the Chinese interpreter whether he had received a copy of the proceedings so that he could interpret it to the accused persons to enable them to cross-examine the witness.
The judge said that much as that was delaying the trial, it was necessary because even lawyers took down notes to assist them during cross-examination and he did not want the impression to be created that the foreigners were not being offered fair treatment.
Counsel for Dawson, Mr D. K. Ameley, said the inability of the accused persons to engage the services of a lawyer since their arrest in April 2006 was delaying the trial and that it was almost certain that they would not engage lawyers to represent them.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, therefore, adjourned the case to tomorrow and urged the interpreter to get a copy of the proceedings and explain everything to the accused persons.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006.
Sil, an engineer, was alleged to have been in charge of the repairs of the vessel from December 15, 2005 to February 2006 in readiness for sail from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine.
Isaac, a sailor, Philip, a mechanic, Li, a vessel engineer, and Xing, a sailor, were alleged to have, worked on the vessel as members of its crew between February 27, 2006 and April 27, 2006, and that they sailed from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine to Tema.
The four were also alleged to have had in their possession, without lawful authority, one parcel of cocaine containing 30 slabs, with each slab weighing one kilogramme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)