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 almost always satisfied.
Whenever they were not satisfied with any judgement or settlement, they had another option to go to the most senior chief or paramount chief for 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 in restitution. However, with the onset 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 were 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However, by a commission dated February 19, 1866, the Charter of 1850 was revoked and the Gold Coast, together with Sierra Leone, Nigeria and The Gambia were created under the governors of these four states.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 greater 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 powers 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 society.
It is worthy of note that the country's court system is modelled along the lines of the British system and embodies both Common Law and Customary Law. A combination of the adversarial, inquisitorial and jury systems of trial is 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, serve 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 2005/06 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 sittings, the court is constituted by three justices.
The same 2005/06 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 2005/06 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 are followed by the Ashanti and Western regions, Eastern Region, Central, Brong Ahafo and Volta regions as well as the 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 a 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 includes 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 those 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 is 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 and Western regions 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 that of 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 with power to hear and determine any matter, civil or criminal, that involves a person under 18.
Regrettably, most of the magistrates’ 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 in 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 achievement. For this reason, the Judiciary in Ghana is expected to have chalked up some successes, which, no doubt, has been the case.
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 unreasonable delays in the adjudication of cases, among others.
These are things to worry about especially 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 in the business community. Sometimes the mere sight of our court buildings makes one wonder 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 court units, as well as the construction of a new Supreme Court administration block 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 levels.
It was no surprise, therefore, 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.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
PROSECUTION'S INVESTIGATIONS HIT A SNAG
THE prosecution is facing difficulties in its investigations into the case in which Prince Tsibu Darko, the Tema-based businessman has been accused of exporting 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe.
Consequently, at the instance of the prosecution, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying the accused yesterday adjourned the case to March 27, 2007, to enable the prosecution to conduct further investigations.
At the court’s sitting, Mrs Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa, a Senior State Attorney said the prosecution was still conducting investigations into the matter and that the position remained the same.
She reminded the court of the prosecution’s request during the last sitting, that the case be adjourned to enable further investigations to be conducted but the Republic’s efforts had been hit by a snag.
“The position is still the same and the Republic has not been able to complete the investigations. We have some difficulties”, Mrs Obuobisa stated.
She did not indicate the kind of problem being faced by the prosecution but at earlier sittings, the court was informed that the investigations were being hampered by the fact that relevant information to assist in the prosecution was outside the jurisdiction of the court.
At the court’s last sitting, for instance, the prosecution asked for an adjournment to yesterday because it was wrapping up its investigations into the matter.
The prosecution told the court that investigations were still on going , while it was working on some leads it had received.
Mr Charles Puozuing, who stood in for Darko’s lead counsel did not object to the prosecution’s application.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice J. Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, upheld the application and adjourned the case.
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.
Currently, he is on a ¢1 billion bail with two sureties to be justified and had also surrendered his passport and any travel document to the registrar of the court.
He is also to report himself to the police investigator at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service every Wednesday until otherwise directed.
Consequently, at the instance of the prosecution, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying the accused yesterday adjourned the case to March 27, 2007, to enable the prosecution to conduct further investigations.
At the court’s sitting, Mrs Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa, a Senior State Attorney said the prosecution was still conducting investigations into the matter and that the position remained the same.
She reminded the court of the prosecution’s request during the last sitting, that the case be adjourned to enable further investigations to be conducted but the Republic’s efforts had been hit by a snag.
“The position is still the same and the Republic has not been able to complete the investigations. We have some difficulties”, Mrs Obuobisa stated.
She did not indicate the kind of problem being faced by the prosecution but at earlier sittings, the court was informed that the investigations were being hampered by the fact that relevant information to assist in the prosecution was outside the jurisdiction of the court.
At the court’s last sitting, for instance, the prosecution asked for an adjournment to yesterday because it was wrapping up its investigations into the matter.
The prosecution told the court that investigations were still on going , while it was working on some leads it had received.
Mr Charles Puozuing, who stood in for Darko’s lead counsel did not object to the prosecution’s application.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice J. Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, upheld the application and adjourned the case.
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.
Currently, he is on a ¢1 billion bail with two sureties to be justified and had also surrendered his passport and any travel document to the registrar of the court.
He is also to report himself to the police investigator at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service every Wednesday until otherwise directed.
TWO US ENERGY COMPANIES IN COURT OVER CONTRACT
AN Accra High Court on Monday dismissed an application by G.E. Energy Rentals Incorporated, a US -based company, for an extension of time to enable it to appeal against the court’s order that the case in which Lushann International Energy Incorporated, another US company, has sued should be heard.
The two are feuding over a contract signed with the Volta River Authority (VRA) in 2002 which has implications for the country’s energy needs and would have culminated in the supply of 85 MW of power to supplement supplies from the Akosombo Dam and the Aboadze Thermal Plant.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Ofori-Atta, awarded costs of ¢4 million against G.E. Energy Rentals in favour of Lushann International and Mr Philip Dampare, a co-plaintiff.
At the instance of the defendant company’s solicitor, the court fixed Wednesday, February 28, 2007 for the hearing of the case.
According to the solicitor, Mrs Brenda Aikins, counsel for the defendant company, Mr Ace Ankomah, was indisposed.
Counsel for the plaintiff and co-plaintiff, Mr Atta Akyea and Mr Kwame Boafo, asked for costs of ¢5 million each because, according to them, the application was an abuse of the court process. But the court rather awarded costs of ¢2 million each in their favour.
The court had earlier in December dismissed a preliminary application by the defendant company which sought to dismiss the action brought against it by Lushann International.
In that application, the defendant company argued that a court in Texas, USA, had dismissed a similar case which Lushann International instituted against it.
However, the Accra High Court reasoned that the matters raised by Lushann International should be the subject matter of the trial in Ghana.
When the court fixed a date for yesterday’s hearing, the defendant company, on January 29, 2007, filed for an extension of time to enable it to appeal against the court’s decision to go into the merits of the matter.
The court ruled that the application for extension was inexcusable and accordingly dismissed it to pave the way for the hearing of the substantive matter.
In the substantive matter, Lushann International is seeking a declaration that the conduct of G.E. Energy Rentals amounted to a breach of contract.
On January 10, 2002, the management of the VRA entered into an agreement with Lushann for the lease of an 85 MW power plant for a three-year period to supplement the energy supply in the system.
In order to ensure efficiency in the execution of the project, Lushann International entered into an agreement with G. E. Energy Rentals to jointly execute it.
However, according to the plaintiff, the defendant used plaintiff’s trade secrets and strategic information regarding its Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the VRA without its consent.
It further contended that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s contractual relationship with the VRA, which resulted in the termination of the PPA and misappropriated its trade secret.
It said on February 8, 2002, the plaintiff executed a PPA with the VRA for the emergency supply of power to Ghana.
According to the statement, after the execution of the PPA, the plaintiff, mindful of the time constraints, aggressively expended effort, time and resources towards its implementation.
These included negotiating and executing several agreements, making trips within the US, to Europe and Africa.
Lushann International said because of the estimated time of four to six months required to pour concrete for the installation of a permanent plant, the VRA and the plaintiff decided to resort to the temporary use of skid mounted units.
It said the plaintiff found out that the defendant had several of the skid mounted units in the US to rent out and so, with the assistance of the defendant’s personnel, it conducted an inspection of the units.
According to the statement, the plaintiff and the defendant then commenced discussions and negotiations aimed at exploring ways and means of implementing the PPA with the VRA and sent the defendant a copy of the PPA, a copy of the letters of credit opened in plaintiff’s favour by the VRA and the names of its primary contacts at the VRA.
It said during those discussions, the plaintiff revealed its trade secrets, confidential business information and the strategic plans for power generation in Ghana and the rest of West Africa, with assurances from the defendant that the information would be utilised only to further the plaintiff’s relationship with the VRA.
It was also to enable the defendant to assess plaintiff’s invitation to form a limited joint venture with the defendant for the purpose of supplying power to the West African sub-region.
As a result of those discussions and negotiations, the plaintiff and the defendant executed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on or about March 20, 2002 in furtherance of the plaintiff’s PPA with VRA.
It said without the plaintiff’s consent, the defendant began to make contacts with the VRA in respect of the plaintiff’s PPA and thereby complicated the plaintiff’s relationship with the VRA and succeeded in wresting the PPA from it.
In its statement of defence, G.E. Energy Rentals denied each and every statement of fact and or allegation in the statement of claim.
It contended that the plaintiff’s action was an abuse of the process of the court and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for which relief could be granted.
It said the defendant’s rights and obligations were defined under and limited by the terms of the MoU, adding that the plaintiff materially breached the MoU and did not fulfil its conditions by not making the required down payment.
The two are feuding over a contract signed with the Volta River Authority (VRA) in 2002 which has implications for the country’s energy needs and would have culminated in the supply of 85 MW of power to supplement supplies from the Akosombo Dam and the Aboadze Thermal Plant.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Ofori-Atta, awarded costs of ¢4 million against G.E. Energy Rentals in favour of Lushann International and Mr Philip Dampare, a co-plaintiff.
At the instance of the defendant company’s solicitor, the court fixed Wednesday, February 28, 2007 for the hearing of the case.
According to the solicitor, Mrs Brenda Aikins, counsel for the defendant company, Mr Ace Ankomah, was indisposed.
Counsel for the plaintiff and co-plaintiff, Mr Atta Akyea and Mr Kwame Boafo, asked for costs of ¢5 million each because, according to them, the application was an abuse of the court process. But the court rather awarded costs of ¢2 million each in their favour.
The court had earlier in December dismissed a preliminary application by the defendant company which sought to dismiss the action brought against it by Lushann International.
In that application, the defendant company argued that a court in Texas, USA, had dismissed a similar case which Lushann International instituted against it.
However, the Accra High Court reasoned that the matters raised by Lushann International should be the subject matter of the trial in Ghana.
When the court fixed a date for yesterday’s hearing, the defendant company, on January 29, 2007, filed for an extension of time to enable it to appeal against the court’s decision to go into the merits of the matter.
The court ruled that the application for extension was inexcusable and accordingly dismissed it to pave the way for the hearing of the substantive matter.
In the substantive matter, Lushann International is seeking a declaration that the conduct of G.E. Energy Rentals amounted to a breach of contract.
On January 10, 2002, the management of the VRA entered into an agreement with Lushann for the lease of an 85 MW power plant for a three-year period to supplement the energy supply in the system.
In order to ensure efficiency in the execution of the project, Lushann International entered into an agreement with G. E. Energy Rentals to jointly execute it.
However, according to the plaintiff, the defendant used plaintiff’s trade secrets and strategic information regarding its Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the VRA without its consent.
It further contended that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s contractual relationship with the VRA, which resulted in the termination of the PPA and misappropriated its trade secret.
It said on February 8, 2002, the plaintiff executed a PPA with the VRA for the emergency supply of power to Ghana.
According to the statement, after the execution of the PPA, the plaintiff, mindful of the time constraints, aggressively expended effort, time and resources towards its implementation.
These included negotiating and executing several agreements, making trips within the US, to Europe and Africa.
Lushann International said because of the estimated time of four to six months required to pour concrete for the installation of a permanent plant, the VRA and the plaintiff decided to resort to the temporary use of skid mounted units.
It said the plaintiff found out that the defendant had several of the skid mounted units in the US to rent out and so, with the assistance of the defendant’s personnel, it conducted an inspection of the units.
According to the statement, the plaintiff and the defendant then commenced discussions and negotiations aimed at exploring ways and means of implementing the PPA with the VRA and sent the defendant a copy of the PPA, a copy of the letters of credit opened in plaintiff’s favour by the VRA and the names of its primary contacts at the VRA.
It said during those discussions, the plaintiff revealed its trade secrets, confidential business information and the strategic plans for power generation in Ghana and the rest of West Africa, with assurances from the defendant that the information would be utilised only to further the plaintiff’s relationship with the VRA.
It was also to enable the defendant to assess plaintiff’s invitation to form a limited joint venture with the defendant for the purpose of supplying power to the West African sub-region.
As a result of those discussions and negotiations, the plaintiff and the defendant executed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on or about March 20, 2002 in furtherance of the plaintiff’s PPA with VRA.
It said without the plaintiff’s consent, the defendant began to make contacts with the VRA in respect of the plaintiff’s PPA and thereby complicated the plaintiff’s relationship with the VRA and succeeded in wresting the PPA from it.
In its statement of defence, G.E. Energy Rentals denied each and every statement of fact and or allegation in the statement of claim.
It contended that the plaintiff’s action was an abuse of the process of the court and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for which relief could be granted.
It said the defendant’s rights and obligations were defined under and limited by the terms of the MoU, adding that the plaintiff materially breached the MoU and did not fulfil its conditions by not making the required down payment.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Georgina Wood Committee member testifies in coke trial
A member of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee has denied that the name of the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei-Tutu, was mentioned in the recorded conversation which took place in the house of ACP Kofi Boakye and made available to the committee.
Testifying under cross-examination at the Fast Track High Court trying the cocaine case involving Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, and Alhaji Issah Abbas, Mr Yaw Baah, who is also a Member of Parliament (MP) for Kumawu, said the title “chief” (Ohene, in Akan ) was mentioned without being specific to any name such as the Asantehene or the Manhyia Palace. He said the chief mentioned on the tape could mean a different person.
He was testifying under cross-examination by Mr Mohammed Atta, counsel for Alhaji Abbas.
Question: The name of the King of Manhyia was mentioned?
Answer: No. What was mentioned was ‘Ohene’ and it means a chief so it could be a different chief.
Question: Did you find any relationship between Alhaji Moro and Manhyia Palace?
Answer: No
Question: Did he appear before the committee?
Answer: Yes
Question: In his testimony he said he was connected with the Manhyia Palace.
Answer: It is never so. He was asked whether he had any linkage with the Otumfuo or whether he had gone to Manhyia Palace to solicit help for Tagor. And in his reply (which was made in Twi), he said the Otumfuo did not tolerate this kind of criminal activities and that if anyone made such an appeal to him, he would apprehend that person and give him out to the police.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji 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 but the prosecution, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, entered a nolle prosequi, 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.
Mr Baah had earlier in his evidence-in-chief identified the recorded conversation which was alleged to have taken place in ACP Boakye’s house.
That was after the tape was played for about five minutes.
There was, however, an objection by counsel for the defence that enough foundation had not been laid for it to be tendered and the court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, overruled the objection.
According to the court, the prosecution did not intend to tender the compact disc and it was important that the tape was played and listened to in order to confirm whether it contained information irrelevant to the case.
Led in evidence by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, the witness said the CD was dropped at the Committee by an anonymous person and after listening to it the committee became convinced that the information on it was vital to its work.
Consequently, he said, the committee formally wrote to those persons whose names were mentioned during the conversation to appear before it and testify.
Mr Baah said those who were involved in the conversation included ACP Boakye, Tagor, Alhaji Moro, Kwabena Acheampong and Alhaji Abbas and that the tape was played to their hearing and they admitted that the voice was theirs.
He said the committee recommended 14 people to be prosecuted for their role in the missing cocaine.
During cross-examination by Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, counsel for Tagor, the witness agreed with him that the committee could not discover who sent the CD to the committee or when it was authored and by whom.
He also admitted that no date or time was indicated on the CD but stated that what was of importance to the committee was the relevance of the information it contained.
Mr Baah denied that Tagor did not accept his voice on the tape and said he did admit except that he denied certain aspects which were not audible.
He further denied a suggestion that ACP Boakye told the committee that the tape had been edited and explained that during its work the committee was told that various versions of the tape was in the public domain and being played on radio and when the committee had the chance to listen to what it received, it realised that its duration was between one hour and one-and-a-half hours and in accord with what transpired during the meeting in ACP Boakye’s house.
The witness admitted that although the committee was unable to discover where the 77 parcels of cocaine had been taken to, it was able to establish who its owners were and how it arrived in the country as well as efforts at tackling the narcotic business in the country.
Another prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Charles Adaba testified and said that the case was referred to him for investigation by his superior officers at the Criminal Investigations Department Headquarters.
He said that he took delivery of the CD containing the conversation of the meeting in ACP Boakye’s house but he did not succeed in getting the source of the tape because all those he contacted did not help him.
When the prosecution wanted to tender the CD through the investigator, the defence objected to that and the court after hearing the arguments adjourned to March 15, 2007, to give its ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the tape.
Testifying under cross-examination at the Fast Track High Court trying the cocaine case involving Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, and Alhaji Issah Abbas, Mr Yaw Baah, who is also a Member of Parliament (MP) for Kumawu, said the title “chief” (Ohene, in Akan ) was mentioned without being specific to any name such as the Asantehene or the Manhyia Palace. He said the chief mentioned on the tape could mean a different person.
He was testifying under cross-examination by Mr Mohammed Atta, counsel for Alhaji Abbas.
Question: The name of the King of Manhyia was mentioned?
Answer: No. What was mentioned was ‘Ohene’ and it means a chief so it could be a different chief.
Question: Did you find any relationship between Alhaji Moro and Manhyia Palace?
Answer: No
Question: Did he appear before the committee?
Answer: Yes
Question: In his testimony he said he was connected with the Manhyia Palace.
Answer: It is never so. He was asked whether he had any linkage with the Otumfuo or whether he had gone to Manhyia Palace to solicit help for Tagor. And in his reply (which was made in Twi), he said the Otumfuo did not tolerate this kind of criminal activities and that if anyone made such an appeal to him, he would apprehend that person and give him out to the police.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji 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 but the prosecution, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, entered a nolle prosequi, 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.
Mr Baah had earlier in his evidence-in-chief identified the recorded conversation which was alleged to have taken place in ACP Boakye’s house.
That was after the tape was played for about five minutes.
There was, however, an objection by counsel for the defence that enough foundation had not been laid for it to be tendered and the court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, overruled the objection.
According to the court, the prosecution did not intend to tender the compact disc and it was important that the tape was played and listened to in order to confirm whether it contained information irrelevant to the case.
Led in evidence by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, the witness said the CD was dropped at the Committee by an anonymous person and after listening to it the committee became convinced that the information on it was vital to its work.
Consequently, he said, the committee formally wrote to those persons whose names were mentioned during the conversation to appear before it and testify.
Mr Baah said those who were involved in the conversation included ACP Boakye, Tagor, Alhaji Moro, Kwabena Acheampong and Alhaji Abbas and that the tape was played to their hearing and they admitted that the voice was theirs.
He said the committee recommended 14 people to be prosecuted for their role in the missing cocaine.
During cross-examination by Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, counsel for Tagor, the witness agreed with him that the committee could not discover who sent the CD to the committee or when it was authored and by whom.
He also admitted that no date or time was indicated on the CD but stated that what was of importance to the committee was the relevance of the information it contained.
Mr Baah denied that Tagor did not accept his voice on the tape and said he did admit except that he denied certain aspects which were not audible.
He further denied a suggestion that ACP Boakye told the committee that the tape had been edited and explained that during its work the committee was told that various versions of the tape was in the public domain and being played on radio and when the committee had the chance to listen to what it received, it realised that its duration was between one hour and one-and-a-half hours and in accord with what transpired during the meeting in ACP Boakye’s house.
The witness admitted that although the committee was unable to discover where the 77 parcels of cocaine had been taken to, it was able to establish who its owners were and how it arrived in the country as well as efforts at tackling the narcotic business in the country.
Another prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Charles Adaba testified and said that the case was referred to him for investigation by his superior officers at the Criminal Investigations Department Headquarters.
He said that he took delivery of the CD containing the conversation of the meeting in ACP Boakye’s house but he did not succeed in getting the source of the tape because all those he contacted did not help him.
When the prosecution wanted to tender the CD through the investigator, the defence objected to that and the court after hearing the arguments adjourned to March 15, 2007, to give its ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the tape.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Let's avoid ethnocentrism
The other day in trotro a visibly elderly passenger was not amused at all about the driver's mate speaking in the Twi (is it Akan) language to the passengers. The poor mate had demanded his fare through the Twi language expression and the old man whether genuinely or feigning not to understand that language asked the mate to redirect his plea in the Ga language because we are in Accra, which is the land of the Gas.
So to speak, he needlessly said that the Ga language was expedient as the medium of expression in Accra. This degenerated into an unending argument carrying tempers very high.
An obviously younger passenger with a premonition that the argument was likely to degenerate into unimportant ethnic issues cleverly intervened that after all the old man was joking and that the issue should not be dragged.
Insults were actually traded with the old man, who from his rattle of the Queens language, might have achieved some considerable level education, being at the receiving end from a gentleman and who sat beside me.
As the incident unfolded, I sat quietly and put on my sociological lenses to observe so that the deduction that I shall made from what transpired could assist me to do this write-up on an issue, which to me, hinges on ethnocentrism, an essentail sine qua non for our national dvelopment. This is an issue which if not tackled or checked could lead to bloodshed and this is what Ghanaians must do everything to avoid and live in harmony as before.
For Ghana is noted to be a peaceful country of one people with a common destiny.
And it does not matter whether one is an Ewe, an Akan, a Ga, a Dagaare or from any part of the country. Indeed, it is a fact that ethnocentrism like nationalism cannot be wished away. After all everybody is proud of themselves first and anything else comes second.
Even between children and their parents, in matters of individuality, the children feel superior in their thoughts and vice versa the parents. So you see that ethnocentrism cannot be easily wished away.
Some of us subtly or rather knowingly engage in taunts at others. It is common to hear people condemn others for practising certain customs , traditions and all that. For example, if I come from Sefwi where the monkey is a delicacy it in not uncommon to hear somebody from Accra or elsewhere feeling nauseating about that.
Similarly, in communities where the dog is a delicacy, such repugnant comments are easily to be passed and those who feel disgusted often feel that they are better of and nothing else. Many of such examples abound in Ghana to the effect that some tribes have been associated with industrious skill while others are seen as lazy and even thieves. I may not want to mention names here but your guess might be as good as mine.
Obviously there are some people who might have qualms to pick with people from specific tribes or ethnic backgrounds no matter anything good being done by them. This must be due to what people hear or read from elsewhere or just out of sheer dislike.
And as a Ghanaian adage goes that "Whatever that the chicken does is not appreciated by the hawk", such people will not be pleased by anything not even the slightest infractions or even jokes put up any member of the other group they consider as inferior, superior or whatever.
In the light of the above, I am looking at what ethnocentrism is, whether or not it can be avoided, what the problem is and what can be done about it.
Ethnocentrism, from the point of view of the argument above, is a commonly used word in circles where ethnicity, inter-ethnic relations, and similar social issues are of concern or come to play.
The usual definition of the term is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers to cultural heritage, and "centrism" refers to the central starting point, therefore, "ethnocentrism" basically refers to judging other groups from our own cultural point of view.
But even this does not address the underlying issue of why people do this. Most people, thinking of the shallow definition, believe that they are not ethnocentric, but are rather "open minded" and "tolerant." However, as explained above, everyone is ethnocentric and there is no way that one cannot to be ethnocentric. It cannot be avoided, nor can it be willed away by a positive or well-meaning attitude. It can be managed by the way we go about it.
Similarly, ethnocentrism has been defined as making false assumptions about others' ways based on our own limited experience. The key word is assumptions, because we are not even aware that we are being ethnocentric. This is where I said people who read or just heard about others base their assessment on that.
The assumptions we make about others' experience can involve false negative judgements, reflected in the common definition of ethnocentrism.
More examples abound in our local communities, as well as around the world.
Everybody is ethnocentric, as all of us around the world assume things about other people's ways.
Why are we people ethnocentric? The definition given above emphasises that we make false assumptions based on our own limited experience. Our perceptions of tribes, our time frames, our values on industriousness, our social roles, our beliefs about life and the universe, and all our other ways help us organise life experience and provide important meanings and functions as we move through daily and life span activities.
Therefore, our limited experiences we have already had are the basis for interpreting new experiences. Since we have not experienced everything they have experienced, how can we not be ethnocentric?
Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. The preface to my article amply demonstrates this fact. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our own tinted glasses. We see their ways in terms of our life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just as our ways have for us.
At the best, we simply continue in our unawareness. Yet this can have consequences within our society and even in international relations. I remember telling my German fried sometime what I had heard that German do not drink piped water because of the ripples from the world wars.
We may be well meaning in inter-ethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill-feelings, and even set up situations that harm others.
A lack of understanding can also inhibit constructive resolutions when we face conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain perspectives or values. How often are we prone to address conflicts when others tell us how we should think and feel?
Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and inhibiting resolution of conflicts.
An ultimate case of such misunderstandings is warfare, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families, subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever.
There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing, which has not been experienced in our country.
Can ethnocentrism be avoided or eliminated? Addressing ethnocentrism is not a matter of trying not to be ethnocentric. This is an impossible task, since we will never experience every life situation of everyone around our community or the wider society -the world. We will always have our assumptions about life based on our existing limited experience.
So a much more productive approach is to catch ourselves when we are being ethnocentric and to control for this bias as we seek to develop better understandings.
In science, grounded understandings are not developed from the absence of biases, but rather the recognition and control of biases, is it the placebo effect or what? The scientific process helps us to have a clearer view of what we do understand in the context of what we do not understand.
Ethnocentrism is a bias that keeps us from such understandings of other people's life experience, but it is possible to recognise this bias and control it so that we can go on to develop more valid and balanced understandings.
This calls for us to develop our learning skills, by trying to learn from those we consider to different.
Many of us know people who have moved to other societies and have learned to become functional in their new social settings, evidence that it is possible to develop more grounded understandings.
Anthropologists and Sociologists, of course, have worked on systematically developing these skills for well over a century.
The first step in developing more balanced understandings is to recognise that we do not understand, that we are falsely assuming something that is not the case and is out of context. How can we consciously become aware of something that is happening subconsciously? In this case, how can we know when we are being biased?
One of the most effective means for recognising that ethnocentrism is inhibiting our understandings is to watch for reactions. At best, the old man having recognised the reactions of the majority of passengers on board the trotro should have been enough to tell him that he was going to thread on dangerous grounds.
Reactions tell us that we are assuming something and that our assumptions are not working.
We can always observe our own reactions from our utterances and behaviour. Our negative reactions towards others are sufficient clues that our assumptions are not working in certain situations.
Generally, reactions tell us first about ourselves. Why do we think people should be friendly, appreciate us, feel warmth all over when we refer to them as primitive or superstitious, uncivilised and those uncouth statements.
An attitude for learning is required of us. In this process, it is important for us to remember that we do not know, and that is why we are seeking to develop better understandings. The best method is to ask for their explanations about what they do or say.
As our media pluralisim has opened the vistas for free comments, we must as well try to play diplomacy and accept each others views as because all of us cannot have the same beliefs, customs, arts and any other capabilities, which according to renowned Sociologist E.B Tylor, are accepted by man as a mmber of socitey.
We should always try to put ourselves in the shoes of others because no condition is permanent. After all during the fight for indepenndence, people from diverse socia-cultural backrounds put aside their difference and together fight the common enemy- poverty and disease to make our country a better place for generations yet unborn.
So to speak, he needlessly said that the Ga language was expedient as the medium of expression in Accra. This degenerated into an unending argument carrying tempers very high.
An obviously younger passenger with a premonition that the argument was likely to degenerate into unimportant ethnic issues cleverly intervened that after all the old man was joking and that the issue should not be dragged.
Insults were actually traded with the old man, who from his rattle of the Queens language, might have achieved some considerable level education, being at the receiving end from a gentleman and who sat beside me.
As the incident unfolded, I sat quietly and put on my sociological lenses to observe so that the deduction that I shall made from what transpired could assist me to do this write-up on an issue, which to me, hinges on ethnocentrism, an essentail sine qua non for our national dvelopment. This is an issue which if not tackled or checked could lead to bloodshed and this is what Ghanaians must do everything to avoid and live in harmony as before.
For Ghana is noted to be a peaceful country of one people with a common destiny.
And it does not matter whether one is an Ewe, an Akan, a Ga, a Dagaare or from any part of the country. Indeed, it is a fact that ethnocentrism like nationalism cannot be wished away. After all everybody is proud of themselves first and anything else comes second.
Even between children and their parents, in matters of individuality, the children feel superior in their thoughts and vice versa the parents. So you see that ethnocentrism cannot be easily wished away.
Some of us subtly or rather knowingly engage in taunts at others. It is common to hear people condemn others for practising certain customs , traditions and all that. For example, if I come from Sefwi where the monkey is a delicacy it in not uncommon to hear somebody from Accra or elsewhere feeling nauseating about that.
Similarly, in communities where the dog is a delicacy, such repugnant comments are easily to be passed and those who feel disgusted often feel that they are better of and nothing else. Many of such examples abound in Ghana to the effect that some tribes have been associated with industrious skill while others are seen as lazy and even thieves. I may not want to mention names here but your guess might be as good as mine.
Obviously there are some people who might have qualms to pick with people from specific tribes or ethnic backgrounds no matter anything good being done by them. This must be due to what people hear or read from elsewhere or just out of sheer dislike.
And as a Ghanaian adage goes that "Whatever that the chicken does is not appreciated by the hawk", such people will not be pleased by anything not even the slightest infractions or even jokes put up any member of the other group they consider as inferior, superior or whatever.
In the light of the above, I am looking at what ethnocentrism is, whether or not it can be avoided, what the problem is and what can be done about it.
Ethnocentrism, from the point of view of the argument above, is a commonly used word in circles where ethnicity, inter-ethnic relations, and similar social issues are of concern or come to play.
The usual definition of the term is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers to cultural heritage, and "centrism" refers to the central starting point, therefore, "ethnocentrism" basically refers to judging other groups from our own cultural point of view.
But even this does not address the underlying issue of why people do this. Most people, thinking of the shallow definition, believe that they are not ethnocentric, but are rather "open minded" and "tolerant." However, as explained above, everyone is ethnocentric and there is no way that one cannot to be ethnocentric. It cannot be avoided, nor can it be willed away by a positive or well-meaning attitude. It can be managed by the way we go about it.
Similarly, ethnocentrism has been defined as making false assumptions about others' ways based on our own limited experience. The key word is assumptions, because we are not even aware that we are being ethnocentric. This is where I said people who read or just heard about others base their assessment on that.
The assumptions we make about others' experience can involve false negative judgements, reflected in the common definition of ethnocentrism.
More examples abound in our local communities, as well as around the world.
Everybody is ethnocentric, as all of us around the world assume things about other people's ways.
Why are we people ethnocentric? The definition given above emphasises that we make false assumptions based on our own limited experience. Our perceptions of tribes, our time frames, our values on industriousness, our social roles, our beliefs about life and the universe, and all our other ways help us organise life experience and provide important meanings and functions as we move through daily and life span activities.
Therefore, our limited experiences we have already had are the basis for interpreting new experiences. Since we have not experienced everything they have experienced, how can we not be ethnocentric?
Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. The preface to my article amply demonstrates this fact. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our own tinted glasses. We see their ways in terms of our life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just as our ways have for us.
At the best, we simply continue in our unawareness. Yet this can have consequences within our society and even in international relations. I remember telling my German fried sometime what I had heard that German do not drink piped water because of the ripples from the world wars.
We may be well meaning in inter-ethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill-feelings, and even set up situations that harm others.
A lack of understanding can also inhibit constructive resolutions when we face conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain perspectives or values. How often are we prone to address conflicts when others tell us how we should think and feel?
Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and inhibiting resolution of conflicts.
An ultimate case of such misunderstandings is warfare, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families, subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever.
There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing, which has not been experienced in our country.
Can ethnocentrism be avoided or eliminated? Addressing ethnocentrism is not a matter of trying not to be ethnocentric. This is an impossible task, since we will never experience every life situation of everyone around our community or the wider society -the world. We will always have our assumptions about life based on our existing limited experience.
So a much more productive approach is to catch ourselves when we are being ethnocentric and to control for this bias as we seek to develop better understandings.
In science, grounded understandings are not developed from the absence of biases, but rather the recognition and control of biases, is it the placebo effect or what? The scientific process helps us to have a clearer view of what we do understand in the context of what we do not understand.
Ethnocentrism is a bias that keeps us from such understandings of other people's life experience, but it is possible to recognise this bias and control it so that we can go on to develop more valid and balanced understandings.
This calls for us to develop our learning skills, by trying to learn from those we consider to different.
Many of us know people who have moved to other societies and have learned to become functional in their new social settings, evidence that it is possible to develop more grounded understandings.
Anthropologists and Sociologists, of course, have worked on systematically developing these skills for well over a century.
The first step in developing more balanced understandings is to recognise that we do not understand, that we are falsely assuming something that is not the case and is out of context. How can we consciously become aware of something that is happening subconsciously? In this case, how can we know when we are being biased?
One of the most effective means for recognising that ethnocentrism is inhibiting our understandings is to watch for reactions. At best, the old man having recognised the reactions of the majority of passengers on board the trotro should have been enough to tell him that he was going to thread on dangerous grounds.
Reactions tell us that we are assuming something and that our assumptions are not working.
We can always observe our own reactions from our utterances and behaviour. Our negative reactions towards others are sufficient clues that our assumptions are not working in certain situations.
Generally, reactions tell us first about ourselves. Why do we think people should be friendly, appreciate us, feel warmth all over when we refer to them as primitive or superstitious, uncivilised and those uncouth statements.
An attitude for learning is required of us. In this process, it is important for us to remember that we do not know, and that is why we are seeking to develop better understandings. The best method is to ask for their explanations about what they do or say.
As our media pluralisim has opened the vistas for free comments, we must as well try to play diplomacy and accept each others views as because all of us cannot have the same beliefs, customs, arts and any other capabilities, which according to renowned Sociologist E.B Tylor, are accepted by man as a mmber of socitey.
We should always try to put ourselves in the shoes of others because no condition is permanent. After all during the fight for indepenndence, people from diverse socia-cultural backrounds put aside their difference and together fight the common enemy- poverty and disease to make our country a better place for generations yet unborn.
State opposes bail application by jailed MP
THE state has opposed the application for bail pending appeal filed by the jailed Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta, Dan Kwasi Abodakpi.
This was disclosed to the court press corps in Accra yesterday after the parties in the case had met in the judge’s chambers to take a date for the hearing.
Details of the affidavit in opposition were not made available to the press and efforts to get it, as well as that of the former minister were unsuccessful.
While the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, said making the affidavit available to the press would be contemptuous of the court proceedings, counsel for Abodakpi also made it clear that he would not entertain the press on the matter.
The matter was adjourned to March 5, 2007, to enable counsel for the applicant, who was served at short notice, respond to it for the stage to be set for the hearing.
If the application is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interests of his constituents and the minority opposition in Parliament.
The former trade and industry minister was on February 5, 2007, sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by an Accra Fast Track High Court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
After the sentence some sympathisers, including some MPs hailed him as a hero and cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
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.
They were 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 were 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.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted a self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
This was disclosed to the court press corps in Accra yesterday after the parties in the case had met in the judge’s chambers to take a date for the hearing.
Details of the affidavit in opposition were not made available to the press and efforts to get it, as well as that of the former minister were unsuccessful.
While the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, said making the affidavit available to the press would be contemptuous of the court proceedings, counsel for Abodakpi also made it clear that he would not entertain the press on the matter.
The matter was adjourned to March 5, 2007, to enable counsel for the applicant, who was served at short notice, respond to it for the stage to be set for the hearing.
If the application is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interests of his constituents and the minority opposition in Parliament.
The former trade and industry minister was on February 5, 2007, sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by an Accra Fast Track High Court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
After the sentence some sympathisers, including some MPs hailed him as a hero and cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
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.
They were 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 were 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.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted a self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
State opposes bail application by jailed MP
THE state has opposed the application for bail pending appeal filed by the jailed Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta, Dan Kwasi Abodakpi.
This was disclosed to the court press corps in Accra yesterday after the parties in the case had met in the judge’s chambers to take a date for the hearing.
Details of the affidavit in opposition were not made available to the press and efforts to get it, as well as that of the former minister were unsuccessful.
While the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, said making the affidavit available to the press would be contemptuous of the court proceedings, counsel for Abodakpi also made it clear that he would not entertain the press on the matter.
The matter was adjourned to March 5, 2007, to enable counsel for the applicant, who was served at short notice, respond to it for the stage to be set for the hearing.
If the application is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interests of his constituents and the minority opposition in Parliament.
The former trade and industry minister was on February 5, 2007, sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by an Accra Fast Track High Court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
After the sentence some sympathisers, including some MPs hailed him as a hero and cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
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.
They were 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 were 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.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted a self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
This was disclosed to the court press corps in Accra yesterday after the parties in the case had met in the judge’s chambers to take a date for the hearing.
Details of the affidavit in opposition were not made available to the press and efforts to get it, as well as that of the former minister were unsuccessful.
While the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, said making the affidavit available to the press would be contemptuous of the court proceedings, counsel for Abodakpi also made it clear that he would not entertain the press on the matter.
The matter was adjourned to March 5, 2007, to enable counsel for the applicant, who was served at short notice, respond to it for the stage to be set for the hearing.
If the application is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interests of his constituents and the minority opposition in Parliament.
The former trade and industry minister was on February 5, 2007, sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by an Accra Fast Track High Court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
After the sentence some sympathisers, including some MPs hailed him as a hero and cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
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.
They were 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 were 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.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted a self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
Police in coke trial
THE fugitive policeman who is standing trial with three other policemen at the Accra Fast Track High Court for allegedly aiding a suspect to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine admitted in his statement that they received an unspecified amount in dollars from the fugitive cocaine owner, Sheriff Asem Dakeh.
Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah was said to have indicated in the statement that his share was $3,000.
A prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Justice Oppong, told the Fast Track High Court yesterday during cross-examination by Mr Ahmed Musah, counsel for two of the accused persons.
He was testifying in the case in which General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, General Sergeant Daniel Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Peter Bondori and Detective Sergeant Amoah, who is on the run, are accused of collecting money from the owner of the cocaine, Dakeh, and allowing him (Dakeh) 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.
Inspector Oppong said although the accused persons had denied accepting money from Dakeh, it was clear that they met him at the Kpone Beach and from there they even went to his Community One residence in Tema.
He, however, did not tender Sgt Amoah’s statement because he was at large.
The witness said on April 26, 2006, Corporal Bondori crossed Sgt Nyarko, Corporal Yabson and Sgt Amoah with a taxi when he saw them and the van carting the suspected cocaine.
He said on meeting Dakeh, he (Dakeh) told the accused persons, “If it is because of cocaine that you are here, it is gone.”
Inspector Oppong denied that Sgt Nyarko’s statement was taken under duress in order to drop a more serious offence against him and that he voluntarily wrote his statement after his arrest.
He further denied subjecting Sgt Nyarko to an identification parade, during which his name was mentioned, to enable some fishermen to identify him.
He agreed with counsel that nobody arrested Dakeh but his vehicle number was mentioned by Sgt Nyarko in his statement and that enabled the police to retrieve it from Kpone Katamanso where its tires had been removed and the vehicle jerked and covered to outwit the police.
In a related development, a shipping superintendent and registrar of ships yesterday told the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin that the vessel was registered with the Ghana Maritime Authority on April 20, 2000.
He, however, said that its crew at the time of arrest by the security agencies was not registered.
Mr Eugene Ofei-Boohen was testifying in the case concerning some missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin 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, 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 and have been remanded into prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobi, a Principal State Attorney, the witness said he knew the ship owner because he was one of the directors of Dashment Shipping Company Limited, the owners of MV Benjamin.
According to him, he registered the vessel and the first time it was put on the Ghanaian register was April 20, 2000 because it was of Korean origin, with the name MV Duk Won 63.
He said vessels could be chartered, saying chartered vessels were registered if they were from different countries coming to the Ghanaian register.
During cross-examination by Mr D.K Ameley, counsel for Dawson, the witness said when a vessel was registered in Ghana it had to be deregistered from the original country of destination, adding that the MV Benjamin satisfied all the requirements for it to be registered in Ghana.
He said it was also the responsibility of whoever chartered the vessel or the company which engaged it to register the crew, as well as those who would manage it, among other things.
Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah was said to have indicated in the statement that his share was $3,000.
A prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Justice Oppong, told the Fast Track High Court yesterday during cross-examination by Mr Ahmed Musah, counsel for two of the accused persons.
He was testifying in the case in which General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, General Sergeant Daniel Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Peter Bondori and Detective Sergeant Amoah, who is on the run, are accused of collecting money from the owner of the cocaine, Dakeh, and allowing him (Dakeh) 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.
Inspector Oppong said although the accused persons had denied accepting money from Dakeh, it was clear that they met him at the Kpone Beach and from there they even went to his Community One residence in Tema.
He, however, did not tender Sgt Amoah’s statement because he was at large.
The witness said on April 26, 2006, Corporal Bondori crossed Sgt Nyarko, Corporal Yabson and Sgt Amoah with a taxi when he saw them and the van carting the suspected cocaine.
He said on meeting Dakeh, he (Dakeh) told the accused persons, “If it is because of cocaine that you are here, it is gone.”
Inspector Oppong denied that Sgt Nyarko’s statement was taken under duress in order to drop a more serious offence against him and that he voluntarily wrote his statement after his arrest.
He further denied subjecting Sgt Nyarko to an identification parade, during which his name was mentioned, to enable some fishermen to identify him.
He agreed with counsel that nobody arrested Dakeh but his vehicle number was mentioned by Sgt Nyarko in his statement and that enabled the police to retrieve it from Kpone Katamanso where its tires had been removed and the vehicle jerked and covered to outwit the police.
In a related development, a shipping superintendent and registrar of ships yesterday told the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin that the vessel was registered with the Ghana Maritime Authority on April 20, 2000.
He, however, said that its crew at the time of arrest by the security agencies was not registered.
Mr Eugene Ofei-Boohen was testifying in the case concerning some missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin 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, 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 and have been remanded into prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobi, a Principal State Attorney, the witness said he knew the ship owner because he was one of the directors of Dashment Shipping Company Limited, the owners of MV Benjamin.
According to him, he registered the vessel and the first time it was put on the Ghanaian register was April 20, 2000 because it was of Korean origin, with the name MV Duk Won 63.
He said vessels could be chartered, saying chartered vessels were registered if they were from different countries coming to the Ghanaian register.
During cross-examination by Mr D.K Ameley, counsel for Dawson, the witness said when a vessel was registered in Ghana it had to be deregistered from the original country of destination, adding that the MV Benjamin satisfied all the requirements for it to be registered in Ghana.
He said it was also the responsibility of whoever chartered the vessel or the company which engaged it to register the crew, as well as those who would manage it, among other things.
Areeba ruling
AN Accra Commercial Court has dismissed an application filed by David Andreas Hesse, a director/shareholder of Scancom Ltd, seeking an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the company from holding its shareholders’ meeting.
According to the plaintiff, the intended meeting was in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law because it was aimed at removing him as a director of the company.
The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff did not need to be on the board of Scancom Ltd for his interest to be established, arguing that a shareholder and a director were two distinct positions.
Following the court ruling, the shareholders’ meeting, which had been on hold since November 24, last year, can now conveniently take place.
No costs were awarded because Scancom Ltd and Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, the defendants, did not ask for costs and, therefore, the substantive case will have to take its normal course.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, ruled that it would not disturb the shareholders, provided they gave a proper notice of removal to the plaintiff.
It said if the plaintiff was able to establish his claim in the substantive case, he would be adequately compensated at the end of the trial.
The plaintiff represented himself, while Mr Benson Nutsupi and Mr Larry Otoo represented Scancom Ltd and Investcom Holdings SA, respectively.
In the substantive case, Mr Hesse has sued the defendants, seeking an order to reverse the alleged capital increase, the alleged dilution of his shares from six per cent to two per cent and the alleged transfer of his shares to Investcom Consortium.
He is also seeking an order to restore his six per cent shares in Scancom Ltd or in the alternative an order directed at the company to purchase his shares in Scancom Ltd after a valuation of Scancom Ltd by independent auditors.
Furthermore, Mr Hesse is seeking an order to restore 3.4 per cent shares of Scan Construction Ltd in Scancom Ltd or an alternative order that 914,600 of the ordinary shares of Scancom Ltd, representing his 25 per cent interest in Scan Construction Ltd, be restored to him.
He is also seeking an order that the parties go into account to determine the amount of dividends due him on his shares and an order directed at the defendants to pay such amount to him.
The defendants filed two separate applications asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration but they were dismissed by the court because the disadvantage to the plaintiff, who was an individual fighting arbitration proceedings in London and a separate action against Scancom Ltd in another forum, far outweighed the advantages to the defendants if stay was granted.
According to the court, Investcom’s application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958.
It stated that counsel for Investcom submitted that so long as the agreement had not been shown to be void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, then the court was obliged to stay proceedings so that respect was given to the mode agreed by the parties.
In respect of Scancom Ltd, the court concluded that the company, not being a party to the Shareholders Agreement, had no locus in filing an application for stay.
The plaintiff raised the issue whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and, if not, whether an application which proposed London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was Ghanaian law.
The court held that the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitrary award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
It said the particulars of the matters pleaded satisfied the requirements of the law and were sufficient to justify a refusal of stay in order that it would try those serious issues.
It was of the view that the plaintiff had more than discharged the burden on him to show cause why effect should not be given to the agreement to submit to arbitration in London.
According to the plaintiff, the intended meeting was in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law because it was aimed at removing him as a director of the company.
The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff did not need to be on the board of Scancom Ltd for his interest to be established, arguing that a shareholder and a director were two distinct positions.
Following the court ruling, the shareholders’ meeting, which had been on hold since November 24, last year, can now conveniently take place.
No costs were awarded because Scancom Ltd and Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, the defendants, did not ask for costs and, therefore, the substantive case will have to take its normal course.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, ruled that it would not disturb the shareholders, provided they gave a proper notice of removal to the plaintiff.
It said if the plaintiff was able to establish his claim in the substantive case, he would be adequately compensated at the end of the trial.
The plaintiff represented himself, while Mr Benson Nutsupi and Mr Larry Otoo represented Scancom Ltd and Investcom Holdings SA, respectively.
In the substantive case, Mr Hesse has sued the defendants, seeking an order to reverse the alleged capital increase, the alleged dilution of his shares from six per cent to two per cent and the alleged transfer of his shares to Investcom Consortium.
He is also seeking an order to restore his six per cent shares in Scancom Ltd or in the alternative an order directed at the company to purchase his shares in Scancom Ltd after a valuation of Scancom Ltd by independent auditors.
Furthermore, Mr Hesse is seeking an order to restore 3.4 per cent shares of Scan Construction Ltd in Scancom Ltd or an alternative order that 914,600 of the ordinary shares of Scancom Ltd, representing his 25 per cent interest in Scan Construction Ltd, be restored to him.
He is also seeking an order that the parties go into account to determine the amount of dividends due him on his shares and an order directed at the defendants to pay such amount to him.
The defendants filed two separate applications asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration but they were dismissed by the court because the disadvantage to the plaintiff, who was an individual fighting arbitration proceedings in London and a separate action against Scancom Ltd in another forum, far outweighed the advantages to the defendants if stay was granted.
According to the court, Investcom’s application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958.
It stated that counsel for Investcom submitted that so long as the agreement had not been shown to be void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, then the court was obliged to stay proceedings so that respect was given to the mode agreed by the parties.
In respect of Scancom Ltd, the court concluded that the company, not being a party to the Shareholders Agreement, had no locus in filing an application for stay.
The plaintiff raised the issue whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and, if not, whether an application which proposed London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was Ghanaian law.
The court held that the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitrary award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
It said the particulars of the matters pleaded satisfied the requirements of the law and were sufficient to justify a refusal of stay in order that it would try those serious issues.
It was of the view that the plaintiff had more than discharged the burden on him to show cause why effect should not be given to the agreement to submit to arbitration in London.
Areeba ruling
AN Accra Commercial Court has dismissed an application filed by David Andreas Hesse, a director/shareholder of Scancom Ltd, seeking an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the company from holding its shareholders’ meeting.
According to the plaintiff, the intended meeting was in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law because it was aimed at removing him as a director of the company.
The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff did not need to be on the board of Scancom Ltd for his interest to be established, arguing that a shareholder and a director were two distinct positions.
Following the court ruling, the shareholders’ meeting, which had been on hold since November 24, last year, can now conveniently take place.
No costs were awarded because Scancom Ltd and Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, the defendants, did not ask for costs and, therefore, the substantive case will have to take its normal course.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, ruled that it would not disturb the shareholders, provided they gave a proper notice of removal to the plaintiff.
It said if the plaintiff was able to establish his claim in the substantive case, he would be adequately compensated at the end of the trial.
The plaintiff represented himself, while Mr Benson Nutsupi and Mr Larry Otoo represented Scancom Ltd and Investcom Holdings SA, respectively.
In the substantive case, Mr Hesse has sued the defendants, seeking an order to reverse the alleged capital increase, the alleged dilution of his shares from six per cent to two per cent and the alleged transfer of his shares to Investcom Consortium.
He is also seeking an order to restore his six per cent shares in Scancom Ltd or in the alternative an order directed at the company to purchase his shares in Scancom Ltd after a valuation of Scancom Ltd by independent auditors.
Furthermore, Mr Hesse is seeking an order to restore 3.4 per cent shares of Scan Construction Ltd in Scancom Ltd or an alternative order that 914,600 of the ordinary shares of Scancom Ltd, representing his 25 per cent interest in Scan Construction Ltd, be restored to him.
He is also seeking an order that the parties go into account to determine the amount of dividends due him on his shares and an order directed at the defendants to pay such amount to him.
The defendants filed two separate applications asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration but they were dismissed by the court because the disadvantage to the plaintiff, who was an individual fighting arbitration proceedings in London and a separate action against Scancom Ltd in another forum, far outweighed the advantages to the defendants if stay was granted.
According to the court, Investcom’s application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958.
It stated that counsel for Investcom submitted that so long as the agreement had not been shown to be void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, then the court was obliged to stay proceedings so that respect was given to the mode agreed by the parties.
In respect of Scancom Ltd, the court concluded that the company, not being a party to the Shareholders Agreement, had no locus in filing an application for stay.
The plaintiff raised the issue whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and, if not, whether an application which proposed London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was Ghanaian law.
The court held that the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitrary award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
It said the particulars of the matters pleaded satisfied the requirements of the law and were sufficient to justify a refusal of stay in order that it would try those serious issues.
It was of the view that the plaintiff had more than discharged the burden on him to show cause why effect should not be given to the agreement to submit to arbitration in London.
According to the plaintiff, the intended meeting was in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law because it was aimed at removing him as a director of the company.
The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff did not need to be on the board of Scancom Ltd for his interest to be established, arguing that a shareholder and a director were two distinct positions.
Following the court ruling, the shareholders’ meeting, which had been on hold since November 24, last year, can now conveniently take place.
No costs were awarded because Scancom Ltd and Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, the defendants, did not ask for costs and, therefore, the substantive case will have to take its normal course.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, ruled that it would not disturb the shareholders, provided they gave a proper notice of removal to the plaintiff.
It said if the plaintiff was able to establish his claim in the substantive case, he would be adequately compensated at the end of the trial.
The plaintiff represented himself, while Mr Benson Nutsupi and Mr Larry Otoo represented Scancom Ltd and Investcom Holdings SA, respectively.
In the substantive case, Mr Hesse has sued the defendants, seeking an order to reverse the alleged capital increase, the alleged dilution of his shares from six per cent to two per cent and the alleged transfer of his shares to Investcom Consortium.
He is also seeking an order to restore his six per cent shares in Scancom Ltd or in the alternative an order directed at the company to purchase his shares in Scancom Ltd after a valuation of Scancom Ltd by independent auditors.
Furthermore, Mr Hesse is seeking an order to restore 3.4 per cent shares of Scan Construction Ltd in Scancom Ltd or an alternative order that 914,600 of the ordinary shares of Scancom Ltd, representing his 25 per cent interest in Scan Construction Ltd, be restored to him.
He is also seeking an order that the parties go into account to determine the amount of dividends due him on his shares and an order directed at the defendants to pay such amount to him.
The defendants filed two separate applications asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration but they were dismissed by the court because the disadvantage to the plaintiff, who was an individual fighting arbitration proceedings in London and a separate action against Scancom Ltd in another forum, far outweighed the advantages to the defendants if stay was granted.
According to the court, Investcom’s application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958.
It stated that counsel for Investcom submitted that so long as the agreement had not been shown to be void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, then the court was obliged to stay proceedings so that respect was given to the mode agreed by the parties.
In respect of Scancom Ltd, the court concluded that the company, not being a party to the Shareholders Agreement, had no locus in filing an application for stay.
The plaintiff raised the issue whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and, if not, whether an application which proposed London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was Ghanaian law.
The court held that the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitrary award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
It said the particulars of the matters pleaded satisfied the requirements of the law and were sufficient to justify a refusal of stay in order that it would try those serious issues.
It was of the view that the plaintiff had more than discharged the burden on him to show cause why effect should not be given to the agreement to submit to arbitration in London.
Navy Commander testifies in coke case
A NAVY Commander has told the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin that a security team which searched the vessel at the Tema Harbour found a piece of paper on which the original name of the vessel, MV Adede II, had been written.
Commander Issah Yakubu said that raised the team’s suspicion that the name of the vessel had been changed from MV Adede II to its present name because some fresh paint was seen where its name was written.
According to the witness, when the team spotted the vessel, it sent a radio message to find out whether it had a sister vessel by the name MV Adede II but the crew denied knowledge of any vessel with that name.
He was testifying in the case concerning some missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin 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, 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 and have been remanded into prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobie, a Principal State Attorney, the witness gave an account of the operation, which he led as the captain of a Ghana Navy ship sent to look for a suspected vessel carrying narcotics into the country.
He was able to identify the accused persons, except the vessel owner and the Korean.
Commander Yakubu said the team sailed from the Sekondi Naval Base to look for the MV Adede II, having armed itself with a photograph of the vessel.
He said the team did not find anything until April 27 when it was about to replenish its stock when it saw the MV Benjamin at the Tema Port anchorage.
The witness said when he sent the radio message, Isaac, who said he was the second in command, responded and denied that they had a sister vessel called MV Adede II.
"When I asked whether he had heard about the name Adede before, he replied ‘no’," witness said, and added that he asked that question because the photograph they had of the MV Adede was similar to the MV Benjamin.
Commander Yakubu said that raised his suspicion and, therefore, he sent four men on board the MV Benjamin to look for the documents of the ship, which it did not have.
He said when the crew was asked about the documents, they explained that they had left them in the office. To another question on how long the vessel had been at sea, they replied that they had not been fishing for the past one year.
According to him, the crew stated that they were testing the engine of the vessel, a reply which prompted him to ask them how long they had been at their current position, to which they replied the past one week.
He said that also raised his suspicion because the team had not seen them the previous day.
At that stage, the witness said that he informed the crew that they were being escorted to the main harbour and got his boss informed about the development.
He said when the team arrived at the harbour, personnel from the Narcotic Control Board (NACOB) were already there with some Navy officers waiting for them.
He said the team, in its bid to search the vessel, first visited the bridge, from where the vessel was controlled, where Isaac Arhin was recognised, together with the two Chinese.
Commander Yakubu said in the presence of the NACOB personnel, the crew were asked whether they knew of the MV Adede II and they denied any knowledge.
It was when the team started searching through the books on a table on the vessel that they found MV Adede II written on a small paper, with a few glossaries.
"This is what you have and you have said that you did not know anything about the vessel?" witness said he asked the crew, and showed to them the photograph they had of the MV Adede II.
After that, the witness said, he put it to the crew that the MV Benjamin was the MV Adede II but after that question he realised the crew had become jittery so he asked them to confess. But they still denied, maintaining that they had gone for engine testing.
Commander Yakubu said with that exhibit the crew was told that their vessel was going to be searched, after statements had been taken from them.
A photograph was taken of Isaac Arhin's statement and tendered in court, together with other photographs of the operation.
In the statement, the accused admitted that the cartons parked into the vessel contained cocaine because the captain said so.
He stated that to the best of his knowledge the vessel was to sail to Tema but the crew later realised that it was sailing to dangerous seas so they asked the captain what the matter was.
Arhin said they sailed to the sea around Monrovia, Liberia, and because they feared for their safety, they kept quiet over the incident until the vessel entered the anchorage of the breakwater in Tema.
Commander Yakubu said from Arhin’s testimony, he thought the job was completed but on his way to the office Mr Ben Ndego of NACOB called him and said that since NACOB did not have the expertise, the Navy team should assist in searching the vessel.
He said when the got to the hatch of the vessel, it was locked, but it was forced open with the assistance of one of the crew members.
In the course of all that, he said, the two Chinese remained very passive, since they did not speak English, but during the search one of them became active by leading them but he suddenly changed his countenance and prevented one officer from carrying a bag in which the 30 slabs of cocaine was concealed.
He said the captain of the vessel escaped with one of the canoes which had gone to take the cargo from the MV Benjamin the previous night before the accused persons were arrested.
Commander Issah Yakubu said that raised the team’s suspicion that the name of the vessel had been changed from MV Adede II to its present name because some fresh paint was seen where its name was written.
According to the witness, when the team spotted the vessel, it sent a radio message to find out whether it had a sister vessel by the name MV Adede II but the crew denied knowledge of any vessel with that name.
He was testifying in the case concerning some missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin 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, 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 and have been remanded into prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobie, a Principal State Attorney, the witness gave an account of the operation, which he led as the captain of a Ghana Navy ship sent to look for a suspected vessel carrying narcotics into the country.
He was able to identify the accused persons, except the vessel owner and the Korean.
Commander Yakubu said the team sailed from the Sekondi Naval Base to look for the MV Adede II, having armed itself with a photograph of the vessel.
He said the team did not find anything until April 27 when it was about to replenish its stock when it saw the MV Benjamin at the Tema Port anchorage.
The witness said when he sent the radio message, Isaac, who said he was the second in command, responded and denied that they had a sister vessel called MV Adede II.
"When I asked whether he had heard about the name Adede before, he replied ‘no’," witness said, and added that he asked that question because the photograph they had of the MV Adede was similar to the MV Benjamin.
Commander Yakubu said that raised his suspicion and, therefore, he sent four men on board the MV Benjamin to look for the documents of the ship, which it did not have.
He said when the crew was asked about the documents, they explained that they had left them in the office. To another question on how long the vessel had been at sea, they replied that they had not been fishing for the past one year.
According to him, the crew stated that they were testing the engine of the vessel, a reply which prompted him to ask them how long they had been at their current position, to which they replied the past one week.
He said that also raised his suspicion because the team had not seen them the previous day.
At that stage, the witness said that he informed the crew that they were being escorted to the main harbour and got his boss informed about the development.
He said when the team arrived at the harbour, personnel from the Narcotic Control Board (NACOB) were already there with some Navy officers waiting for them.
He said the team, in its bid to search the vessel, first visited the bridge, from where the vessel was controlled, where Isaac Arhin was recognised, together with the two Chinese.
Commander Yakubu said in the presence of the NACOB personnel, the crew were asked whether they knew of the MV Adede II and they denied any knowledge.
It was when the team started searching through the books on a table on the vessel that they found MV Adede II written on a small paper, with a few glossaries.
"This is what you have and you have said that you did not know anything about the vessel?" witness said he asked the crew, and showed to them the photograph they had of the MV Adede II.
After that, the witness said, he put it to the crew that the MV Benjamin was the MV Adede II but after that question he realised the crew had become jittery so he asked them to confess. But they still denied, maintaining that they had gone for engine testing.
Commander Yakubu said with that exhibit the crew was told that their vessel was going to be searched, after statements had been taken from them.
A photograph was taken of Isaac Arhin's statement and tendered in court, together with other photographs of the operation.
In the statement, the accused admitted that the cartons parked into the vessel contained cocaine because the captain said so.
He stated that to the best of his knowledge the vessel was to sail to Tema but the crew later realised that it was sailing to dangerous seas so they asked the captain what the matter was.
Arhin said they sailed to the sea around Monrovia, Liberia, and because they feared for their safety, they kept quiet over the incident until the vessel entered the anchorage of the breakwater in Tema.
Commander Yakubu said from Arhin’s testimony, he thought the job was completed but on his way to the office Mr Ben Ndego of NACOB called him and said that since NACOB did not have the expertise, the Navy team should assist in searching the vessel.
He said when the got to the hatch of the vessel, it was locked, but it was forced open with the assistance of one of the crew members.
In the course of all that, he said, the two Chinese remained very passive, since they did not speak English, but during the search one of them became active by leading them but he suddenly changed his countenance and prevented one officer from carrying a bag in which the 30 slabs of cocaine was concealed.
He said the captain of the vessel escaped with one of the canoes which had gone to take the cargo from the MV Benjamin the previous night before the accused persons were arrested.
Mobile Phone Provider and National Communications Authority sued
A class action has been taken against Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of the nation’s biggest mobile phone network, Areeba, for violating relevant provisions of the National Communications Authority (NCA) Act and regulations for high quality service.
The action comes in the wake of two legal suits initiated by two shareholders over their interests in the company following its merger with South African giants MTN.
Also joined to the latest suit is the NCA, for failing or neglecting to carry out its regulatory responsibility that Areeba provides high quality telephone services for its customers.
The action was filed by the Centre for Public Interest Law, a non-profit public interest and human rights organisation, and its Executive Director, Dr Dominic Ayine, on February 13, 2007 on behalf of similarly situated customers.
The plaintiffs have accused Areeba of breach of contract and are seeking general and punitive damages against it, as well as an order for restitution of all money found to have been unjustly collected and received by the company as a consequence of its acts and omissions.
According to them, the deliberate refusal of Areeba to open its system up for easy inter-connectivity with other networks in Ghana amounts to unfair competition, contrary to the NCA Act and the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act.
They are also seeking an order of perpetual injunction to restrain Scancom Ltd, its agent or assigns from engaging in the conduct which was the subject matter of the suit.
Similarly, the plaintiffs are seeking an order of mandatory injunction to compel the NCA to enforce Scancom’s obligation under its licence to expand its network capacity and coverage and improve its service quality, as well as its inter-connectivity agreements with other cellular networks.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs stated that Scancom Ltd was registered and licensed by the NCA to provide mobile phone services, saying figures in the public domain indicated that Areeba was the market leader in the provision of mobile or cellular phone services, with more than 2.5 million subscribers quoted on the website of the NCA.
The NCA, they said, was the statutory agency responsible for the regulation of providers of communication services, including, but not limited to, the operations of companies, enterprises and individuals which provided fixed and mobile telecommunication services.
The NCA’s mandate is derived from the NCA Act, 1996 (Act 524) which established the authority.
According to the plaintiffs, their action was on behalf of similarly situated persons and all those who resided in Ghana and obtained telecommunication services from Areeba and who had been adversely affected and suffered material injury or financial loss and infringement of their rights as a result of the said acts and omissions.
They said Areeba’s services were of two plans to individuals and business customers, namely, the “Pay-As-You-Talk” (prepaid) service plan, which was used with GSM 900 compatible cellular phones, and the “Pay Monthly” (post-paid) service plan, both of which were offered directly to customers or through designated agents.
The plaintiffs stated that at all material times Scancom Ltd had failed or neglected to provide good quality cellular service to them in that they had almost always encountered network congestion, frequent call dropping, unusual background noise preventing clarity in telephone conversation, inter-connectivity problems with other networks, among other problems.
They stated that they were daily confronted with and frustrated by Areeba’s network congestion problems, such that they had to dial approximately between five and 10 times before achieving connectivity and very often every failed dial attempt was met with the automated response, “The Areeba number you have dialled cannot be reached at this moment. The mobile equipment is either switched off or out of coverage area.”
According to them, that automated response was materially false and misleading, since Areeba prided itself as having nation-wide coverage, and also portrayed the customers as being responsible for failed attempts to put through calls (for example switching off their mobile phones ), instead of placing the responsibility on Areeba.
They maintained that the representation that the mobile equipment was either switched off or out of coverage area was not only false but also wilful, since Areeba knew or ought to know that it was false at the material time it was made.
As a consequence of the material facts stated, the plaintiffs said Areeba’s prepaid customers in particular lost their telephone credit (or units), because of network congestion, on the expiry date, thereby unjustly enriching Areeba, since more units had to be bought after that.
According to the plaintiffs, they had suffered and continued to suffer financial loss as a consequence of the frequent call dropping resulting from network congestion and system downtimes.
“This is due to the fact that when calls drop in the middle of a conversation, the plaintiffs have to call again, and in doing so they have to pay higher call rates per minute than would have been the case without the call dropping,” they said.
The plaintiffs said Areeba had deliberately and purposefully engaged in acts, methods and practices which had frequently frustrated them in putting through calls to other cellular networks or being called by users of the services of those networks.
The action comes in the wake of two legal suits initiated by two shareholders over their interests in the company following its merger with South African giants MTN.
Also joined to the latest suit is the NCA, for failing or neglecting to carry out its regulatory responsibility that Areeba provides high quality telephone services for its customers.
The action was filed by the Centre for Public Interest Law, a non-profit public interest and human rights organisation, and its Executive Director, Dr Dominic Ayine, on February 13, 2007 on behalf of similarly situated customers.
The plaintiffs have accused Areeba of breach of contract and are seeking general and punitive damages against it, as well as an order for restitution of all money found to have been unjustly collected and received by the company as a consequence of its acts and omissions.
According to them, the deliberate refusal of Areeba to open its system up for easy inter-connectivity with other networks in Ghana amounts to unfair competition, contrary to the NCA Act and the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act.
They are also seeking an order of perpetual injunction to restrain Scancom Ltd, its agent or assigns from engaging in the conduct which was the subject matter of the suit.
Similarly, the plaintiffs are seeking an order of mandatory injunction to compel the NCA to enforce Scancom’s obligation under its licence to expand its network capacity and coverage and improve its service quality, as well as its inter-connectivity agreements with other cellular networks.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs stated that Scancom Ltd was registered and licensed by the NCA to provide mobile phone services, saying figures in the public domain indicated that Areeba was the market leader in the provision of mobile or cellular phone services, with more than 2.5 million subscribers quoted on the website of the NCA.
The NCA, they said, was the statutory agency responsible for the regulation of providers of communication services, including, but not limited to, the operations of companies, enterprises and individuals which provided fixed and mobile telecommunication services.
The NCA’s mandate is derived from the NCA Act, 1996 (Act 524) which established the authority.
According to the plaintiffs, their action was on behalf of similarly situated persons and all those who resided in Ghana and obtained telecommunication services from Areeba and who had been adversely affected and suffered material injury or financial loss and infringement of their rights as a result of the said acts and omissions.
They said Areeba’s services were of two plans to individuals and business customers, namely, the “Pay-As-You-Talk” (prepaid) service plan, which was used with GSM 900 compatible cellular phones, and the “Pay Monthly” (post-paid) service plan, both of which were offered directly to customers or through designated agents.
The plaintiffs stated that at all material times Scancom Ltd had failed or neglected to provide good quality cellular service to them in that they had almost always encountered network congestion, frequent call dropping, unusual background noise preventing clarity in telephone conversation, inter-connectivity problems with other networks, among other problems.
They stated that they were daily confronted with and frustrated by Areeba’s network congestion problems, such that they had to dial approximately between five and 10 times before achieving connectivity and very often every failed dial attempt was met with the automated response, “The Areeba number you have dialled cannot be reached at this moment. The mobile equipment is either switched off or out of coverage area.”
According to them, that automated response was materially false and misleading, since Areeba prided itself as having nation-wide coverage, and also portrayed the customers as being responsible for failed attempts to put through calls (for example switching off their mobile phones ), instead of placing the responsibility on Areeba.
They maintained that the representation that the mobile equipment was either switched off or out of coverage area was not only false but also wilful, since Areeba knew or ought to know that it was false at the material time it was made.
As a consequence of the material facts stated, the plaintiffs said Areeba’s prepaid customers in particular lost their telephone credit (or units), because of network congestion, on the expiry date, thereby unjustly enriching Areeba, since more units had to be bought after that.
According to the plaintiffs, they had suffered and continued to suffer financial loss as a consequence of the frequent call dropping resulting from network congestion and system downtimes.
“This is due to the fact that when calls drop in the middle of a conversation, the plaintiffs have to call again, and in doing so they have to pay higher call rates per minute than would have been the case without the call dropping,” they said.
The plaintiffs said Areeba had deliberately and purposefully engaged in acts, methods and practices which had frequently frustrated them in putting through calls to other cellular networks or being called by users of the services of those networks.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
court orders return of seized property in coke case
AN Accra Fast Track High Court on Tuesday ordered the immediate release of a number of movable and immovable property which were wrongfully confiscated by the state in 1997 on the assumption that they belonged to George Adu Bonsu, alias Benjilo.
The property include the stock of goods in the shop of Benjilo Fabrics Company Limited which got destroyed because the shop was locked, leasehold interests in House Number C618/2, Salaga Market, House Number 521/1, Selwyn Street, House Number C850/4, Abele Road, Kokomlemle, House Number J85, Nungua, an unnumbered warehouse/hospital premises opposite ABC Junction, Alogboshie (now Fourth Street or C297/30 Achimota), Accra.
The rest are an unnumbered property at Number 1 Tantra Hill, TH 59, Tantra Hill in Accra, a GCM Typhoon vehicle with registration number GR 4833 J, a Mercedes Benz 300 with registration number GR 7474 J and a Nissan Pathfinder with registration number GR 4835 J.
The court further ordered the payment of ¢1.111 billion with interest, since 1997, at the prevailing commercial rate for the stock of goods destroyed as a result of the unlawful closure of Benjilo Fabrics Company Limited.
In addition, the state is to pay ¢450 million per year as loss of use of three vehicles which were also seized.
An award of ¢90 million is also to be paid for the rehabilitation of the three vehicles which have been left to the vagaries of the weather since May 2001.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, awarded ¢80 million in damages and costs of ¢50 million against the state.
The judgement is to be executed by the state through the Inspector General of Police, Narcotics Control Board and the Attorney-General who were the defendants.
The plaintiffs, Benjilo Fabrics Limited, Mrs Grace Adu Bonsu, Prof Azumah Nelson, Dennis Adu Bonsu, Raymond Kofi Adu Amankwah and Madam Yaa Konadu, sued for the release of the properties after the conviction and sentence of Benjilo to 10 years for drug related offences in April 1997.
According to the plaintiffs, Benjilo Fabric was a limited liability company with four directors, who did not include Benjilo, who was only a worker with the company.
The company claimed $650,000 or its cedi equivalent as stock of goods destroyed in shops locked because when its accountant together with the police took stock of the goods on June 5, 1997, the value of the goods was ¢1,111,840,500.
Consequently, the court ordered that interest be paid on the amount from December 1997 at the commercial rate to date because six months from the date was a reasonable period the defendants could have decided to dispose off those materials instead of leaving them to rot in the shops.
It held that the defendants should have known that the goods were perishable and should have been stored in suitable temperature or sold.
The company claimed a leasehold interest in the houses at the Salaga Market and Selwyn Street, as well as the Nissan Pathfinder.
It said that the leasehold interest for 20 years was acquired from Mr and Mrs Nanka Bruce in April 1994.
The court held that evidence was led to show that indeed Benjilo did not own those houses and that the company was the lessee of the property.
In respect of the Kokomlemle house, the court held that it was satisfied with the evidence of Mrs Adu Bonsu that it belonged to the sixth plaintiff, Madam Yaa Konadu, who herself testified as to how she came by that property.
The evidence on the property at Nungua, the court held, was that it was owned by the fifth plaintiff, Raymond Kofi Amankwah, who is presently domiciled in the USA.
The court said that the unnumbered warehouse at ABC Junction, Alogboshie belonged to Azumah Nelson, who led evidence as to how he got the property.
It stated that the former world featherweight boxing champion bought it from Nii Kuma for the construction of a hospital and Azumah testified that he was assisted by Benjilo each time he travelled outside the country but he refunded whatever amount was spent by Benjilo.
Regarding the ownership of the property opposite ABC Junction, Achimota, being claimed by the fourth plaintiff, Dennis Adu Bonsu, the court accepted the evidence by Mrs Adu Bonsu that she bought it for her child while the Tantra Hill property, it said belonged to Mr Ernest Boamah Ansong and not Benjilo.
The GCM Typhoon vehicle, the court held, was a gift from Azumah Nelson to Mrs Adu Bonsu because there was evidence to show the transfer of the original name to her and there being no contrary evidence, she was the owner.
The Nissan Pathfinder, the court held, was owned by Benjilo Fabrics because exhibits from the then Vehicle Examination and Licensing Division indicated that the company owned the vehicle and there was no contrary evidence that it belonged to Benjilo.
Furthermore, the court held that the Mercedes Benz car belonged to Mike Misho who left it in the care of Mrs Bonsu and documents covering it were in his name.
In the light of the sketch of the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Law on seizure and forfeiture, the court held that, it found no provision that justified the action and inaction of the defendants in respect of properties being claimed by the plaintiffs.
According to the court, the continued seizure and detention of the movable and immovable properties of the plaintiffs was unlawful, arbitrary, unjustified and a violation of their fundamental right to property.
It said that the Narcotic Drugs Law was a specialised law intended to fight vigorously persons within the narcotic trade and empowered the police and the Attorney-General with wide powers of arrest, investigation, search and seizure.
However, it held that, it would be wrong to interpret the provisions of the law as giving unfettered powers to the police to go on rampage interfering with property of other citizens without recourse to the law.
"Any act that falls outside the powers of the police or the state conferred on it by the law will be unlawful and damages, where appropriate, may be visited on the state coffers", the court held and stated that it might be true that the capacity of the state might not be fine tuned yet in tracking down those sophisticated drug dealers and their properties.
It said that might be an unfortunate situation which the law courts might not be of any assistance to the state, saying that "there may be suspicion that the properties, the subject matter of the suit, belonged to George Adu Bonsu, but the suspicion is not sufficient to support a filing against the claimants of these properties who have led evidence in claim of their properties.
The trial judge stated that his judgement was based on the evidence of the plaintiffs alone after their cross-examination since the defendants offered no evidence to challenge their claims.
He described as unfortunate the fact that the court did not have the benefit of evidence from the defence, particularly considering the impact of the drug trade on an economy.
Mr Justice Ofoe said the case had given him anxious moments because he was convinced that inertia in the state bodies that had legal authority in handling drug case appeared to be compounding.
The judge’s worry stemmed from the fact that the state should have filed forfeiture proceedings in respect of the properties seized since there was nothing like that before the court.
In 1998 when the plaintiffs filed for the release of their properties, the defendants then filed for forfeiture but that was thrown out on the grounds that an appeal by the then convict was pending.
When the case was finally disposed off at the Supreme Court on May 9, 2001, the state did not go ahead to proceed with the forfeiture proceedings since the Regional Tribunal indicated on May 3,2006 that there was no such motion.
Against the above background, the judge questioned why five years after that the state had not filed the forfeiture proceedings.
The property include the stock of goods in the shop of Benjilo Fabrics Company Limited which got destroyed because the shop was locked, leasehold interests in House Number C618/2, Salaga Market, House Number 521/1, Selwyn Street, House Number C850/4, Abele Road, Kokomlemle, House Number J85, Nungua, an unnumbered warehouse/hospital premises opposite ABC Junction, Alogboshie (now Fourth Street or C297/30 Achimota), Accra.
The rest are an unnumbered property at Number 1 Tantra Hill, TH 59, Tantra Hill in Accra, a GCM Typhoon vehicle with registration number GR 4833 J, a Mercedes Benz 300 with registration number GR 7474 J and a Nissan Pathfinder with registration number GR 4835 J.
The court further ordered the payment of ¢1.111 billion with interest, since 1997, at the prevailing commercial rate for the stock of goods destroyed as a result of the unlawful closure of Benjilo Fabrics Company Limited.
In addition, the state is to pay ¢450 million per year as loss of use of three vehicles which were also seized.
An award of ¢90 million is also to be paid for the rehabilitation of the three vehicles which have been left to the vagaries of the weather since May 2001.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, awarded ¢80 million in damages and costs of ¢50 million against the state.
The judgement is to be executed by the state through the Inspector General of Police, Narcotics Control Board and the Attorney-General who were the defendants.
The plaintiffs, Benjilo Fabrics Limited, Mrs Grace Adu Bonsu, Prof Azumah Nelson, Dennis Adu Bonsu, Raymond Kofi Adu Amankwah and Madam Yaa Konadu, sued for the release of the properties after the conviction and sentence of Benjilo to 10 years for drug related offences in April 1997.
According to the plaintiffs, Benjilo Fabric was a limited liability company with four directors, who did not include Benjilo, who was only a worker with the company.
The company claimed $650,000 or its cedi equivalent as stock of goods destroyed in shops locked because when its accountant together with the police took stock of the goods on June 5, 1997, the value of the goods was ¢1,111,840,500.
Consequently, the court ordered that interest be paid on the amount from December 1997 at the commercial rate to date because six months from the date was a reasonable period the defendants could have decided to dispose off those materials instead of leaving them to rot in the shops.
It held that the defendants should have known that the goods were perishable and should have been stored in suitable temperature or sold.
The company claimed a leasehold interest in the houses at the Salaga Market and Selwyn Street, as well as the Nissan Pathfinder.
It said that the leasehold interest for 20 years was acquired from Mr and Mrs Nanka Bruce in April 1994.
The court held that evidence was led to show that indeed Benjilo did not own those houses and that the company was the lessee of the property.
In respect of the Kokomlemle house, the court held that it was satisfied with the evidence of Mrs Adu Bonsu that it belonged to the sixth plaintiff, Madam Yaa Konadu, who herself testified as to how she came by that property.
The evidence on the property at Nungua, the court held, was that it was owned by the fifth plaintiff, Raymond Kofi Amankwah, who is presently domiciled in the USA.
The court said that the unnumbered warehouse at ABC Junction, Alogboshie belonged to Azumah Nelson, who led evidence as to how he got the property.
It stated that the former world featherweight boxing champion bought it from Nii Kuma for the construction of a hospital and Azumah testified that he was assisted by Benjilo each time he travelled outside the country but he refunded whatever amount was spent by Benjilo.
Regarding the ownership of the property opposite ABC Junction, Achimota, being claimed by the fourth plaintiff, Dennis Adu Bonsu, the court accepted the evidence by Mrs Adu Bonsu that she bought it for her child while the Tantra Hill property, it said belonged to Mr Ernest Boamah Ansong and not Benjilo.
The GCM Typhoon vehicle, the court held, was a gift from Azumah Nelson to Mrs Adu Bonsu because there was evidence to show the transfer of the original name to her and there being no contrary evidence, she was the owner.
The Nissan Pathfinder, the court held, was owned by Benjilo Fabrics because exhibits from the then Vehicle Examination and Licensing Division indicated that the company owned the vehicle and there was no contrary evidence that it belonged to Benjilo.
Furthermore, the court held that the Mercedes Benz car belonged to Mike Misho who left it in the care of Mrs Bonsu and documents covering it were in his name.
In the light of the sketch of the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Law on seizure and forfeiture, the court held that, it found no provision that justified the action and inaction of the defendants in respect of properties being claimed by the plaintiffs.
According to the court, the continued seizure and detention of the movable and immovable properties of the plaintiffs was unlawful, arbitrary, unjustified and a violation of their fundamental right to property.
It said that the Narcotic Drugs Law was a specialised law intended to fight vigorously persons within the narcotic trade and empowered the police and the Attorney-General with wide powers of arrest, investigation, search and seizure.
However, it held that, it would be wrong to interpret the provisions of the law as giving unfettered powers to the police to go on rampage interfering with property of other citizens without recourse to the law.
"Any act that falls outside the powers of the police or the state conferred on it by the law will be unlawful and damages, where appropriate, may be visited on the state coffers", the court held and stated that it might be true that the capacity of the state might not be fine tuned yet in tracking down those sophisticated drug dealers and their properties.
It said that might be an unfortunate situation which the law courts might not be of any assistance to the state, saying that "there may be suspicion that the properties, the subject matter of the suit, belonged to George Adu Bonsu, but the suspicion is not sufficient to support a filing against the claimants of these properties who have led evidence in claim of their properties.
The trial judge stated that his judgement was based on the evidence of the plaintiffs alone after their cross-examination since the defendants offered no evidence to challenge their claims.
He described as unfortunate the fact that the court did not have the benefit of evidence from the defence, particularly considering the impact of the drug trade on an economy.
Mr Justice Ofoe said the case had given him anxious moments because he was convinced that inertia in the state bodies that had legal authority in handling drug case appeared to be compounding.
The judge’s worry stemmed from the fact that the state should have filed forfeiture proceedings in respect of the properties seized since there was nothing like that before the court.
In 1998 when the plaintiffs filed for the release of their properties, the defendants then filed for forfeiture but that was thrown out on the grounds that an appeal by the then convict was pending.
When the case was finally disposed off at the Supreme Court on May 9, 2001, the state did not go ahead to proceed with the forfeiture proceedings since the Regional Tribunal indicated on May 3,2006 that there was no such motion.
Against the above background, the judge questioned why five years after that the state had not filed the forfeiture proceedings.
FOUR REMANDED OVER CABLE THEFT
THREE private security men and a mason were on Monday remanded by the Accra circuit court for allegedly stealing a quantity of underground telephone wires belonging to Ghana Telecom.
The accused persons, namely, Cephas Kpewu, the mason, Francis Boateng, Dickson Ahiadeke and Godfred Nyarko, alias Opoman, all security men, pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy, causing unlawful damage and stealing.
They will reappear on February 19, 2007.
According to the facts of the case as narrated by Chief Inspector Johnson K. Anim, the security men were in charge of the Ghana Telecom cable yard at Otanor, East Legon.
On December 28, 2006, the East Legon Police had information that some people were carrying some telephone cables away from the yard and when the police moved to the scene, they saw the mason offering a quantity of the cables, which had been cut into pieces, to a dealer as scrap.
Kpewu admitted the offence when he was interrogated and in his caution statement he mentioned the rest of the accused persons as accomplices.
However, on hearing that the mason had been arrested, the three men deserted their post and went into hiding until January 19, this year when Boateng was apprehended.
According to the prosecutor, Boateng denied the offence but stated having received ¢150,000 from Nyarko, their leader, as his share from a previous operation.
Ahiadeke and Nyarko, he said, were arrested on January 30 and February 10, 2007, respectively.
The accused persons, namely, Cephas Kpewu, the mason, Francis Boateng, Dickson Ahiadeke and Godfred Nyarko, alias Opoman, all security men, pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy, causing unlawful damage and stealing.
They will reappear on February 19, 2007.
According to the facts of the case as narrated by Chief Inspector Johnson K. Anim, the security men were in charge of the Ghana Telecom cable yard at Otanor, East Legon.
On December 28, 2006, the East Legon Police had information that some people were carrying some telephone cables away from the yard and when the police moved to the scene, they saw the mason offering a quantity of the cables, which had been cut into pieces, to a dealer as scrap.
Kpewu admitted the offence when he was interrogated and in his caution statement he mentioned the rest of the accused persons as accomplices.
However, on hearing that the mason had been arrested, the three men deserted their post and went into hiding until January 19, this year when Boateng was apprehended.
According to the prosecutor, Boateng denied the offence but stated having received ¢150,000 from Nyarko, their leader, as his share from a previous operation.
Ahiadeke and Nyarko, he said, were arrested on January 30 and February 10, 2007, respectively.
COP TESTIFIES IN COKE CASE
ONE of the three policemen who are standing trial at the Accra Fast Track High Court for allegedly aiding a suspect to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine has said the police met the fugitive cocaine owner, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, at the Kpone beach on the morning of April 26, 2006 when they went there to effect the arrest of drug dealers.
According to General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, he already knew the fugitive, Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, and just as the police were about to arrive at the beach, they spotted a green Toyota Land Cruiser with tinted glass coming from the direction of the beach.
In his further caution statement, which was read to the court on Friday by a prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Justice Oppong, the accused person said as the car in which they were travelling got near the oncoming vehicle, Dakeh rolled down his glass and, on seeing him, mentioned his name.
He said when he asked Dakeh about his mission at the place that early morning, he replied that he was there to meet some business partners who had not arrived yet, so he decided to buy some fish from the beach.
“We searched his car and nothing was found in it. Therefore, Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah and I got into his car and he drove to Tema Community One”, he said and added that when they got to Tema, they went to the house of Dakeh.
He said when they got to the gate of the house, Sgt Amoah went inside, while he stayed behind and in less than five minutes Sgt Amoah came back.
The witness was testifying in the case in which General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, General Sergeant Daniel Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Peter Bondori and Detective Sergeant Amoah, who is on the run, are accused of collecting money from the owner of the cocaine, Dakeh and allowing him (Dakeh) 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.
Inspector Oppong said the accused person wrote the statement himself on September 11, 2006.
In a background to the story, the accused, who was stationed at the Community One police station but lived at the Tema New Town barracks, said he knew Sgt Amoah because they were on the same block but he did not know Nyarko.
He said he had been to the Kpone police station before during one of the festivals of the people, while he got to know Dakeh at Community One because he used to come to a deceased policeman called Sgt Martey to bail some people.
He said on that day, about 4 am, he got up to urinate when a fisherman came to tell him that some people carrying stolen goods on the high seas were about to offload them at the Tema New Town beach.
“From the way the man was panting, I thought of assisting and asked what goods were being carried,” he said and added that the fisherman told him that the occupants of the vessel carrying the goods were wielding AK 47 rifles.
The accused person said he went to the office and informed Sgt Amoah, who went for another officer from the New Town police station and then went to the beach, but on reaching there, they learnt that the goods had been sent to the Kpone beach.
He said at Kpone, he went to the charge office for reinforcement and two officers were detailed to join them and together they picked another taxi and headed for the beach, where they met Dakeh.
According to Cpl Yabson’s caution statement, one day he was on his way to the office when a Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) official told him that the Regional BNI Director was looking for him and when he obliged, he was asked whether he had arrested some cocaine suspects at the Sakumono beach, to which he replied in the negative.
The accused person said the BNI Director also asked him whether he knew Dakeh, to which he replied in the affirmative.
He said he did not inform his boss about the interrogation because he thought it was true.
In his caution statement, Sgt Nyarko denied joining any group to make any arrest.
However, he said on April 26, 2006, he had just returned from guard duty when Amoah asked him to join the operation during which Yabson took a taxi to Kpone, while he (Nyarko) and Amoah walked along the beach.
Another accused person, Bondori, whose statement was tendered, said he was at the Kpone police station on April 26, 2006 when the station officer informed him that some policemen from Tema NewTown were in town and needed assistance to arrest some people.
He said on their way to the beach one of the Tema New Town policemen asked him and another officer to take position at a place and wait but they did not return, so he went back to the office.
Meanwhile, Inspector Oppong gave an account of how the security agencies had information about the operation of the MV Benjamin and how it was intercepted at the Tema port.
According to him, it was some fishermen who alerted the security agencies, because when they attempted going near the vessel some guns were fired and so they suspected foul play.
He said it was the fishermen who first reported the incident to Sgt Amoah, who in turn informed Yabson and Nyarko and together they went to the Paradise beach.
At the beach, he said, they heard that the cargo had been sent to Kpone beach, where they met three cars, a Daewoo saloon car, a green Toyota Land Cruiser and a van in which the alleged cocaine had been packed.
He said Dakeh was in charge of the green car, while “Killer” drove the van and the two vehicles were later retrieved.
Inspector Oppong said Nyarko, Yabson and the three fishermen joined Dakeh and Killer to Community 5 and it was on their way that Bondori crossed them to arrest them, but Sgt Amoah was said to have convinced him to abandon the idea.
He said while in Tema, Dakeh’s car went straight to his house while the van went elsewhere and Dakeh gave the police an unspecified amount after settling the fishermen with $10,000.
According to General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, he already knew the fugitive, Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, and just as the police were about to arrive at the beach, they spotted a green Toyota Land Cruiser with tinted glass coming from the direction of the beach.
In his further caution statement, which was read to the court on Friday by a prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Justice Oppong, the accused person said as the car in which they were travelling got near the oncoming vehicle, Dakeh rolled down his glass and, on seeing him, mentioned his name.
He said when he asked Dakeh about his mission at the place that early morning, he replied that he was there to meet some business partners who had not arrived yet, so he decided to buy some fish from the beach.
“We searched his car and nothing was found in it. Therefore, Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah and I got into his car and he drove to Tema Community One”, he said and added that when they got to Tema, they went to the house of Dakeh.
He said when they got to the gate of the house, Sgt Amoah went inside, while he stayed behind and in less than five minutes Sgt Amoah came back.
The witness was testifying in the case in which General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, General Sergeant Daniel Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Peter Bondori and Detective Sergeant Amoah, who is on the run, are accused of collecting money from the owner of the cocaine, Dakeh and allowing him (Dakeh) 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.
Inspector Oppong said the accused person wrote the statement himself on September 11, 2006.
In a background to the story, the accused, who was stationed at the Community One police station but lived at the Tema New Town barracks, said he knew Sgt Amoah because they were on the same block but he did not know Nyarko.
He said he had been to the Kpone police station before during one of the festivals of the people, while he got to know Dakeh at Community One because he used to come to a deceased policeman called Sgt Martey to bail some people.
He said on that day, about 4 am, he got up to urinate when a fisherman came to tell him that some people carrying stolen goods on the high seas were about to offload them at the Tema New Town beach.
“From the way the man was panting, I thought of assisting and asked what goods were being carried,” he said and added that the fisherman told him that the occupants of the vessel carrying the goods were wielding AK 47 rifles.
The accused person said he went to the office and informed Sgt Amoah, who went for another officer from the New Town police station and then went to the beach, but on reaching there, they learnt that the goods had been sent to the Kpone beach.
He said at Kpone, he went to the charge office for reinforcement and two officers were detailed to join them and together they picked another taxi and headed for the beach, where they met Dakeh.
According to Cpl Yabson’s caution statement, one day he was on his way to the office when a Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) official told him that the Regional BNI Director was looking for him and when he obliged, he was asked whether he had arrested some cocaine suspects at the Sakumono beach, to which he replied in the negative.
The accused person said the BNI Director also asked him whether he knew Dakeh, to which he replied in the affirmative.
He said he did not inform his boss about the interrogation because he thought it was true.
In his caution statement, Sgt Nyarko denied joining any group to make any arrest.
However, he said on April 26, 2006, he had just returned from guard duty when Amoah asked him to join the operation during which Yabson took a taxi to Kpone, while he (Nyarko) and Amoah walked along the beach.
Another accused person, Bondori, whose statement was tendered, said he was at the Kpone police station on April 26, 2006 when the station officer informed him that some policemen from Tema NewTown were in town and needed assistance to arrest some people.
He said on their way to the beach one of the Tema New Town policemen asked him and another officer to take position at a place and wait but they did not return, so he went back to the office.
Meanwhile, Inspector Oppong gave an account of how the security agencies had information about the operation of the MV Benjamin and how it was intercepted at the Tema port.
According to him, it was some fishermen who alerted the security agencies, because when they attempted going near the vessel some guns were fired and so they suspected foul play.
He said it was the fishermen who first reported the incident to Sgt Amoah, who in turn informed Yabson and Nyarko and together they went to the Paradise beach.
At the beach, he said, they heard that the cargo had been sent to Kpone beach, where they met three cars, a Daewoo saloon car, a green Toyota Land Cruiser and a van in which the alleged cocaine had been packed.
He said Dakeh was in charge of the green car, while “Killer” drove the van and the two vehicles were later retrieved.
Inspector Oppong said Nyarko, Yabson and the three fishermen joined Dakeh and Killer to Community 5 and it was on their way that Bondori crossed them to arrest them, but Sgt Amoah was said to have convinced him to abandon the idea.
He said while in Tema, Dakeh’s car went straight to his house while the van went elsewhere and Dakeh gave the police an unspecified amount after settling the fishermen with $10,000.
INSIGHT NEWSPAPER TO PAY COMPENSATION TO MINISTER
THE Accra Fast Track High Court on Friday, February9,2007, found The Insight newspaper liable for libelling the Minister of Water Resources, Works and Housing, Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyeman.
The court, therefore, ordered the newspaper to pay a ¢100 million compensation to the minister and ¢20 million as costs.
The newspaper was also directed to retract the libellous story in two successive issues with the same prominence given to the story.
The court further restrained the newspaper from writing any further libellous stories about Mr Owusu-Agyeman, who sued in his capacity as the then Minister of the Interior.
According to the court, the restraining order did not preclude the newspaper from writing anything about the minister but it should ensure that what was published was not defamatory.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Yaw Apau, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, held that although the attitude of the newspaper, its acting editor and publishers amounted to intransigence, the court did not want to do anything to burden the newspaper, since the plaintiff never asked for aggravated damages.
Mr Owusu-Agyeman found a story carried by The Insight newspaper in its October 6-7, 2004 issue, to the effect that he had threatened PHC Motors that it would not benefit from any future government contract for refusing to sign a dubious contract.
The contract would have enabled the company to supply to the government 150 Tata pick-ups, valued at $5 million dollars, intended for the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO).
The import of the story, according to the court, was that because of the dubious nature of the contract, the executing agency, PHC Motors, pulled out, as a result of which the plaintiff allegedly issued his threat.
Not satisfied with the story, since no such contract had been signed between the Interior Ministry and the company, the plaintiff sued the writer, Apisawu Peter Kojo, then acting editor of The Insight, the newspaper as an entity and Militant Publications, the publishers.
He claimed ¢2 billion in damages and an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing any libellous material about him.
Mr Owusu-Agyeman claimed that the defendants knew that the publication about him was false and did so to impute that he was of a questionable character, dishonest and corrupt.
He said they unethically reported that he exploited his position as a public officer for personal gain, among others, and also issued an ultimatum to PHC Motors that it would not benefit from any future government contracts.
According to him, the false story had tarnished his image and hard-won reputation, making him to spend lots of resources to clear his name, both in Ghana and outside, since the newspaper had a wide circulation and was also on the Internet.
The defendants denied that the publication was intended to libel the plaintiff and that the words published were fair comment on issues of public interest.
They said the plaintiff was a public office holder and, being social commentators, they were obliged to comment on his actions because he did not adhere to specific procurement procedures.
In its judgement, the court held that the freedom and independence of the press was regulated by the 1992 Constitution, which also provided that the power of the media should not be used to the detriment of others in society.
It held that the defendants, through the acting editor, who testified in the case, did not provide any document to support the story and that plaintiff never engaged in any contract with PHC.
It said the plaintiff did indicate that PHC Motors had brought an invoice but there was no final contract which would have warranted the supply of the said vehicles and, therefore, the issue of fraud did not come in at all.
Furthermore, it held that the claim by the defence that the contract was not transparent and that it was a matter of public interest was not relevant.
The court said that the fight for accountability in the system was not peculiar to the press and that when it came to commenting on issues of public interest, the press was not superior to the ordinary Ghanaian on the street.
It said the comment would have been fair if, indeed, the contract was found to be dubious. What the defendants did, it said, amounted to a libellous statement of fact.
According to the court, the conditions for fair comment, namely, that the facts should be truly stated and they should not contain any imputation of fraud and honest expression of opinion, did not arise in the instant case because the defendants never led evidence to show that there was a contract.
It said what was published were allegations of fact which were not true and for that matter the defence could not avail itself of the defence of fair comment.
Instead of the defendants apologising to the plaintiff for the wrong done him, the court said, they rather sought leave from it and amended their statement of defence to aggravate the issue.
The court, therefore, ordered the newspaper to pay a ¢100 million compensation to the minister and ¢20 million as costs.
The newspaper was also directed to retract the libellous story in two successive issues with the same prominence given to the story.
The court further restrained the newspaper from writing any further libellous stories about Mr Owusu-Agyeman, who sued in his capacity as the then Minister of the Interior.
According to the court, the restraining order did not preclude the newspaper from writing anything about the minister but it should ensure that what was published was not defamatory.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Yaw Apau, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, held that although the attitude of the newspaper, its acting editor and publishers amounted to intransigence, the court did not want to do anything to burden the newspaper, since the plaintiff never asked for aggravated damages.
Mr Owusu-Agyeman found a story carried by The Insight newspaper in its October 6-7, 2004 issue, to the effect that he had threatened PHC Motors that it would not benefit from any future government contract for refusing to sign a dubious contract.
The contract would have enabled the company to supply to the government 150 Tata pick-ups, valued at $5 million dollars, intended for the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO).
The import of the story, according to the court, was that because of the dubious nature of the contract, the executing agency, PHC Motors, pulled out, as a result of which the plaintiff allegedly issued his threat.
Not satisfied with the story, since no such contract had been signed between the Interior Ministry and the company, the plaintiff sued the writer, Apisawu Peter Kojo, then acting editor of The Insight, the newspaper as an entity and Militant Publications, the publishers.
He claimed ¢2 billion in damages and an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing any libellous material about him.
Mr Owusu-Agyeman claimed that the defendants knew that the publication about him was false and did so to impute that he was of a questionable character, dishonest and corrupt.
He said they unethically reported that he exploited his position as a public officer for personal gain, among others, and also issued an ultimatum to PHC Motors that it would not benefit from any future government contracts.
According to him, the false story had tarnished his image and hard-won reputation, making him to spend lots of resources to clear his name, both in Ghana and outside, since the newspaper had a wide circulation and was also on the Internet.
The defendants denied that the publication was intended to libel the plaintiff and that the words published were fair comment on issues of public interest.
They said the plaintiff was a public office holder and, being social commentators, they were obliged to comment on his actions because he did not adhere to specific procurement procedures.
In its judgement, the court held that the freedom and independence of the press was regulated by the 1992 Constitution, which also provided that the power of the media should not be used to the detriment of others in society.
It held that the defendants, through the acting editor, who testified in the case, did not provide any document to support the story and that plaintiff never engaged in any contract with PHC.
It said the plaintiff did indicate that PHC Motors had brought an invoice but there was no final contract which would have warranted the supply of the said vehicles and, therefore, the issue of fraud did not come in at all.
Furthermore, it held that the claim by the defence that the contract was not transparent and that it was a matter of public interest was not relevant.
The court said that the fight for accountability in the system was not peculiar to the press and that when it came to commenting on issues of public interest, the press was not superior to the ordinary Ghanaian on the street.
It said the comment would have been fair if, indeed, the contract was found to be dubious. What the defendants did, it said, amounted to a libellous statement of fact.
According to the court, the conditions for fair comment, namely, that the facts should be truly stated and they should not contain any imputation of fraud and honest expression of opinion, did not arise in the instant case because the defendants never led evidence to show that there was a contract.
It said what was published were allegations of fact which were not true and for that matter the defence could not avail itself of the defence of fair comment.
Instead of the defendants apologising to the plaintiff for the wrong done him, the court said, they rather sought leave from it and amended their statement of defence to aggravate the issue.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
TWO BRITONS FREED OF COCAINE OFFENCES
The Supreme Court of Ghana has freed two Britons who were convicted for narcotic drug offences in October 2004.
The two were sentenced to 20 years’ hard labour by the Accra High Court for shipping 588.33 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country but walked out of the Supreme Court as free men today.
The Supreme Court by a unanimous decision upheld the appeal of David J. Logan and Frank David Laverick, both 45.
It thus quashed and set aside the High Court conviction which had kept them in prison for more than two years.
The court was constituted by a five-member panel presided over by Ms Sophia Akuffo with the members being Mr Justice Stephen Allan Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mr Justice R.T. Aninakwa and Ms Sophia Adinyira.
The two men were among six persons, who were each sentenced to 20 years by the Accra High Court on October 27, 2006 for conspiracy, dealing in narcotic substances and possession of narcotic substance.
The rest of the convicts who are serving their sentences are Kevin Dinsdale Gorman, a 61-year-old American, Mohammed Ibrahim Kamil, 38, a Ghanaian car dealer, Alan Hodgson, 47, also a British and Sven Herb, 47, a German.
They were arrested by the security agencies in a house at Tema Community 10 where the substances were found concealed behind a mirror on January 7, 2004.
All six of them pleaded not guilty to two counts of engaging in criminal conspiracy to commit an offence relating to narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
Gorman, Kamil and Herb pleaded not guilty to additional charge of importating narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without licence from the Ministry of Health. Gorman further faced a count of using his property for keeping narcotic drugs, to which he pleaed not guilty.
A seventh accomplice, Craig Alexander Pinnick, a British, who absconded was later arrested and arraigned.
After their sentence by the High Court, Logan and Laverick went on appeal at the Court of Appeal which by a 2-1 majority decision upheld the High Court decision.
In December 2006, they further went to the highest court on the grounds that their convictions were not supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court was wrong in ruling that a prima facie case had been established against them.
It said that in the light of the evidence at the time of the trial the two men should not have been called at all to even open their defence.
According to the court when they eventually opened their defence, the appellants provided credible evidence to establish their innocence.
Similarly, the court held that the Court of Appeal was also wrong in affirming the lower court decision because there was no evidence at the trial.
The Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal erred in shifting the burden of proof on the appellants.
An elated Mr Addo Atuah, counsel for the appellants, who could not hide his feelings described the decision as a victory for the rule of law and good governance.
He said that had become necessary because the right atmosphere had been created to embolden judges of the courts to dispense justice.
The two were sentenced to 20 years’ hard labour by the Accra High Court for shipping 588.33 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country but walked out of the Supreme Court as free men today.
The Supreme Court by a unanimous decision upheld the appeal of David J. Logan and Frank David Laverick, both 45.
It thus quashed and set aside the High Court conviction which had kept them in prison for more than two years.
The court was constituted by a five-member panel presided over by Ms Sophia Akuffo with the members being Mr Justice Stephen Allan Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mr Justice R.T. Aninakwa and Ms Sophia Adinyira.
The two men were among six persons, who were each sentenced to 20 years by the Accra High Court on October 27, 2006 for conspiracy, dealing in narcotic substances and possession of narcotic substance.
The rest of the convicts who are serving their sentences are Kevin Dinsdale Gorman, a 61-year-old American, Mohammed Ibrahim Kamil, 38, a Ghanaian car dealer, Alan Hodgson, 47, also a British and Sven Herb, 47, a German.
They were arrested by the security agencies in a house at Tema Community 10 where the substances were found concealed behind a mirror on January 7, 2004.
All six of them pleaded not guilty to two counts of engaging in criminal conspiracy to commit an offence relating to narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
Gorman, Kamil and Herb pleaded not guilty to additional charge of importating narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without licence from the Ministry of Health. Gorman further faced a count of using his property for keeping narcotic drugs, to which he pleaed not guilty.
A seventh accomplice, Craig Alexander Pinnick, a British, who absconded was later arrested and arraigned.
After their sentence by the High Court, Logan and Laverick went on appeal at the Court of Appeal which by a 2-1 majority decision upheld the High Court decision.
In December 2006, they further went to the highest court on the grounds that their convictions were not supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court was wrong in ruling that a prima facie case had been established against them.
It said that in the light of the evidence at the time of the trial the two men should not have been called at all to even open their defence.
According to the court when they eventually opened their defence, the appellants provided credible evidence to establish their innocence.
Similarly, the court held that the Court of Appeal was also wrong in affirming the lower court decision because there was no evidence at the trial.
The Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal erred in shifting the burden of proof on the appellants.
An elated Mr Addo Atuah, counsel for the appellants, who could not hide his feelings described the decision as a victory for the rule of law and good governance.
He said that had become necessary because the right atmosphere had been created to embolden judges of the courts to dispense justice.
SCIENTIST TESTIFIES IN COKE TRIAL
A PRINCIPAL Scientific Officer of the Ghana Standards Board (GSB), Mr James Koliju Atakri, today told the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin that 25 slabs of the alleged substance had a Toyota crown logo embossed on them.
Testifying in the case, he said the powdery substance, which was contained in a parcel wrapped in a polythene material, was brought to the GSB for analysis by Police Corporal Edward Asante of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 26, 2006.
He said when the contents of the rectangular box was analysed, it proved positive for cocaine, with a 98 per cent purity.
According to Mr Atakri, the parcel was labelled the Republic Vs Philip Bruce Arhin and five others and bore the seal of NACOB, as well as the signatures of five of the accused persons.
The accused persons, namely, 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, 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 and have been remanded into prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobie, a Principal State Attorney, the witness tendered in court the analytical report which was dated November 8, 2006.
He said his work involved the analysis of seized narcotic items, body fluids and post-mortem tissues for chemical poison.
Asked by counsel for the Arhins as to whether it was the practice of the board to tender the exhibits of their report, witness replied in the negative.
In response to another question posed by another defence counsel, Mr Atakri said prior to receiving the exhibits for analysis, he had not heard about the cocaine issue in the media.
Before the case was adjourned, the prosecutor asked the court to remand the accused persons who had been in police custody to prison custody.
When the judge asked the rationale behind the move, the investigator explained that the cell at the Police Headquarters was congested, saying instead of taking 30 remand prisoners, it currently had 85 of them.
The investigator said the police had embarked on a decongesting exercise and it had become necessary to transfer all remand prisoners to prison custody where the conditions were better.
However, a defence counsel, Mr E. K. Ameley, drew the court’s attention to the fact that his client had said there were only 11 prisoners in the cell where he was being kept.
The court upheld the prosecution’s application but indicated that should it become necessary for the accused persons to be moved, the defence could apply for a variation order.
Hearing was adjourned to February 16, 2007.
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.
In a related development, the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case in which two Venezuelans are facing trial for allegedly importing 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country adjourned to February 15, 2007.
That was after the prosecution had informed the court that a witness who was supposed to testify could not be reached.
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.
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.
Testifying in the case, he said the powdery substance, which was contained in a parcel wrapped in a polythene material, was brought to the GSB for analysis by Police Corporal Edward Asante of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 26, 2006.
He said when the contents of the rectangular box was analysed, it proved positive for cocaine, with a 98 per cent purity.
According to Mr Atakri, the parcel was labelled the Republic Vs Philip Bruce Arhin and five others and bore the seal of NACOB, as well as the signatures of five of the accused persons.
The accused persons, namely, 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, 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 and have been remanded into prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobie, a Principal State Attorney, the witness tendered in court the analytical report which was dated November 8, 2006.
He said his work involved the analysis of seized narcotic items, body fluids and post-mortem tissues for chemical poison.
Asked by counsel for the Arhins as to whether it was the practice of the board to tender the exhibits of their report, witness replied in the negative.
In response to another question posed by another defence counsel, Mr Atakri said prior to receiving the exhibits for analysis, he had not heard about the cocaine issue in the media.
Before the case was adjourned, the prosecutor asked the court to remand the accused persons who had been in police custody to prison custody.
When the judge asked the rationale behind the move, the investigator explained that the cell at the Police Headquarters was congested, saying instead of taking 30 remand prisoners, it currently had 85 of them.
The investigator said the police had embarked on a decongesting exercise and it had become necessary to transfer all remand prisoners to prison custody where the conditions were better.
However, a defence counsel, Mr E. K. Ameley, drew the court’s attention to the fact that his client had said there were only 11 prisoners in the cell where he was being kept.
The court upheld the prosecution’s application but indicated that should it become necessary for the accused persons to be moved, the defence could apply for a variation order.
Hearing was adjourned to February 16, 2007.
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.
In a related development, the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case in which two Venezuelans are facing trial for allegedly importing 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country adjourned to February 15, 2007.
That was after the prosecution had informed the court that a witness who was supposed to testify could not be reached.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)