COUNSEL for Dan Kwasi Abodakpi has movbed moved the Accra Fast Track High Court to admit his client to bail because his appeal pending at the Court of Appeal had a great chance of success.
Moreover, he said, Abodakpi was law abiding and did not flout the bail condition which was granted him during his trial, while he was a first offender and needed to be treated leniently.
Mr Charles Hayibor made the plea when he presented an application for bail pending an appeal against the court’s 10- year sentence of the man who is the sitting Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta.
The prosecution will respond to the application on March 29, 2007 and if it is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interest of his constituents and the Minority in Parliament.
The former Trade and Industries Minister was on February 5, 2007 sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by the 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.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was 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 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 self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
Mr Hayibor said his application was based on the provisions of Section 33 (1) of the Courts Act and Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act 30, both of which related to the granting of bail to an accused person pending an appeal.
He said the defence was dissatisfied with the court’s judgement and it was its humble view that there were exceptional grounds which justified the application.
For instance, counsel said, the applicant had been a sitting MP since 1993 and during his trial he never flouted the bail conditions, while he had no means to leave the country if granted bail.
“There were certain aspects of the judgement which we disagree with and has occasioned the appeal, with the hope that the Court of Appeal will look at what we call error of law.
“It is quite possible that when the chips are down our appeal has a great chance of success because this court did not consider the defence in deciding the matter,” he said.
Mr Hayibor said the contention of the defence was that the court did not consider the burden of proof on the prosecution and for that matter there were merits that the Court of Appeal had to consider.
According to him, there had been material conflict in the evidence which was not captured in the judgement because a prosecution witness had told the court that proposals were not paid.
That, he stated, was in conflict with what another witness said, that proposals were paid.
He said the court ought to have taken into account all the evidence before it but that was not done, since it only looked at that of the prosecution.
Counsel still maintained that his client never authored any payment for a feasibility study and that a letter which Abodakpi wrote and which could have aided the court to ascertain whether or not he applied for payment for a feasibility study was not made available to the court.
“A prosecution witness told the court that that letter was with the police and at the end of the trial that letter was not provided,” counsel stated, adding that “that issue remains unresolved because of the failure of the prosecution to produce that letter”.
He said it behoved the court to have indicated how the ingredients of conspiracy were established by the prosecution because at no material time did Abodakpi write to Selormey to pay for a feasibility study.
“Selormey acted on his own. That answer will continue to be in limbo, once he is dead,” counsel said, and indicated that the court, in its judgement, even stated that it was Selormey who made a representation to the bank for payment.
As to whether a study proposal was paid for or not, counsel said another prosecution witness told the court in the affirmative and even stated the minimum payment of $150,000.
Similarly, he said, the judge did not consider evidence adduced by all the witnesses who were called by Abodakpi.
When counsel said the conviction was not necessary because the money for which the case was prosecuted had been frozen, the judge took offence and intervened.
“Go and read what PW (prosecution witness) 1 said. What you are saying is not the truth. Dr Boadu authorised the disbursement of the money to various companies and people.
“Don’t let people disturb me because they go and say on radio that the money is at the bank but the judge sentenced him when a witness told the court that the money had been disbursed,” he said.
Tempers, however, settled when counsel explained that a statement of account which was tendered by the witness indicated that the account was frozen.
Mr Hayibor said the 10-year sentence was an excessive exercise of discretion because if all the factors raised by the defence had been considered, the judge would not have imposed that sentence.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Sacked Minister absolved by court
THE former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane, has been absolved of any wrongdoing after the Accra Fast Track High Court quashed the decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) against him.
The commission, in its ruling, had found Dr Anane guilty of perjury, abuse of power and conflict of interest and recommended that he be removed from office for abusing his office.
Furthermore, the commission recommended, among other things, that Dr Anane should apologise to Parliament for lying under oath and also render another apology to the government for bringing its name into disrepute.
The commission, however, dismissed charges of corruption against him but found him guilty for lying under oath, after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the parliamentary Appointments Committee during his vetting for the position of Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, the former minister had told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
Following the commission’s report and public agitation, Dr Anane honourably resigned his post before he could be sacked by the President.
On September 22, 2006, he, however, filed a motion at the court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with him, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
The court declared as null and void the commission’s action, since it was totally without jurisdiction and in breach of natural justice.
After the one-hour ruling, Dr Anane’s wife kissed him and placed a piece of white calico around his neck as he congratulated his solicitors and sympathisers who had filled the courtroom.
In its ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, an Appeal Court judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the commission was an inferior investigative body without inherent power and so its action was a wrong assumption of jurisdiction.
Consequently, it ordered that the September 15, 2006 decision and subsequent recommendations against Dr Anane be removed from the register of the commission.
According to the court, certain articles of the 1992 Constitution, such as Article 230 and Act 456, as well as CI 7, were binding on the commission to require an identifiable complainant who should lodge a complaint, either in writing or orally.
“The clear and unambiguous provision of CI 7 is that a complaint made in a newspaper article will not be a basis for investigations by the CHRAJ,” the court ruled, and added that Dr Anane was entitled to a declaration that it was mandatory for the commission to receive a petition or complaint from an identifiable complainant before proceeding with any investigation.
According to the court, “the commission, being an inferior body, is supposed to work within the confines of the law and should not behave like an octopus spreading its tentacles here and there because it has limited powers”.
It said the fact that the commission had in 1995 investigated some ministers of state based on newspaper articles did not make an unlawful act lawful.
“If an error has been done with impunity in the past, it does not have to be entertained and nobody can make what is unlawful lawful,” the court ruled, saying that the commission’s power to investigate was only activated when a complaint was lodged by an identifiable person.
It said for the commission to state that Dr Anane abused his office was a wrong assumption of power and should not be countenanced by the Constitution of the land.
Regarding the commission’s decision relating to perjury, the court ruled that what it should have done, after realising inconsistencies in Dr Anane’s statement to Parliament and the commission, was to refer to them, not to offer sanctions as it did.
“The commission made a statement of fact, but saying that the applicant perjured and offering a sanction was a strange occurrence. What makes it strange is that Dr Anane was not made to understand that he was being investigated for perjury and given a hearing,” the court held.
The court stated that it was not Dr Anane’s case which CHRAJ did not have power to investigate but the manner in which it was done, saying it was not for nothing that Parliament set out an elaborate provision on the functions and procedures for the commission’s work.
It said the commission was not permitted to go against that provision with impunity or allowed to roam the highways to catch anybody, adding that if it found the provision cumbersome and could not sit idle, it should sanction an amendment.
It did not award costs.
Mr J. K.. Agyemang, lead counsel for Dr Anane, had earlier argued that the jurisdiction and mandate of CHRAJ as an inferior investigative body were clearly set but the commission failed to observe both constitutional and statutory provisions which specified its functions and arrogated to itself what had not been prescribed.
He said Article 230 of the Constitution, Act 456 and CI7, for example, directed what had to be done by way of procedure on receiving complaints and the investigation of any such complaint.
Counsel said by those provisions, a complaint was vital to the commission’s work and ought to be made, either in writing or orally, to the national office of CHRAJ or its representative at the district level.
“It expects somebody to make a complaint to the commission or its representative in any of the regional or district offices and where a complaint is made in writing, it shall be signed by the complainant or his agent,” he stated.
Mr Agyemang further stated that where a complaint was made orally, the person to whom it was made should reduce it into writing before the complainant and a CHRAJ official appended their signatures to it.
In the instant case, counsel said there had been no complaint or complainant and said if the commission could make its complaint and investigate it, Parliament would not have elaborated on its functions.
He said for CHRAJ to state that it did not require any complaint to undertake its investigation offended the clear provisions in CI 7 and Act 456, giving the commission room to rely on newspaper reports and anonymous complaints or people who hid behind the scenes to lodge spurious complaints.
The commission, in its ruling, had found Dr Anane guilty of perjury, abuse of power and conflict of interest and recommended that he be removed from office for abusing his office.
Furthermore, the commission recommended, among other things, that Dr Anane should apologise to Parliament for lying under oath and also render another apology to the government for bringing its name into disrepute.
The commission, however, dismissed charges of corruption against him but found him guilty for lying under oath, after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the parliamentary Appointments Committee during his vetting for the position of Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, the former minister had told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
Following the commission’s report and public agitation, Dr Anane honourably resigned his post before he could be sacked by the President.
On September 22, 2006, he, however, filed a motion at the court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with him, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
The court declared as null and void the commission’s action, since it was totally without jurisdiction and in breach of natural justice.
After the one-hour ruling, Dr Anane’s wife kissed him and placed a piece of white calico around his neck as he congratulated his solicitors and sympathisers who had filled the courtroom.
In its ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, an Appeal Court judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the commission was an inferior investigative body without inherent power and so its action was a wrong assumption of jurisdiction.
Consequently, it ordered that the September 15, 2006 decision and subsequent recommendations against Dr Anane be removed from the register of the commission.
According to the court, certain articles of the 1992 Constitution, such as Article 230 and Act 456, as well as CI 7, were binding on the commission to require an identifiable complainant who should lodge a complaint, either in writing or orally.
“The clear and unambiguous provision of CI 7 is that a complaint made in a newspaper article will not be a basis for investigations by the CHRAJ,” the court ruled, and added that Dr Anane was entitled to a declaration that it was mandatory for the commission to receive a petition or complaint from an identifiable complainant before proceeding with any investigation.
According to the court, “the commission, being an inferior body, is supposed to work within the confines of the law and should not behave like an octopus spreading its tentacles here and there because it has limited powers”.
It said the fact that the commission had in 1995 investigated some ministers of state based on newspaper articles did not make an unlawful act lawful.
“If an error has been done with impunity in the past, it does not have to be entertained and nobody can make what is unlawful lawful,” the court ruled, saying that the commission’s power to investigate was only activated when a complaint was lodged by an identifiable person.
It said for the commission to state that Dr Anane abused his office was a wrong assumption of power and should not be countenanced by the Constitution of the land.
Regarding the commission’s decision relating to perjury, the court ruled that what it should have done, after realising inconsistencies in Dr Anane’s statement to Parliament and the commission, was to refer to them, not to offer sanctions as it did.
“The commission made a statement of fact, but saying that the applicant perjured and offering a sanction was a strange occurrence. What makes it strange is that Dr Anane was not made to understand that he was being investigated for perjury and given a hearing,” the court held.
The court stated that it was not Dr Anane’s case which CHRAJ did not have power to investigate but the manner in which it was done, saying it was not for nothing that Parliament set out an elaborate provision on the functions and procedures for the commission’s work.
It said the commission was not permitted to go against that provision with impunity or allowed to roam the highways to catch anybody, adding that if it found the provision cumbersome and could not sit idle, it should sanction an amendment.
It did not award costs.
Mr J. K.. Agyemang, lead counsel for Dr Anane, had earlier argued that the jurisdiction and mandate of CHRAJ as an inferior investigative body were clearly set but the commission failed to observe both constitutional and statutory provisions which specified its functions and arrogated to itself what had not been prescribed.
He said Article 230 of the Constitution, Act 456 and CI7, for example, directed what had to be done by way of procedure on receiving complaints and the investigation of any such complaint.
Counsel said by those provisions, a complaint was vital to the commission’s work and ought to be made, either in writing or orally, to the national office of CHRAJ or its representative at the district level.
“It expects somebody to make a complaint to the commission or its representative in any of the regional or district offices and where a complaint is made in writing, it shall be signed by the complainant or his agent,” he stated.
Mr Agyemang further stated that where a complaint was made orally, the person to whom it was made should reduce it into writing before the complainant and a CHRAJ official appended their signatures to it.
In the instant case, counsel said there had been no complaint or complainant and said if the commission could make its complaint and investigate it, Parliament would not have elaborated on its functions.
He said for CHRAJ to state that it did not require any complaint to undertake its investigation offended the clear provisions in CI 7 and Act 456, giving the commission room to rely on newspaper reports and anonymous complaints or people who hid behind the scenes to lodge spurious complaints.
SNNIT SUED
SOME members of the Dunkoona Developers Association have sued the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) at the Fast Track High Court, claiming special and general damages for trespass and unlawful damage to property belonging to them.
They are also seeking an order to restrain SSNIT from interfering with lands on which their buildings had been constructed or were to be constructed, an order for the cancellation of the Land Certificate NO. GA 18630, Vol. 09, Folio 227, dated February 14, 2003 issued to SSNIT because it was obtained by fraud.
The suit was filed by five persons and on behalf of members of the association. They are Madam Linda Sagoe, Madam Victoria Allotey, Benjamin Kwesi Buah-Blay, James Quaye and Emmanuel Asiedu Kottah.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said between 1990 and 2004, they purchased various plots of land from the James Town Ngleshie Alata Stool for purposes of constructing houses.
They said the 115 members of the association owned land at the disputed area and 56 houses had reached various stages of development, with some going beyond the foundation, window and other levels.
According to them, they were unaware of any interest of SSNIT in any portion of the plots they acquired and as far as they knew, the Ghana Real Estate Developers Association (GREDA) had serviced plots in the area.
The plaintiffs said after 56 plots had been developed, with their owners enjoying peaceful development, SSNIT posted notices on some property and invited their owners to contact the trust for discussions pertaining to “regularisation of land title in respect of SSNIT land at Dunkoona”.
They said those members who honoured the invitation were told by SSNIT that the Lands Commission had granted lease of land to SSNIT and that when the association got wind of that, it investigated the claims.
When the association contacted the James Town Ngleshie Alata Stool, the plaintiffs said, the stool members said they had been negotiating with GREDA for the lease of 430 acres of its land to GREDA but that the land sold by them were outside the 430 acres.
“However, by some curious circumstance, the Lands Commission was brought into the picture, unknown to the James Town Stool, apparently because the PNDC government had issued E.I. No. 5 of 1993 to compulsorily acquire the parcel of land the stool was offering to GREDA,” statement said.
According to the plaintiffs, instead of GREDA fulfilling the conditions to enable it to acquire the 430 acres, it met at an extraordinary general meeting on April 21, 1994 and unanimously agreed that the executive council should be mandated to re-open negotiations with SSNIT .
Among some of the proposals were that the entire 430 acres of land offered to GREDA by the government through the then Ministry of Works and Housing be given to SSNIT for joint development efforts, SSNIT should pay for the land on behalf of GREDA, it should lay the infrastructure and then the serviced plots offered to GREDA on specific terms of payment.
The plaintiffs said the minutes of the meeting, coupled with the proposals, confirmed what the stool had earlier told them regarding the negotiations with GREDA, as well as the 430 acres.
They said instead of SSNIT pursuing the 430 acres offered to it by GREDA, it went behind GREDA to see officials of the Lands Commission who allocated a total acreage of 507.75 to the trust.
They are also seeking an order to restrain SSNIT from interfering with lands on which their buildings had been constructed or were to be constructed, an order for the cancellation of the Land Certificate NO. GA 18630, Vol. 09, Folio 227, dated February 14, 2003 issued to SSNIT because it was obtained by fraud.
The suit was filed by five persons and on behalf of members of the association. They are Madam Linda Sagoe, Madam Victoria Allotey, Benjamin Kwesi Buah-Blay, James Quaye and Emmanuel Asiedu Kottah.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said between 1990 and 2004, they purchased various plots of land from the James Town Ngleshie Alata Stool for purposes of constructing houses.
They said the 115 members of the association owned land at the disputed area and 56 houses had reached various stages of development, with some going beyond the foundation, window and other levels.
According to them, they were unaware of any interest of SSNIT in any portion of the plots they acquired and as far as they knew, the Ghana Real Estate Developers Association (GREDA) had serviced plots in the area.
The plaintiffs said after 56 plots had been developed, with their owners enjoying peaceful development, SSNIT posted notices on some property and invited their owners to contact the trust for discussions pertaining to “regularisation of land title in respect of SSNIT land at Dunkoona”.
They said those members who honoured the invitation were told by SSNIT that the Lands Commission had granted lease of land to SSNIT and that when the association got wind of that, it investigated the claims.
When the association contacted the James Town Ngleshie Alata Stool, the plaintiffs said, the stool members said they had been negotiating with GREDA for the lease of 430 acres of its land to GREDA but that the land sold by them were outside the 430 acres.
“However, by some curious circumstance, the Lands Commission was brought into the picture, unknown to the James Town Stool, apparently because the PNDC government had issued E.I. No. 5 of 1993 to compulsorily acquire the parcel of land the stool was offering to GREDA,” statement said.
According to the plaintiffs, instead of GREDA fulfilling the conditions to enable it to acquire the 430 acres, it met at an extraordinary general meeting on April 21, 1994 and unanimously agreed that the executive council should be mandated to re-open negotiations with SSNIT .
Among some of the proposals were that the entire 430 acres of land offered to GREDA by the government through the then Ministry of Works and Housing be given to SSNIT for joint development efforts, SSNIT should pay for the land on behalf of GREDA, it should lay the infrastructure and then the serviced plots offered to GREDA on specific terms of payment.
The plaintiffs said the minutes of the meeting, coupled with the proposals, confirmed what the stool had earlier told them regarding the negotiations with GREDA, as well as the 430 acres.
They said instead of SSNIT pursuing the 430 acres offered to it by GREDA, it went behind GREDA to see officials of the Lands Commission who allocated a total acreage of 507.75 to the trust.
GBA expresses sympathy at CJ's death
THE Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has described the death of the Chief Justice , Mr Justice Kingsley George Acquah, as a great loss to the Judiciary and the administration of justice in the country.
The President of the GBA, the umbrella body of lawyers, Mr Kwami Tetteh, said the late Chief Justice would be remembered for the very strong reform system which he initiated and pursued vigorously until his death in the early hours of Sunday.
Mr Tetteh, who was expressing his sympathy in a telephone interview with the Daily Graphic, said “I am a witness to his efforts to introduce new infrastructure in the Judiciary, especially the introduction of the mechanised courts (Fast Track) and commercial courts.
“He had a big plan behind the Cocoa Affairs Courts, and the ongoing construction of an administrative edifice behind the main Supreme Court building bears testimony to his vision but we hope that by the next legal year that project would have been ready”, Mr Tetteh said.
The GBA President further said the late Chief Justice brought discipline to bear on the Judiciary and expressed the hope that his successor would continue what Mr Justice Acquah started.
He extended his sympathy and condolences and those of the GBA to the family of the late Chief Justice and the Judicial Service.
Mr Thomas Nuako Ward-Brew, the leader of the Bar Association of Ghana (BAG), also expressed shock at the death of the Chief Justice, whom he described as a hall mate at the Commonwealth Hall of the University of Ghana.
According to him, Mr Justice Acquah was the only locally-trained Ghanaian Chief Justice, adding that he proved his capability in every aspect of his work, including the number of reforms he embarked upon to enhance the image of the Judiciary.
He, however, said the death of Chief Justices in the country was taking some dimension and it was about time that the mystery surrounding such ‘strange deaths’ was exorcised.
Asked to explain further, Mr Ward-Brew, also the leader of the Democratic People’s Party (DPP), stated that rumours about in-fighting relating to who should be appointed a Chief Justice were rife, a situation he described as “unhappy”.
Meanwhile, the scene at the Cocoa Affairs courts and on the Supreme Court premises in Accra yesterday was solemn as majority of the workers there would not even want to sit.
No official reasons were assigned but indications were that that was to show respect to the head of the Judiciary. Court clerks only adjourned cases.
Apart from the solemn atmosphere, nothing really showed that the Chief Justice was dead except that people gathered in small groups to discuss the sad story.
A few of the staff were, however, seen wearing red ribons.
Mr Justice Acquah died at the 37 Military Hospital in Accra at 1.00 a.m. on Sunday.
He was 65 and Ghana’s 11th Chief Justice after independence, having been appointed Chief Justice on July 4, 2003 to succeed Mr Justice Wiredu.
The cause of death was not immediately disclosed but he was believed to have died from cancer.
The Chief Justice, who was taken ill about two years ago, was flown abroad on a number of occasions for medical treatment and resumed work before his health conditions deteriorated again.
The President of the GBA, the umbrella body of lawyers, Mr Kwami Tetteh, said the late Chief Justice would be remembered for the very strong reform system which he initiated and pursued vigorously until his death in the early hours of Sunday.
Mr Tetteh, who was expressing his sympathy in a telephone interview with the Daily Graphic, said “I am a witness to his efforts to introduce new infrastructure in the Judiciary, especially the introduction of the mechanised courts (Fast Track) and commercial courts.
“He had a big plan behind the Cocoa Affairs Courts, and the ongoing construction of an administrative edifice behind the main Supreme Court building bears testimony to his vision but we hope that by the next legal year that project would have been ready”, Mr Tetteh said.
The GBA President further said the late Chief Justice brought discipline to bear on the Judiciary and expressed the hope that his successor would continue what Mr Justice Acquah started.
He extended his sympathy and condolences and those of the GBA to the family of the late Chief Justice and the Judicial Service.
Mr Thomas Nuako Ward-Brew, the leader of the Bar Association of Ghana (BAG), also expressed shock at the death of the Chief Justice, whom he described as a hall mate at the Commonwealth Hall of the University of Ghana.
According to him, Mr Justice Acquah was the only locally-trained Ghanaian Chief Justice, adding that he proved his capability in every aspect of his work, including the number of reforms he embarked upon to enhance the image of the Judiciary.
He, however, said the death of Chief Justices in the country was taking some dimension and it was about time that the mystery surrounding such ‘strange deaths’ was exorcised.
Asked to explain further, Mr Ward-Brew, also the leader of the Democratic People’s Party (DPP), stated that rumours about in-fighting relating to who should be appointed a Chief Justice were rife, a situation he described as “unhappy”.
Meanwhile, the scene at the Cocoa Affairs courts and on the Supreme Court premises in Accra yesterday was solemn as majority of the workers there would not even want to sit.
No official reasons were assigned but indications were that that was to show respect to the head of the Judiciary. Court clerks only adjourned cases.
Apart from the solemn atmosphere, nothing really showed that the Chief Justice was dead except that people gathered in small groups to discuss the sad story.
A few of the staff were, however, seen wearing red ribons.
Mr Justice Acquah died at the 37 Military Hospital in Accra at 1.00 a.m. on Sunday.
He was 65 and Ghana’s 11th Chief Justice after independence, having been appointed Chief Justice on July 4, 2003 to succeed Mr Justice Wiredu.
The cause of death was not immediately disclosed but he was believed to have died from cancer.
The Chief Justice, who was taken ill about two years ago, was flown abroad on a number of occasions for medical treatment and resumed work before his health conditions deteriorated again.
Ghana's Chief Justice is dead
THE Chief Justice, Mr Justice George Kingsley Acquah, is dead.
Mr Justice Acquah, 65, died at the 37 Military Hospital in Accra at 1.00 a.m. on Sunday.
The cause of death was not immediately disclosed but he was believed to have died from cancer.
The Chief Justice, who was taken ill about two years ago, was flown abroad on a number of occasions for medical treatment and resumed work before his health conditions deteriorated again.
He was flown down from the United States of America about three days ago and was on admission at the 37 Military Hospital.
Mr Justice Acquah was Ghana’s 11th Chief Justice after independence and was appointed Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana on July 4, 2003 to succeed Mr Justice E.K. Wiredu.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, who confirmed the death in a telephone conversation with the Daily Graphic, described it as a big loss to the country.
When the Daily Graphic visited the late Chief Justice’s residence on the Switchback Road, a Judicial Service security man said he had heard about the death on a radio station and that no family member was available for any comment.
Mr Justice Acquah’s employment record included private legal practice from 1972 to 1989; a High Court judge from 1989 to 1994; an Appeal Court judge from 1994 to 1995 and a Supreme Court judge from 1995 to 2003 when he was appointed Chief Justice.
He was born in Sekondi on March 6, 1942 and attended Adisadel College, Cape Coast, from 1957 to 1963 for both his General Certificate of Education (GCE) Ordinary and Advanced level certificates.
After his ‘A’ Levels, he taught at Sekondi College for one year before he proceeded to the University of Ghana, Legon, from 1964 to 1967 where he obtained a B.A. (Hons) degree in Philosophy. Between 1968 and 1970, he studied and obtained an LL.B (Hons) degree in Law from the same university.
From 1970 to 1972, Justice Acquah was at the Ghana School of Law where he obtained his professional certificate in law and was called to the Bar in 1972.
He then went into private legal practice in Cape Coast until September 19, 1989 when he was elevated to the High Court and posted to Ho.
In June 1994, he was elevated to the Court of Appeal, and in the following year he was again elevated to the Supreme Court where he was until his appointment as the Chief Justice.
Mr Justice Acquah, until his death, was the Chairman of the Judicial Council and the General Legal Council; Chairman of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Service; Chairman, Judicial Service Reform and Automation Committee, and Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education of the Judicial Service of Ghana.
Other positions he held included Chairman, Disciplinary Committee of the Judicial Council; Chairman, Funeral Committee of the Judicial Service; Chairman, Tender Board of the Judicial Service, and Member of the Judicial Council of Ghana.
Mr Justice Acquah was also the Chairman, National Multi-Sectoral Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Child; Member, Rules of Court Committee; Member, Appointments Committee of the Judicial Council, and Member, Africa Regional Council of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPFAR).
He was also a Member of the Governing Council of the Ghana Legal Literacy and Resource Foundation; Patron, the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, London; Honorary Legal Adviser of the International Planned Parenthood Federation; Editorial Advisor, Banking and Financial Law Journal of Ghana, and External Examiner (Law of Evidence), the Ghana School of Law.
He left behind his wife, Jane, and six children.
The death of the Chief Justice is a serious blow to the Judicial Service because since July 4, 2003 when Mr Justice Acquah assumed office, he had ensured that justice was delivered to all manner of persons without fear or favour. He also ensured that corruption in the service was minimised to enhance accountability.
Mr Justice Acquah, 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.
That 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 was 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, Mr Justice Acquah 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 which he had introduced to enhance the administration of justice in the country.
Mr Justice Acquah, 65, died at the 37 Military Hospital in Accra at 1.00 a.m. on Sunday.
The cause of death was not immediately disclosed but he was believed to have died from cancer.
The Chief Justice, who was taken ill about two years ago, was flown abroad on a number of occasions for medical treatment and resumed work before his health conditions deteriorated again.
He was flown down from the United States of America about three days ago and was on admission at the 37 Military Hospital.
Mr Justice Acquah was Ghana’s 11th Chief Justice after independence and was appointed Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana on July 4, 2003 to succeed Mr Justice E.K. Wiredu.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, who confirmed the death in a telephone conversation with the Daily Graphic, described it as a big loss to the country.
When the Daily Graphic visited the late Chief Justice’s residence on the Switchback Road, a Judicial Service security man said he had heard about the death on a radio station and that no family member was available for any comment.
Mr Justice Acquah’s employment record included private legal practice from 1972 to 1989; a High Court judge from 1989 to 1994; an Appeal Court judge from 1994 to 1995 and a Supreme Court judge from 1995 to 2003 when he was appointed Chief Justice.
He was born in Sekondi on March 6, 1942 and attended Adisadel College, Cape Coast, from 1957 to 1963 for both his General Certificate of Education (GCE) Ordinary and Advanced level certificates.
After his ‘A’ Levels, he taught at Sekondi College for one year before he proceeded to the University of Ghana, Legon, from 1964 to 1967 where he obtained a B.A. (Hons) degree in Philosophy. Between 1968 and 1970, he studied and obtained an LL.B (Hons) degree in Law from the same university.
From 1970 to 1972, Justice Acquah was at the Ghana School of Law where he obtained his professional certificate in law and was called to the Bar in 1972.
He then went into private legal practice in Cape Coast until September 19, 1989 when he was elevated to the High Court and posted to Ho.
In June 1994, he was elevated to the Court of Appeal, and in the following year he was again elevated to the Supreme Court where he was until his appointment as the Chief Justice.
Mr Justice Acquah, until his death, was the Chairman of the Judicial Council and the General Legal Council; Chairman of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Service; Chairman, Judicial Service Reform and Automation Committee, and Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education of the Judicial Service of Ghana.
Other positions he held included Chairman, Disciplinary Committee of the Judicial Council; Chairman, Funeral Committee of the Judicial Service; Chairman, Tender Board of the Judicial Service, and Member of the Judicial Council of Ghana.
Mr Justice Acquah was also the Chairman, National Multi-Sectoral Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Child; Member, Rules of Court Committee; Member, Appointments Committee of the Judicial Council, and Member, Africa Regional Council of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPFAR).
He was also a Member of the Governing Council of the Ghana Legal Literacy and Resource Foundation; Patron, the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, London; Honorary Legal Adviser of the International Planned Parenthood Federation; Editorial Advisor, Banking and Financial Law Journal of Ghana, and External Examiner (Law of Evidence), the Ghana School of Law.
He left behind his wife, Jane, and six children.
The death of the Chief Justice is a serious blow to the Judicial Service because since July 4, 2003 when Mr Justice Acquah assumed office, he had ensured that justice was delivered to all manner of persons without fear or favour. He also ensured that corruption in the service was minimised to enhance accountability.
Mr Justice Acquah, 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.
That 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 was 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, Mr Justice Acquah 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 which he had introduced to enhance the administration of justice in the country.
EX-GPHA workers fate to be decided by Court of Appeal
MORE than 500 dismissed casual workers of the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) besieged the Supreme Court premises, eager to hear judgement in the appeal filed by the authority against the payment of billions of cedis in compensation for the wrongful dismissal of 4,194 of them but they were disappointed.
The scheduled judgement at the Court of Appeal could not be delivered and was postponed to next Friday because a response to the statement of case of the ex-workers filed by the authority was not made available to the panel of judges.
Consequently, counsel for the parties met the judges in chambers to take the new date so that the judges could study the response and factor it into their judgement.
After the adjournment their lawyer and leaders took turns to speak to them regarding the need to exercise restraint and wait for the next date.
A Tema High Court on January 18, 2006 entered judgement in favour of the dismissed workers, some of whom worked for periods ranging from one year to 10 years, and ordered the payment of billions of cedis in damages for breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), compensation, severance award and costs.
The court ordered that ¢5 million should be paid to each of the ex-workers as damages for breach of the CBA, ¢10 million to each of them for each year of service after the expiration of 154 days of continuous work in the authority as compensation for illegal conduct in keeping them as casual workers, violation of their economic rights and discrimination against them contrary to the 1992 Constitution.
Furthermore, severance award comprising three months salary for each year of service, ¢3 million in lieu of rent, ¢2 million for medicals, two bags of rice, two gallons of oil, 2001 bonus for those who qualified and ¢1.5 million as conveyance fees should be given.
The rest were five months salary as handshake, long service award, interest on all sums due each of the ex-workers at current commercial bank rate from October 1, 2002 to date of judgement and ¢10 million as costs.
The suit was filed by five of the dismissed workers on behalf of the rest.
But the authority appealed against the decision, describing the awards as meaningless, perverse and baseless in law and prayed for it to be set aside.
According to the facts of the case, the respondents were employed by the authority as casual or non-permanent employees until September 2002 when the re-organisation led to their being laid off without receiving any payment in lieu of notice apart from “some meagre amounts described by the authority as golden handshake”.
However, they said, detailed severance packages were paid to each of the authority’s permanent employees.
They stated that by the provisions of the various CBAs negotiated on their behalf at various times during their employment with the authority, they ought to have been made permanent employees after working continuously for 154 days in a calendar year.
They said if the authority could not absorb them as permanent employees they ought to have been placed on guaranteed wages/salaries equivalent to the monthly wages/salaries of classified jobs.
In its statement of appeal the authority stated that the trial judge erred in giving judgement for all the ex-workers as if they were parties in the action although the record of proceedings and the relevant rules of the court clearly indicated that they were not.
According to the authority, it was during the trial that the ex-workers filed a document entitled “ List of Plaintiffs” to which was annexed the list of 3,839 others and a subsequent motion to add 356 more people as plaintiffs.
It said the judge’s finding that the authority acted illegally and unlawfully in treating the ex-workers as non-permanent employees “for all the periods of the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant”, was erroneous, there being no evidence on record of the period of employment of each of the ex-workers.
“Again the appellant contends that there was no evidence on record that any of the plaintiffs had worked satisfactorily for 154 days in any year to qualify for upgrading as a permanent employee or to warrant the finding by the trial judge that the defendant had breached the CBA,” the authority said.
Furthermore, it stated that there was no evidence in support of the finding that the ex-workers had worked continuously for “periods between one year and 10 years” or had qualified for permanent employment.
The trial judge, it argued, misinterpreted the CBA in holding that the authority was obliged to engage on a regular basis a casual employee who had worked for 154 days.
It said the trial judge erred in finding that the authority violated the provisions of the 1992 Constitution and the CBA because the court did not appreciate the ex-worker’s tenure of employment, which was temporary, casual and determinable at the close of each day.
“It was only where a worker suffered diminution in his or her condition that the employer was liable for severance pay,” it said.
The scheduled judgement at the Court of Appeal could not be delivered and was postponed to next Friday because a response to the statement of case of the ex-workers filed by the authority was not made available to the panel of judges.
Consequently, counsel for the parties met the judges in chambers to take the new date so that the judges could study the response and factor it into their judgement.
After the adjournment their lawyer and leaders took turns to speak to them regarding the need to exercise restraint and wait for the next date.
A Tema High Court on January 18, 2006 entered judgement in favour of the dismissed workers, some of whom worked for periods ranging from one year to 10 years, and ordered the payment of billions of cedis in damages for breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), compensation, severance award and costs.
The court ordered that ¢5 million should be paid to each of the ex-workers as damages for breach of the CBA, ¢10 million to each of them for each year of service after the expiration of 154 days of continuous work in the authority as compensation for illegal conduct in keeping them as casual workers, violation of their economic rights and discrimination against them contrary to the 1992 Constitution.
Furthermore, severance award comprising three months salary for each year of service, ¢3 million in lieu of rent, ¢2 million for medicals, two bags of rice, two gallons of oil, 2001 bonus for those who qualified and ¢1.5 million as conveyance fees should be given.
The rest were five months salary as handshake, long service award, interest on all sums due each of the ex-workers at current commercial bank rate from October 1, 2002 to date of judgement and ¢10 million as costs.
The suit was filed by five of the dismissed workers on behalf of the rest.
But the authority appealed against the decision, describing the awards as meaningless, perverse and baseless in law and prayed for it to be set aside.
According to the facts of the case, the respondents were employed by the authority as casual or non-permanent employees until September 2002 when the re-organisation led to their being laid off without receiving any payment in lieu of notice apart from “some meagre amounts described by the authority as golden handshake”.
However, they said, detailed severance packages were paid to each of the authority’s permanent employees.
They stated that by the provisions of the various CBAs negotiated on their behalf at various times during their employment with the authority, they ought to have been made permanent employees after working continuously for 154 days in a calendar year.
They said if the authority could not absorb them as permanent employees they ought to have been placed on guaranteed wages/salaries equivalent to the monthly wages/salaries of classified jobs.
In its statement of appeal the authority stated that the trial judge erred in giving judgement for all the ex-workers as if they were parties in the action although the record of proceedings and the relevant rules of the court clearly indicated that they were not.
According to the authority, it was during the trial that the ex-workers filed a document entitled “ List of Plaintiffs” to which was annexed the list of 3,839 others and a subsequent motion to add 356 more people as plaintiffs.
It said the judge’s finding that the authority acted illegally and unlawfully in treating the ex-workers as non-permanent employees “for all the periods of the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant”, was erroneous, there being no evidence on record of the period of employment of each of the ex-workers.
“Again the appellant contends that there was no evidence on record that any of the plaintiffs had worked satisfactorily for 154 days in any year to qualify for upgrading as a permanent employee or to warrant the finding by the trial judge that the defendant had breached the CBA,” the authority said.
Furthermore, it stated that there was no evidence in support of the finding that the ex-workers had worked continuously for “periods between one year and 10 years” or had qualified for permanent employment.
The trial judge, it argued, misinterpreted the CBA in holding that the authority was obliged to engage on a regular basis a casual employee who had worked for 154 days.
It said the trial judge erred in finding that the authority violated the provisions of the 1992 Constitution and the CBA because the court did not appreciate the ex-worker’s tenure of employment, which was temporary, casual and determinable at the close of each day.
“It was only where a worker suffered diminution in his or her condition that the employer was liable for severance pay,” it said.
Curoius crowd disappointed
MANY people, including journalists, who thronged the Accra Fast Track High Court, keen on listening to the recorded conversation about the missing 77 parcels of cocaine, which took place in the house of ACP Kofi Boakye, got disappointed, because only a few portions of the recording were audible.
For the one hour and two minutes that the tape was played, the crowd, one of the biggest in recent court attendance, had to strain their ears in a fruitless effort to hear what transpired during the conversation.
That notwithstanding, the names of ACP Boakye, Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, Kwabena Acheampong, Alhaji Issa Abbas and Alhaji Moro Mohammed came up in the conversation where heated arguments were heard being made.
There were accusations and counter-accusations, as well as denials, whenever the name of certain ‘goods’, probably the missing cocaine, came up.
As the tape was being played, the accused persons, namely Tagor and Alhaji Abass, sat quietly but Tagor gazed at the wall in front of him and sometimes grinned. The mention of a ‘password’ as well as ‘the Colombian and Venezuelans’ came up during the conversation. One of them also referred to himself as being a public officer.
The conversation, which is on a Compact Disc (CD), was admitted in evidence on Tuesday after the court ruled that the information on it was relevant to the trial.
After the tape had been played, the seventh prosecution , Detective Inspector Charles Adaba, took to the box and continued his evidence-in-chief.
He said after taking possession of the tape and listening to it, he realised there were other revelations by those involved in the conversation, which needed further investigations.
According to him, he investigated the statements made in the conversation, such as one by Alhaji Abbas that Tagor’s driver, Nana Kofi Asare, had bought a house from Chris Asher.
“I was able to locate the house at East Legon in Accra”, he stated.
Inspector Abada said he further realised that he needed a voice expert in order to identify those who took part in the conversation and he exhausted all local probabilities to no avail.
He said he discussed that with the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, who assisted in getting J. P. French and Associates, voice experts from the United Kingdom.
The witness said the CD containing the conversation was forwarded to the experts who requested for a fresh voice recording of those who took part in the conversation to assist them in identifying who said what.
Based on that, he said, he secretly recorded the voices of those mentioned and forwarded them to the UK so that they did not disguise their voices.
The judge adjourned the case to tomorrow because the recorded voices which were to be tendered were not brought to court.
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.
For the one hour and two minutes that the tape was played, the crowd, one of the biggest in recent court attendance, had to strain their ears in a fruitless effort to hear what transpired during the conversation.
That notwithstanding, the names of ACP Boakye, Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, Kwabena Acheampong, Alhaji Issa Abbas and Alhaji Moro Mohammed came up in the conversation where heated arguments were heard being made.
There were accusations and counter-accusations, as well as denials, whenever the name of certain ‘goods’, probably the missing cocaine, came up.
As the tape was being played, the accused persons, namely Tagor and Alhaji Abass, sat quietly but Tagor gazed at the wall in front of him and sometimes grinned. The mention of a ‘password’ as well as ‘the Colombian and Venezuelans’ came up during the conversation. One of them also referred to himself as being a public officer.
The conversation, which is on a Compact Disc (CD), was admitted in evidence on Tuesday after the court ruled that the information on it was relevant to the trial.
After the tape had been played, the seventh prosecution , Detective Inspector Charles Adaba, took to the box and continued his evidence-in-chief.
He said after taking possession of the tape and listening to it, he realised there were other revelations by those involved in the conversation, which needed further investigations.
According to him, he investigated the statements made in the conversation, such as one by Alhaji Abbas that Tagor’s driver, Nana Kofi Asare, had bought a house from Chris Asher.
“I was able to locate the house at East Legon in Accra”, he stated.
Inspector Abada said he further realised that he needed a voice expert in order to identify those who took part in the conversation and he exhausted all local probabilities to no avail.
He said he discussed that with the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, who assisted in getting J. P. French and Associates, voice experts from the United Kingdom.
The witness said the CD containing the conversation was forwarded to the experts who requested for a fresh voice recording of those who took part in the conversation to assist them in identifying who said what.
Based on that, he said, he secretly recorded the voices of those mentioned and forwarded them to the UK so that they did not disguise their voices.
The judge adjourned the case to tomorrow because the recorded voices which were to be tendered were not brought to court.
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.
THE admissibility or otherwise of a secret voice recording of the five persons who took part in the recorded conversation on the missing 77 parcels of cocaine in ACP Kofi Boakye’s house forced the Accra Fast Track High Court to adjourn the case to March 28, 2007.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, adjourned the case after the defence team had raised an objection to the tendering of the CD containing the secret voice recording.
While the defence maintained that the secret voice recording infringed the rights and privacy of the accused persons, the prosecution stated that the secret recording was to demonstrate to the court the voices of those who participated in the conversation which took place in ACP Boakye’s house.
According to the defence team, the admissibility of the secret voice recording would also create unfair prejudice and danger, while interfering with the privacy of the accused persons.
But the prosecution responded that the issue was not about the relevance of the material on the CD but to show the court the true voices of those who took part in the controversial recording in ACP Boakye's house.
Detective Inspector Charles Abada, the seventh prosecution witness, who spoke on the secret voice recording during his evidence-in-chief, said he recorded the voice after a voice and speech expert in the United Kingdom (UK) had requested for a fresh voice recording of those who took part in the conversation in ACP Boakye's house.
He said based on the request by J. P. French and Associates, the voice experts, "I recorded the voices of those mentioned in the conversation without their knowledge so that they would not disguise their voices and forwarded it to the UK."
The witness said the experts, on receiving the fresh recorded voice, requested for an Akan linguistic expert, since parts of the conversation were in Akan.
Therefore, he said, he sought one from the University of Ghana, Legon, and linked him up with the experts in the UK.
The subject of the recorded conversation is the result of the trial of Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, who is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, and Alhaji Issa Abbas, who 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.
According to Inspector Abada, he recorded the voices of Abbas and Tagor on November 1 and 2, 2006, respectively, when they were on remand at the Ankaful and Sekondi prisons.
Similarly, he said, he recorded the voices of the other persons, namely, ACP Boakye, Kwabena Akyeampong and Alhaji Imoro.
He said Abbas had indicated during the conversation that he was once arrested by the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) when he went to withdraw $495,000 which had been transferred into his accounts at the SG-SSB Bank.
Inspector Abada also apprised the court with the modus operandi of people involved in the narcotic business and stated, for instance, that the dealers, always suspicious of one another, used certain terminology and also used their drivers in transactions.
He said whenever the term 'business' was mentioned in conversations involving the dealers, it meant cocaine, while 'key(s)' (Safoa/Nsafoa in Akan) meant a kilogramme(s) of cocaine.
Cocaine, he said, was also referred to as 'goods' (Niema in Akan) and when the dealers experienced bad business, they said "the line was spoilt".
Asked what he did regarding Mama Tess who was mentioned in the course of the conversation, the witness replied that he followed up to a company called Platinum Furniture Ventures where he was informed that it was owned by Mama Tess who had travelled outside the country and had since not returned.
Inspector Abada further said Abbas mentioned in the conversation that Asem Dakeh Sherrif, who was referred to as the Limping Man (Apakye in Akan) arranged a vessel to cart the 77 parcels of cocaine and it was true that Sheriff hired the MV Benjamin.
He said he visited the vessel at the Tema Harbour during his investigations and realised at the time of his visit that its cabin had been set on fire.
The vessel, he said, belonged to Dashment Shipping Services and that in the conversation, it was stated that it was owned by Kojo Dawson.
The court overruled an objection by the defence that the witness could not give evidence on the seating arrangement of the conversation in ACP Boakye's house because he was not present.
According to the defence, since the witness was not present during the conversation, his evidence was based on hearsay and ought not to be admitted. But that was overruled.
The court ruled that the investigator had gone to the scene and his findings were what he told the court and so it was up to the defence to listen and then cross-examine him on that.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, adjourned the case after the defence team had raised an objection to the tendering of the CD containing the secret voice recording.
While the defence maintained that the secret voice recording infringed the rights and privacy of the accused persons, the prosecution stated that the secret recording was to demonstrate to the court the voices of those who participated in the conversation which took place in ACP Boakye’s house.
According to the defence team, the admissibility of the secret voice recording would also create unfair prejudice and danger, while interfering with the privacy of the accused persons.
But the prosecution responded that the issue was not about the relevance of the material on the CD but to show the court the true voices of those who took part in the controversial recording in ACP Boakye's house.
Detective Inspector Charles Abada, the seventh prosecution witness, who spoke on the secret voice recording during his evidence-in-chief, said he recorded the voice after a voice and speech expert in the United Kingdom (UK) had requested for a fresh voice recording of those who took part in the conversation in ACP Boakye's house.
He said based on the request by J. P. French and Associates, the voice experts, "I recorded the voices of those mentioned in the conversation without their knowledge so that they would not disguise their voices and forwarded it to the UK."
The witness said the experts, on receiving the fresh recorded voice, requested for an Akan linguistic expert, since parts of the conversation were in Akan.
Therefore, he said, he sought one from the University of Ghana, Legon, and linked him up with the experts in the UK.
The subject of the recorded conversation is the result of the trial of Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, who is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, and Alhaji Issa Abbas, who 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.
According to Inspector Abada, he recorded the voices of Abbas and Tagor on November 1 and 2, 2006, respectively, when they were on remand at the Ankaful and Sekondi prisons.
Similarly, he said, he recorded the voices of the other persons, namely, ACP Boakye, Kwabena Akyeampong and Alhaji Imoro.
He said Abbas had indicated during the conversation that he was once arrested by the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) when he went to withdraw $495,000 which had been transferred into his accounts at the SG-SSB Bank.
Inspector Abada also apprised the court with the modus operandi of people involved in the narcotic business and stated, for instance, that the dealers, always suspicious of one another, used certain terminology and also used their drivers in transactions.
He said whenever the term 'business' was mentioned in conversations involving the dealers, it meant cocaine, while 'key(s)' (Safoa/Nsafoa in Akan) meant a kilogramme(s) of cocaine.
Cocaine, he said, was also referred to as 'goods' (Niema in Akan) and when the dealers experienced bad business, they said "the line was spoilt".
Asked what he did regarding Mama Tess who was mentioned in the course of the conversation, the witness replied that he followed up to a company called Platinum Furniture Ventures where he was informed that it was owned by Mama Tess who had travelled outside the country and had since not returned.
Inspector Abada further said Abbas mentioned in the conversation that Asem Dakeh Sherrif, who was referred to as the Limping Man (Apakye in Akan) arranged a vessel to cart the 77 parcels of cocaine and it was true that Sheriff hired the MV Benjamin.
He said he visited the vessel at the Tema Harbour during his investigations and realised at the time of his visit that its cabin had been set on fire.
The vessel, he said, belonged to Dashment Shipping Services and that in the conversation, it was stated that it was owned by Kojo Dawson.
The court overruled an objection by the defence that the witness could not give evidence on the seating arrangement of the conversation in ACP Boakye's house because he was not present.
According to the defence, since the witness was not present during the conversation, his evidence was based on hearsay and ought not to be admitted. But that was overruled.
The court ruled that the investigator had gone to the scene and his findings were what he told the court and so it was up to the defence to listen and then cross-examine him on that.
Recorded tape in court
THE recorded conversation which took place in the house of ACP Kofi Boakye on the missing 77 parcels of cocaine is to be played in court.
The conversation, which is on a Compact Disc (CD), was admitted in evidence yesterday after the court ruled that the information on it was relevant to the trial.
However, when the seventh prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Charles Adaba, took to the box and the CD was placed in a CD player, it could not play as a result of a technical fault, forcing an adjournment of the case.
At the court’s last sitting on February 21, 2007, the prosecution sought to tender the CD through the witness, who is the investigator in the case, but the defence objected.
The defence argued, among other things, that a solid foundation had not been laid for the tendering of the CD and that since the witness did not produce it, it was not proper that he spoke about it, while its authenticity was also doubtful.
But the prosecution stated that in order to establish the source and content of the CD, it ought to be listened to.
Kwabena Amaning, alias 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 Issah 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 their discharge.
However, fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abbas, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said although the production and source of the CD remained a mystery, it was of the opinion that its relevance and authenticity had been established.
It ruled that the issue of relevance was important in the admissibility of evidence, saying that in the instant case no allegations were raised to infringe the conditions of voluntary statement.
The court stated that since the CD had not been heard in full, it could not be determined whether the content was a confession statement or not and so it had been accepted in evidence.
It said evidence by some prosecution witnesses, as well as the accused persons, pointed to the fact that the conversation took place voluntarily, without duress from anybody.
For instance, the court stated that Tagor’s statement was clear that they went to ACP Boakye’s house in connection with the missing cocaine, although he denied any knowledge.
Similarly, Alhaji Abbas also corroborated that evidence by saying that the meeting took place in an atmosphere of relaxation and fun, the court said, adding that since there were suggestions that the meeting went on with jokes and fun, it was assumed that the accused persons were putting their case across.
Sufficient foundation, the court ruled, had been laid for the tendering of the CD, since it was consistent with the charges which had been preferred against the accused persons, adding that coupled with the evidence so far, there was some element of relevance.
The court said evidence as used in the Evidence Decree applied to recorded materials such as the information on the CD, while there was evidence that the accused persons and others attended a meeting.
Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, counsel for Tagor, prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable the defence to receive copies of the ruling, since it wanted to appeal against it.
The acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, objected on the grounds that the appeal would have no effect on the CD if it was played.
In a related development, a Chief Regulatory Officer of the Food and Drugs Board (FDB), Rev Jonathan Yaw Martey, testified in the case concerning the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin in which the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, and five others are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine into the country.
The rest are Pak Bok Sil, a Korean, Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese.
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.
They have all pleaded not guilty to the charges and have been remanded in prison custody.
Rev Martey tendered some documents which allowed the importation of psychotropic and narcotic substances and stated that the board did not issue permits to individuals but corporate bodies.
He denied knowing the accused persons and said they were not issued with any permit to import drugs into the country.
The case was adjourned to March 27, 2007.
The conversation, which is on a Compact Disc (CD), was admitted in evidence yesterday after the court ruled that the information on it was relevant to the trial.
However, when the seventh prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Charles Adaba, took to the box and the CD was placed in a CD player, it could not play as a result of a technical fault, forcing an adjournment of the case.
At the court’s last sitting on February 21, 2007, the prosecution sought to tender the CD through the witness, who is the investigator in the case, but the defence objected.
The defence argued, among other things, that a solid foundation had not been laid for the tendering of the CD and that since the witness did not produce it, it was not proper that he spoke about it, while its authenticity was also doubtful.
But the prosecution stated that in order to establish the source and content of the CD, it ought to be listened to.
Kwabena Amaning, alias 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 Issah 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 their discharge.
However, fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abbas, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said although the production and source of the CD remained a mystery, it was of the opinion that its relevance and authenticity had been established.
It ruled that the issue of relevance was important in the admissibility of evidence, saying that in the instant case no allegations were raised to infringe the conditions of voluntary statement.
The court stated that since the CD had not been heard in full, it could not be determined whether the content was a confession statement or not and so it had been accepted in evidence.
It said evidence by some prosecution witnesses, as well as the accused persons, pointed to the fact that the conversation took place voluntarily, without duress from anybody.
For instance, the court stated that Tagor’s statement was clear that they went to ACP Boakye’s house in connection with the missing cocaine, although he denied any knowledge.
Similarly, Alhaji Abbas also corroborated that evidence by saying that the meeting took place in an atmosphere of relaxation and fun, the court said, adding that since there were suggestions that the meeting went on with jokes and fun, it was assumed that the accused persons were putting their case across.
Sufficient foundation, the court ruled, had been laid for the tendering of the CD, since it was consistent with the charges which had been preferred against the accused persons, adding that coupled with the evidence so far, there was some element of relevance.
The court said evidence as used in the Evidence Decree applied to recorded materials such as the information on the CD, while there was evidence that the accused persons and others attended a meeting.
Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, counsel for Tagor, prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable the defence to receive copies of the ruling, since it wanted to appeal against it.
The acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, objected on the grounds that the appeal would have no effect on the CD if it was played.
In a related development, a Chief Regulatory Officer of the Food and Drugs Board (FDB), Rev Jonathan Yaw Martey, testified in the case concerning the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin in which the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, and five others are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine into the country.
The rest are Pak Bok Sil, a Korean, Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese.
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.
They have all pleaded not guilty to the charges and have been remanded in prison custody.
Rev Martey tendered some documents which allowed the importation of psychotropic and narcotic substances and stated that the board did not issue permits to individuals but corporate bodies.
He denied knowing the accused persons and said they were not issued with any permit to import drugs into the country.
The case was adjourned to March 27, 2007.
Friday, March 02, 2007
CJA LOSES BID TO GET CLEARANCE FOR PROCESSION
THE Committee for Joint Action (CJA), has lost in its bid to get clearance from the court to go on a procession next Tuesday in celebration of Ghana’s 50th year of freedom.
That was after the Accra Fast Track High Court dismissed an application seeking to set aside the court’s earlier decision restraining the committee or any other organisation from going on a procession between March 5 and 15 , 2007.
In dismissing the application, the court said it was mindful of Article 21 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association including the freedom to take part in processions but reiterated that “in times of necessity, the interest of the nation should override individual rights or parochial interests”.
After the court’s ruling, some members of the CJA who were in court displayed posters some of which read “Ghana @ 50 yet no freedom of assembly”,” Ghana @ 50 Police Commander is partisan”, “Ghana @ 50 thank you party policeman Akrofi Asiedu”.
Some notable members of the committee, namely, Mr Ato Ahwoi, Kwesi Pratt Jnr, Mrs Ama Benyiwa Doe, Ms Emelia Arthur, among others, attended the court followed by a few other members.
In its ruling on March 1, 2007, the court ordered that it would be illegal for any person or persons acting under the banner of the CJA or any other organisation to organise and undertake any activity or procession in celebration of the anniversary within the period without the express permission in writing to the police.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge sitting as a High Court judge, gave the order after the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) had filed an ex-parte motion for an order of interim injunction to restrain the holding of a procession on March 6, 2007 by the CJA.
An affidavit in support of the motion and deposed by Bernard Mornah of Tantra Hill, Accra, a spokesman of the CJA, said that irreparable damage would be occasioned to the rights of the CJA if the restraining order was made to stand.
He said there was absolutely no security threat posed by the CJA procession along the route proposed by it and that the organisers had never in any way evinced any intention to embarrass the state or foreign dignitaries attending the Jubilee celebration.
On the contrary, he said, the procession was to provide alternative opportunities to other citizens to mark the anniversary.
Arguing the motion ex-parte, counsel for the CJA, Mr Mahama Ayariga, stated that the court’s restraining order was irregular because it was not warranted by any enactment or rule of procedure.
He said in the absence of a substantive cause or matter between the IGP and the CJA subsisting in the court and initiated either by an originating motion on notice or by a regular writ, the IGP had no base from which to make an interlocutory application.
“This Honourable court erred in law in making an order for interlocutory interim injunction”, he added and quoted Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (CI 47) that “any party to a cause or matter may apply for the grant of an injunction before or after the trial of the cause or matter, whether or not a claim for the injunction was included in the party’s writ, counter claim or third party notice”.
Mr Ayariga further argued that the court’s order that the CJA or any other organisation were not allowed to hold any activity between March 5 to 15, 2007, was without basis in law because it was inconsistent with Article 21 (1) (d) the Constitution and the Public Order Act 1994 (Act 491).
He said if anything at all the police could have provided an alternative route to the CJA, which was bent on going on a peaceful procession.
In dismissing the motion, Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie expressed surprise at the line of argument by counsel and stated that the court was of the opinion that the ex-parte application by the IGP was properly brought before the court and satisfied with it, the court granted it.
He said he believed that the inability of the police to provide adequate personnel for the procession was enough ground for the granting of the application.
Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said no procession started off as violent but there had been instances where the organisers have been seen restraining participants from going wayward.
According to him, the alertness of the police and the security agencies towards the Jubilee celebration was not restricted only to March 6, 2007 and that the 10 days order was long enough for the police to sort themselves out to enable them to provide the high service expected of them.
That was after the Accra Fast Track High Court dismissed an application seeking to set aside the court’s earlier decision restraining the committee or any other organisation from going on a procession between March 5 and 15 , 2007.
In dismissing the application, the court said it was mindful of Article 21 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association including the freedom to take part in processions but reiterated that “in times of necessity, the interest of the nation should override individual rights or parochial interests”.
After the court’s ruling, some members of the CJA who were in court displayed posters some of which read “Ghana @ 50 yet no freedom of assembly”,” Ghana @ 50 Police Commander is partisan”, “Ghana @ 50 thank you party policeman Akrofi Asiedu”.
Some notable members of the committee, namely, Mr Ato Ahwoi, Kwesi Pratt Jnr, Mrs Ama Benyiwa Doe, Ms Emelia Arthur, among others, attended the court followed by a few other members.
In its ruling on March 1, 2007, the court ordered that it would be illegal for any person or persons acting under the banner of the CJA or any other organisation to organise and undertake any activity or procession in celebration of the anniversary within the period without the express permission in writing to the police.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge sitting as a High Court judge, gave the order after the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) had filed an ex-parte motion for an order of interim injunction to restrain the holding of a procession on March 6, 2007 by the CJA.
An affidavit in support of the motion and deposed by Bernard Mornah of Tantra Hill, Accra, a spokesman of the CJA, said that irreparable damage would be occasioned to the rights of the CJA if the restraining order was made to stand.
He said there was absolutely no security threat posed by the CJA procession along the route proposed by it and that the organisers had never in any way evinced any intention to embarrass the state or foreign dignitaries attending the Jubilee celebration.
On the contrary, he said, the procession was to provide alternative opportunities to other citizens to mark the anniversary.
Arguing the motion ex-parte, counsel for the CJA, Mr Mahama Ayariga, stated that the court’s restraining order was irregular because it was not warranted by any enactment or rule of procedure.
He said in the absence of a substantive cause or matter between the IGP and the CJA subsisting in the court and initiated either by an originating motion on notice or by a regular writ, the IGP had no base from which to make an interlocutory application.
“This Honourable court erred in law in making an order for interlocutory interim injunction”, he added and quoted Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (CI 47) that “any party to a cause or matter may apply for the grant of an injunction before or after the trial of the cause or matter, whether or not a claim for the injunction was included in the party’s writ, counter claim or third party notice”.
Mr Ayariga further argued that the court’s order that the CJA or any other organisation were not allowed to hold any activity between March 5 to 15, 2007, was without basis in law because it was inconsistent with Article 21 (1) (d) the Constitution and the Public Order Act 1994 (Act 491).
He said if anything at all the police could have provided an alternative route to the CJA, which was bent on going on a peaceful procession.
In dismissing the motion, Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie expressed surprise at the line of argument by counsel and stated that the court was of the opinion that the ex-parte application by the IGP was properly brought before the court and satisfied with it, the court granted it.
He said he believed that the inability of the police to provide adequate personnel for the procession was enough ground for the granting of the application.
Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said no procession started off as violent but there had been instances where the organisers have been seen restraining participants from going wayward.
According to him, the alertness of the police and the security agencies towards the Jubilee celebration was not restricted only to March 6, 2007 and that the 10 days order was long enough for the police to sort themselves out to enable them to provide the high service expected of them.
COURT RESTRAINS CJA FROM GOING ON PROCESSION
THE Accra Fast Track High Court has restrained the Committee for Joint Action (CJA), or any other organisation, from going on a procession between March 5 and 15 , 2007 in celebration of Ghana’s 50th Independence anniversary.
In its ruling on the matter, the court further ordered that it would be illegal for any person or persons acting under the banner of the CJA or any other organisation to organise and undertake any activity or procession in celebration of the anniversary within the period without the express permission in writing to the police.
The order lapses on March 15, 2007 unless it is set aside or extended by the court.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge sitting as a High Court judge, gave the order after the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) had filed an ex-parte motion for an order of interim injunction to restrain the holding of a procession on March 6, 2007 by the CJA.
According to the court, “it arrived at the conclusion cognisant of the fact that in times of necessity, the interest of the nation should override individual rights or parochial interests”.
The action was sent to the court under Section 1 of the Public Order Law, Act 491, and moved by ACOP K.K. Amoah, counsel for the IGP.
An affidavit in support of the motion, which was deposed by the Accra Regional Police Commander, Mr Douglas Akrofi Asiedu, said on February 6, 2007, the police received a written notification from the CJA to hold a people’s procession through the principal streets of Accra to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Ghana’s independence.
It said because of the anniversary, a number of Heads of State, VIPs and other visitors would join Ghanaians to celebrate the occasion and for that reason almost every policeman had been assigned a special duty before and after March 6, 2007 throughout the country.
Consequently, that had made it impossible to organise officers and men to provide the needed security for those who intended to go on the procession. That national concern was conveyed to the organisers by a letter dated February 14, 2007.
The affidavit said the committee, after receiving the letter, replied that it was unable to postpone the event to two weeks as requested by the police and that there could not be any lawful obstacle to the organisation of the procession on March 6, 2007.
It said although the organisers had insisted on holding the procession, their own safety, as well as that of members of the public, could not be guaranteed and that unless restrained from doing so, the procession could create an ungovernable situation which was likely to lead to disorder and insecurity.
Moreover, it said, the Public Order Act and security in Accra and other places would be greatly threatened if the procession took place and added that intelligence reports indicated that other groups opposed to the procession could confront the CJA and that was likely to disturb public order.
ACOP Amoah told the court that the organisers had to be stopped, whether their motive was peaceful or not, because most of the time that was not the case, since people infiltrated their camp and caused havoc.
He said the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum, which was the final convergence point of the procession, was very close to the Independence Square where a National Parade would take place.
Asked by the court why the police did not seek redress from the court at a much earlier date, counsel responded that they were trying to dialogue, especially when the fundamental human rights of the CJA were concerned.
The court said the police were trying to sneak behind the CJA to seek its order and that the ex-parte application should be used as a shield and not as a sword.
In his ruling, the judge said he was a bit uneasy that the application had been brought ex-parte, saying it was clear some days ago that the police had been aware that the organisers were not going to comply with the order.
He said activities for the celebration of the Jubilee had been planned to span the whole year and took judicial notice of the fact that there was no doubt about the heavy burden on the police on March 6, 2007.
The judge cited Article 21 (1) of the 1992 Constitution which touched on the freedom of assembly and procession and the Public Order Act which gave meaning to the article in the Constitution.
He said the fact that the police had emphasised their inability to ensure the safety and welfare of the participants of the procession, as well as other members of the society, meant that the application ought to be granted.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the CJA confirmed to the Daily Graphic that the committee was going to court today to seek a review of the court’s decision.
It described the grounds for the application by the IGP as bogus and without merit and insisted on getting the court’s approval to hold the procession on March 6, 2007.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central and leading member of the CJA, Mr Mahama Ayariga, told Daily Graphic the ground that there would not be enough policemen to safeguard the welfare of the marchers and the public was untenable.
According to him, if anything at all, the CJA should have been asked to change its route but to debar it from holding the procession was not proper.
“There is no reason doing that, looking at the route, so they should have asked us to change the route but telling us not to hold the procession is not right,” he said.
In its ruling on the matter, the court further ordered that it would be illegal for any person or persons acting under the banner of the CJA or any other organisation to organise and undertake any activity or procession in celebration of the anniversary within the period without the express permission in writing to the police.
The order lapses on March 15, 2007 unless it is set aside or extended by the court.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge sitting as a High Court judge, gave the order after the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) had filed an ex-parte motion for an order of interim injunction to restrain the holding of a procession on March 6, 2007 by the CJA.
According to the court, “it arrived at the conclusion cognisant of the fact that in times of necessity, the interest of the nation should override individual rights or parochial interests”.
The action was sent to the court under Section 1 of the Public Order Law, Act 491, and moved by ACOP K.K. Amoah, counsel for the IGP.
An affidavit in support of the motion, which was deposed by the Accra Regional Police Commander, Mr Douglas Akrofi Asiedu, said on February 6, 2007, the police received a written notification from the CJA to hold a people’s procession through the principal streets of Accra to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Ghana’s independence.
It said because of the anniversary, a number of Heads of State, VIPs and other visitors would join Ghanaians to celebrate the occasion and for that reason almost every policeman had been assigned a special duty before and after March 6, 2007 throughout the country.
Consequently, that had made it impossible to organise officers and men to provide the needed security for those who intended to go on the procession. That national concern was conveyed to the organisers by a letter dated February 14, 2007.
The affidavit said the committee, after receiving the letter, replied that it was unable to postpone the event to two weeks as requested by the police and that there could not be any lawful obstacle to the organisation of the procession on March 6, 2007.
It said although the organisers had insisted on holding the procession, their own safety, as well as that of members of the public, could not be guaranteed and that unless restrained from doing so, the procession could create an ungovernable situation which was likely to lead to disorder and insecurity.
Moreover, it said, the Public Order Act and security in Accra and other places would be greatly threatened if the procession took place and added that intelligence reports indicated that other groups opposed to the procession could confront the CJA and that was likely to disturb public order.
ACOP Amoah told the court that the organisers had to be stopped, whether their motive was peaceful or not, because most of the time that was not the case, since people infiltrated their camp and caused havoc.
He said the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum, which was the final convergence point of the procession, was very close to the Independence Square where a National Parade would take place.
Asked by the court why the police did not seek redress from the court at a much earlier date, counsel responded that they were trying to dialogue, especially when the fundamental human rights of the CJA were concerned.
The court said the police were trying to sneak behind the CJA to seek its order and that the ex-parte application should be used as a shield and not as a sword.
In his ruling, the judge said he was a bit uneasy that the application had been brought ex-parte, saying it was clear some days ago that the police had been aware that the organisers were not going to comply with the order.
He said activities for the celebration of the Jubilee had been planned to span the whole year and took judicial notice of the fact that there was no doubt about the heavy burden on the police on March 6, 2007.
The judge cited Article 21 (1) of the 1992 Constitution which touched on the freedom of assembly and procession and the Public Order Act which gave meaning to the article in the Constitution.
He said the fact that the police had emphasised their inability to ensure the safety and welfare of the participants of the procession, as well as other members of the society, meant that the application ought to be granted.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the CJA confirmed to the Daily Graphic that the committee was going to court today to seek a review of the court’s decision.
It described the grounds for the application by the IGP as bogus and without merit and insisted on getting the court’s approval to hold the procession on March 6, 2007.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central and leading member of the CJA, Mr Mahama Ayariga, told Daily Graphic the ground that there would not be enough policemen to safeguard the welfare of the marchers and the public was untenable.
According to him, if anything at all, the CJA should have been asked to change its route but to debar it from holding the procession was not proper.
“There is no reason doing that, looking at the route, so they should have asked us to change the route but telling us not to hold the procession is not right,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)