THE National Co-ordinator of the Educational Quality Implementation Project (EdQual), Dr George K.T. Oduro, has called for a review of the practice of using teachers for official non-teaching and learning activities because that disrupts the process of child learning.
He said teachers should make optimum use of teaching and learning time to convince children of the need to stay in the classroom and study and bemoaned the fact that pupils and students were denied access to their teachers during national election years, for example.
Dr Oduro, who is also a lecturer at the University of Cape Coast Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (IEPA), made the call in an address on the occasion of the graduation and inauguration of a cadet corps at the Creator Schools.
“Should teachers continue to be made electoral officers, polling agents and registration officers at the expense of their pupils? With the upcoming National Identification Programme, will teachers be withdrawn from the classrooms to participate in this national exercise, at the expense of the children?” he quizzed.
He called on the Ghana Education Service (GES) to liaise with the Electoral Commission (EC) and all other stakeholders in child learning to seriously think about a means of controlling the extent to which such official non-teaching/learning activities tended to deprive children of their right to teaching and learning time utilisation.
Speaking on the theme, “Discipline and hard training: Pathway for a bright future”,Dr Oduro said in order for the young ones to be disciplined, there was the need to support schools to be disciplined in the utilisation of teaching-learning time.
He said it was necessary that heads of schools created congenial conditions for young people and provide avenues for their voices to be heard in matters that affected their development because in situations where children felt respected and their views considered in decision making, the foundation for discipline became stronger.
According to Dr Oduro, the school had a critical role to pay in the development of the child because developing the habit of discipline in young people largely depended on the training provided by the school.
“The school is responsible for developing the child morally, physically, intellectually, emotionally, socially and mentally. Yet we tend to give more preference to the intellectual dimension of the school’s mission, to the extent that examination results have become the sole formal criteria for assessing a good school,” he stated.
In so doing, he said, the moral, social and emotional dimensions of the child’s development, which were critical in the development of discipline, were relegated to the background, adding that the school system hardly rewarded good behaviour.
Dr Oduro said if discipline among children was to be promoted, then the school should be encouraged to adopt a holistic approach to child development and reward good behaviour, just as intellectual performance was rewarded.
He commended the staff and management of the Creator Schools for not focusing only on the intellectual development of the child.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
EX-MINISTER CASE UP IN SUPREME COURT
THE Supreme Court will on November 14, 2007, rule on an application filed by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) seeking to quash a High Court decision that absolved the former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane of wrongdoing.
The court fixed the date today after it had listened to submissions made by counsel for the commission and Dr Anane in the case in which the former minister is battling to save his reputation, which an Accra High Court restored when it cleared him of wrongdoing.
The CHRAJ had appealed against the court’s decision at the Court of Appeal but while the appeal is pending it went to the highest court of the land via the instant application to revoke the court’s supervisory jurisdiction in the matter to quash the trial court’s decision.
Dr Anane resigned his post after the commission found him guilty of abuse of power and conflict of interest and recommended that he be removed from office for abusing his office.
The commission recommended, among other things, that Dr Anane should apologise to Parliament for lying under oath and also render another apology to the government for bringing its name into disrepute.
Charges of corruption against the former Minister were dismissed by the commission which found him guilty for lying under oath, after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the parliamentary Appointments Committee during his vetting for the position of Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, Dr Anane had told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
After honourably resigning his post before he could be sacked by the President on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with him, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge absolved Dr Anane of any wrongdoing and quashed the CHRAJ decision against him, declaring it null and void.
Arguing the application at the Supreme Court today, Nene Amegatcher, lead counsel for CHRAJ said the effect of the application was to quash the trial court’s decision that absolved Dr Anane of wrongdoing.
He submitted that the trial judge was invited to look at the true and proper construction of certain provisions in the 1992 Constitution that dealt with the functions of the commission and in the process of doing so the court went into an issue, which was exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court.
Based on that, he said, the application for certiorari was made before the court and if sustained then the Supreme Court ought to give directions to serve as a guide to other courts in the country.
He said CHRAJ could only act when there was an identifiable complainant who must made a written complaint to the commissioner saying that “our case is that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution and history and why CHRAJ was set up, it is not in all cases that we require a complaint.
“There is the majority of issue which are in the public interest which need no formal complaint from any identifiable person”.
When asked by the court why the commission also assumed the role to interpret the constitution by what it did, counsel admitted that was an error on the part of the commission.
In a further question as to why the commission was asking the court restore its decision since that action was in clear violation of the constitution, Nene Amegatcher replied that the commission had the power to handle the issue.
Asked again what language was ambiguous and needed interpretation by the court, counsel quoted Article 218 (a) and (e) on the functions of the commission and stated that what constituted a complaint ought to be interpreted.
He said the words corruption and abuse of power, for instance, had not been defined in the constitution but they had been used in Article 218 (a) and he was of the belief that abuse of power could end up in corruption.
According to counsel, the imports of the articles in the constitution talked about complaints of corruption and instances of alleged corruption, therefore, clarification needed to be sought from the highest court of the land as to the meaning to serve as a direction to the commission.
Nene Amegatcher agreed with the court that in the Dr Anane case although no formal complaint was made to the commission in the current democratic dispensation, allegations could be made even in the media.
He said the trial judge in purporting to interpret Article 287 (1) of the constitution, misrepresented the issue and gave it a new meaning instead of referring it to the Supreme Court.
Mr J.K. Agyemang, counsel for Dr Anane, prayed the court to dismiss the application since all the relevant provisions in Article 218 and 287 were quite clear and unambiguous.
He argued that just as CHRAJ had the right to apply those provisions, the High Court judge also had every right to apply them and stated that the definition of corruption in the constitution and elsewhere were irrelevant, more especially when his client was not found guilty on those charges.
The Supreme Court was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood with Mr Justice S.A Brobbey, Mr Justice S.K Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mr Justice R.T Aninakwah as the members.
In his ruling Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, said CHRAJ was an inferior investigative body without inherent power and so its action was a wrong assumption of jurisdiction.
Consequently, it ordered that the September 15, 2006 decision and subsequent recommendations against Dr Anane be removed from the register of the commission.
According to the court, certain articles of the 1992 Constitution, such as Article 230 and Act 456, as well as CI 7, were binding on the commission to require an identifiable complainant who should lodge a complaint, either in writing or orally.
“The clear and unambiguous provision of CI 7 is that a complaint made in a newspaper article will not be a basis for investigations by the CHRAJ,” the court ruled, and added that Dr Anane was entitled to a declaration that it was mandatory for the commission to receive a petition or complaint from an identifiable complainant before proceeding with any investigation.
According to the court, “the commission, being an inferior body, is supposed to work within the confines of the law and should not behave like an octopus spreading its tentacles here and there because it has limited powers”.
It said the fact that the commission had in 1995 investigated some ministers of state based on newspaper articles did not make an unlawful act lawful.
“If an error has been done with impunity in the past, it does not have to be entertained and nobody can make what is unlawful lawful,” the court ruled, saying that the commission’s power to investigate was only activated when a complaint was lodged by an identifiable person.
It said for the commission to state that Dr Anane abused his office was a wrong assumption of power and should not be countenanced by the Constitution of the land.
Regarding the commission’s decision relating to perjury, the court ruled that what it should have done, after realising inconsistencies in Dr Anane’s statement to Parliament and the commission, was to refer to them, not to offer sanctions as it did.
The court fixed the date today after it had listened to submissions made by counsel for the commission and Dr Anane in the case in which the former minister is battling to save his reputation, which an Accra High Court restored when it cleared him of wrongdoing.
The CHRAJ had appealed against the court’s decision at the Court of Appeal but while the appeal is pending it went to the highest court of the land via the instant application to revoke the court’s supervisory jurisdiction in the matter to quash the trial court’s decision.
Dr Anane resigned his post after the commission found him guilty of abuse of power and conflict of interest and recommended that he be removed from office for abusing his office.
The commission recommended, among other things, that Dr Anane should apologise to Parliament for lying under oath and also render another apology to the government for bringing its name into disrepute.
Charges of corruption against the former Minister were dismissed by the commission which found him guilty for lying under oath, after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the parliamentary Appointments Committee during his vetting for the position of Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, Dr Anane had told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
After honourably resigning his post before he could be sacked by the President on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with him, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge absolved Dr Anane of any wrongdoing and quashed the CHRAJ decision against him, declaring it null and void.
Arguing the application at the Supreme Court today, Nene Amegatcher, lead counsel for CHRAJ said the effect of the application was to quash the trial court’s decision that absolved Dr Anane of wrongdoing.
He submitted that the trial judge was invited to look at the true and proper construction of certain provisions in the 1992 Constitution that dealt with the functions of the commission and in the process of doing so the court went into an issue, which was exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court.
Based on that, he said, the application for certiorari was made before the court and if sustained then the Supreme Court ought to give directions to serve as a guide to other courts in the country.
He said CHRAJ could only act when there was an identifiable complainant who must made a written complaint to the commissioner saying that “our case is that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution and history and why CHRAJ was set up, it is not in all cases that we require a complaint.
“There is the majority of issue which are in the public interest which need no formal complaint from any identifiable person”.
When asked by the court why the commission also assumed the role to interpret the constitution by what it did, counsel admitted that was an error on the part of the commission.
In a further question as to why the commission was asking the court restore its decision since that action was in clear violation of the constitution, Nene Amegatcher replied that the commission had the power to handle the issue.
Asked again what language was ambiguous and needed interpretation by the court, counsel quoted Article 218 (a) and (e) on the functions of the commission and stated that what constituted a complaint ought to be interpreted.
He said the words corruption and abuse of power, for instance, had not been defined in the constitution but they had been used in Article 218 (a) and he was of the belief that abuse of power could end up in corruption.
According to counsel, the imports of the articles in the constitution talked about complaints of corruption and instances of alleged corruption, therefore, clarification needed to be sought from the highest court of the land as to the meaning to serve as a direction to the commission.
Nene Amegatcher agreed with the court that in the Dr Anane case although no formal complaint was made to the commission in the current democratic dispensation, allegations could be made even in the media.
He said the trial judge in purporting to interpret Article 287 (1) of the constitution, misrepresented the issue and gave it a new meaning instead of referring it to the Supreme Court.
Mr J.K. Agyemang, counsel for Dr Anane, prayed the court to dismiss the application since all the relevant provisions in Article 218 and 287 were quite clear and unambiguous.
He argued that just as CHRAJ had the right to apply those provisions, the High Court judge also had every right to apply them and stated that the definition of corruption in the constitution and elsewhere were irrelevant, more especially when his client was not found guilty on those charges.
The Supreme Court was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood with Mr Justice S.A Brobbey, Mr Justice S.K Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mr Justice R.T Aninakwah as the members.
In his ruling Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, said CHRAJ was an inferior investigative body without inherent power and so its action was a wrong assumption of jurisdiction.
Consequently, it ordered that the September 15, 2006 decision and subsequent recommendations against Dr Anane be removed from the register of the commission.
According to the court, certain articles of the 1992 Constitution, such as Article 230 and Act 456, as well as CI 7, were binding on the commission to require an identifiable complainant who should lodge a complaint, either in writing or orally.
“The clear and unambiguous provision of CI 7 is that a complaint made in a newspaper article will not be a basis for investigations by the CHRAJ,” the court ruled, and added that Dr Anane was entitled to a declaration that it was mandatory for the commission to receive a petition or complaint from an identifiable complainant before proceeding with any investigation.
According to the court, “the commission, being an inferior body, is supposed to work within the confines of the law and should not behave like an octopus spreading its tentacles here and there because it has limited powers”.
It said the fact that the commission had in 1995 investigated some ministers of state based on newspaper articles did not make an unlawful act lawful.
“If an error has been done with impunity in the past, it does not have to be entertained and nobody can make what is unlawful lawful,” the court ruled, saying that the commission’s power to investigate was only activated when a complaint was lodged by an identifiable person.
It said for the commission to state that Dr Anane abused his office was a wrong assumption of power and should not be countenanced by the Constitution of the land.
Regarding the commission’s decision relating to perjury, the court ruled that what it should have done, after realising inconsistencies in Dr Anane’s statement to Parliament and the commission, was to refer to them, not to offer sanctions as it did.
TWO BRITISH TEENAGERS MAKE SECOND APPEARNCE IN COURT
THE two British teenage girls who attempted to smuggle six kilogrammes of cocaine from Ghana to the United Kingdom made a second appearance at an Accra juvenile court yesterday on charges relating to attempting to export and possession of narcotic drugs.
As usual, the two teenagers were brought under very tight security.
Both local and foreign journalists and photographers who thronged the court premises very early did not see how the suspects entered the courtroom.
However, when the suspects were leaving after the morning session, they were found sandwiched by security officials while they had covered their faces.
As if to deceive the media, three ladies were seen with their faces covered and being whisked away into a waiting car.
Although the court sat in camera and officials were tight-lipped over what transpired in court, it was learnt from sources that the pleas of the girls were taken and some witnesses called to testify for the prosecution.
The details of their pleas were not known but since the trial is ongoing, it is presumed that either they pleaded not guilty to the charges or that a plea was entered for them.
Journalists learnt further that the court would reconvene later in the afternoon to continue with the case.
The two teenagers, Yasemin Vatansever and Yatunde Diya, both appeared before the court on July 18, 2007 after they had been discharged by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
Vatansever and Diya were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 2, 2007, and apart from their brief appearance in court at the Regional Tribunal, nothing was heard of them until the news broke out in the British media on July 12, 2007.
Their appearance in court generated a lot of hullabaloo, especially after the photographs of the girls been used by the press.
There had been condemnation and threat of legal action against media practitioners who did not respect the rights of the girls because as juveniles, they were protected under the law from being exposed.
As usual, the two teenagers were brought under very tight security.
Both local and foreign journalists and photographers who thronged the court premises very early did not see how the suspects entered the courtroom.
However, when the suspects were leaving after the morning session, they were found sandwiched by security officials while they had covered their faces.
As if to deceive the media, three ladies were seen with their faces covered and being whisked away into a waiting car.
Although the court sat in camera and officials were tight-lipped over what transpired in court, it was learnt from sources that the pleas of the girls were taken and some witnesses called to testify for the prosecution.
The details of their pleas were not known but since the trial is ongoing, it is presumed that either they pleaded not guilty to the charges or that a plea was entered for them.
Journalists learnt further that the court would reconvene later in the afternoon to continue with the case.
The two teenagers, Yasemin Vatansever and Yatunde Diya, both appeared before the court on July 18, 2007 after they had been discharged by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
Vatansever and Diya were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 2, 2007, and apart from their brief appearance in court at the Regional Tribunal, nothing was heard of them until the news broke out in the British media on July 12, 2007.
Their appearance in court generated a lot of hullabaloo, especially after the photographs of the girls been used by the press.
There had been condemnation and threat of legal action against media practitioners who did not respect the rights of the girls because as juveniles, they were protected under the law from being exposed.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
AFRICAN COMMISSION TO HEAR CASE OF FORMER GNPC BOSS
THE African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has decided to review its decision on the admissibility of the petition filed by former Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) Chief Executive, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata against his trial for causing financial loss to the state.
The new decision was as a result of a submission for reconsideration, which the commission received from Mr Tsikata at its 41st Ordinary session held in Accra from May 16-30, 2007.
The submission for reconsideration was in respect of the petition he made in April last year but was dismissed at the commission’s 40th Ordinary session held from November 15-29, last year in Banjul.
A communication to Mr Tsikata dated June 25, 2007 and signed by Dr Feyi Ogunde said the commission’s latest decision was in line with Rule 118 (2) of its Rules of Procedure.
It aid the review would be done during the commission’s 42nd Ordinary session scheduled for November 15-27, 2007.
It said for that purpose the commission would need to receive and consider fresh or additional submissions on the admissibility of the petition from both Mr Tsikata and the Attorney General, who represented the state.
The commission acknowledged the receipt from Mr Tsikata of a submission for reconsideration of its decision in respect of Communication 322/2006, which was emailed on May 27, 2007, a ruling in normal High Court, a Fast Track High Court submission of no case and Fat Track High Court ruling.
The commission turned down Mr Tsikata’s complaint last year and described it as “inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies”.
It said although the complaint presented a prima facie case of a series of violations of the African Charter, a close look at the file and the submissions indicated that Mr Tsikata was yet to exhaust all the local remedies available to him.
In the light of the submissions, the commission noted that Mr Tsikata’s allegations were in respect of an ongoing/unconcluded trial and that information provided by him even stated that the case was still pending before the courts of Ghana.
“Should the ongoing trial end against the complainant’s favour, he has further rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ghana, in accordance with articles 137 and 131 of the Constitution of Ghana,” the commission noted.
The former GNPC boss had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
He complained to the commission that the charge on which he was being tried constituted a violation of the right against non-retroactive criminalisation under Article 7 (2) of the African Charter and several provisions of the Constitution of Ghana.
He argued that he was being tried for an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time that it was done.
On April 27, 2006, Mr Tsikata’s 10-page complaint of 36 paragraphs in which he chronicled when he was first arraigned before the circuit court in October 2001, his challenge of the constitutionality of the Fast Track Court and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge purposely to review his case, up to the current stage of the case, was received by the commission.
He stated that the manifest determination of the government to ensure, without any reference to the facts and legal issues, that incarceration was the only possible outcome of the criminal proceedings against him unjustly endangered his liberty.
Consequently, he sought the intervention of the commission and urged it to invoke Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure on provisional measures and request the Republic of Ghana not to proceed further with his trial until his case had been heard by the commission.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ghartey, assisted by Marina Atuobi, Nana Serwah Acheampong, both State Attorneys, and Nicholas Fredua Kwarteng, an Assistant State Attorney, also made a submission in reply to the complaint.
He stated that the guidelines for the submission of such cases provided that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies had been exhausted and observed that Tsikata failed to provide any evidence of the domestic legal remedies pursued.
The Attorney-General further argued that Tsikata failed to meet the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, since he could not show that the procedure in the High Court had been protracted or unduly delayed.
“If, indeed, any delay has been occasioned, it would be due to the complainant’s own repeated request for adjournments and interlocutory appeals,” he said.
After Mr Tsikata’s petition was turned down, the Daily Graphic carried the story, which attracted a reaction from him that after sending the petition he did not hear from the commission again until he read its outcome in the Daily Graphic.
In his latest submission, Mr Tsikata said “The decision of the Commission that my complaint was inadmissible was made without the Commission having had the benefit of any further information or argument on admissibility from me for the simple reason that I did not receive the request from the Commission asking me to submit my arguments on admissibility.
“ The Government of Ghana, however, received their communication from the Commission and the Attorney-General responded and alleged, among other things, that I had not exhausted local remedies before submitting my communication to the Commission. My first indication of any intended communications from the Commission to me was when I read about this in a Ghanaian newspaper in January this year”, he said.
He said that after first reading from the Ghanaian newspaper that the Commission had given a decision declaring his communication inadmissible, he sent the Commission an e-mail on 26th January 2007 seeking official confirmation. “After almost a week, when I still had not had a response and when further claims were made in the newspaper about communications to me from the Commission, I sent a further e-mail to the Commission on 1st February 2007. Subsequently, on 13th February 2007, I received an e-mail with a letter dated 5th February 2007 from the Commission Secretariat notifying me officially of the decision of the Commission”, he noted.
He said he was seeking a re-consideration under Rule 118 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission of the decision of the Commission that his petition is inadmissible and added that the situation in his case was quite different from the situation the Commission encountered, for instance, in Motale Zacharia Sakwe/Cameroon 230/99 where the Commission noted “that on the surface of the complaint it appears that the complainant did not exhaust domestic remedies”.
Essentially, he said, the decision of the Commission seemed to have turned on the consideration that, while making references to “several recourses to domestic courts for redress”, I gave “no indication of the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies”.
He said after his letter of April 11, 2007 requesting a reconsideration, he received a letter from the Secretariat sent by e-mail, initially on April 24, 2007 and in a revised form on April 26, 2007, requiring him to “forward the new facts on the exhaustion of local remedies which would serve as the basis for re-opening the Communication by 10th May 2007.”
“After a decision of the Supreme Court upholding my challenge I was brought before a “normal High Court”, where my counsel objected to the charge brought against me on the basis that it infringed Article 19(5) of the Constitution which expresses the same principle as Article 7(2) of the African Charter, which read
“A person shall not be charged with or held to be guilty of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took place constitute an offence” , he said.
According to him, the objection was upheld and the judge indicated that the provision in the Constitution of Ghana was clear in its terms and he did not have to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation and enforcement.
“My counsel, at the close of the case for the prosecution, again raised, among other issues, the violation of my right not to be charged with, nor convicted of, a criminal offence based on an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was done” he said.
He said his counsel also raised the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which reflected the presumption of innocence in Article 7(1) of the African Charter but the trial judge, without giving any reasons, rejected the submission.
“Arriving at a decision of this nature without giving reasons was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Ghana as well as the African Charter. The failure of the trial judge to uphold the submission of no case at the end of the case of the prosecution was a violation of my rights under Article 7 of the African Charter.
“After the decision of the trial judge, I pursued local remedies and my counsel filed an appeal on my behalf to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, in affirming the decision of the trial judge, based itself on a repealed law as the answer to the submissions of my counsel on retroactive criminalisation”, he stated.
He acknowledged that while recourse to a repealed law which he had not even been charged under would be wrong, the majority decision of the Supreme Court claimed that the decision of the Court of Appeal was not based on the repealed law, which was obviously inconsistent with the record of the Court of Appeal judgement.
Therefore, the Supreme Court, he said, failed to enforce his rights under Articles 7 of the African Charter and again, in the exceptional circumstances where the majority decision even failed to consider the provisions of the Evidence Decree, aggrieved by the decision of the Court, he applied, through his counsel, for a review of the Supreme Court and the review panel, presided over by the Chief Justice (CJ), summarily dismissed the review application.
“By going all the way to Supreme Court of Ghana with the issues, inter alia, of retro-active criminalisation and right to fair trial which should have been enforced by the judge in the High Court upon the submission of no case, I exhausted local remedies in respect of those issues and there is no further domestic recourse available to me, hence my recourse to the Commission.
“Indeed, the Supreme Court compounded the denial of my right to a fair trial under the Charter when they decided that, at the stage of a submission of no case, the standard of proof on which the case for the prosecution should be judged by is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but a “lower standard”. This patently erroneous decision, made by the court without any reference to the statute governing the assessment of evidence in trials in Ghana, the Evidence Decree, itself was an explicit denial to me of “the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal” provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter.
The new decision was as a result of a submission for reconsideration, which the commission received from Mr Tsikata at its 41st Ordinary session held in Accra from May 16-30, 2007.
The submission for reconsideration was in respect of the petition he made in April last year but was dismissed at the commission’s 40th Ordinary session held from November 15-29, last year in Banjul.
A communication to Mr Tsikata dated June 25, 2007 and signed by Dr Feyi Ogunde said the commission’s latest decision was in line with Rule 118 (2) of its Rules of Procedure.
It aid the review would be done during the commission’s 42nd Ordinary session scheduled for November 15-27, 2007.
It said for that purpose the commission would need to receive and consider fresh or additional submissions on the admissibility of the petition from both Mr Tsikata and the Attorney General, who represented the state.
The commission acknowledged the receipt from Mr Tsikata of a submission for reconsideration of its decision in respect of Communication 322/2006, which was emailed on May 27, 2007, a ruling in normal High Court, a Fast Track High Court submission of no case and Fat Track High Court ruling.
The commission turned down Mr Tsikata’s complaint last year and described it as “inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies”.
It said although the complaint presented a prima facie case of a series of violations of the African Charter, a close look at the file and the submissions indicated that Mr Tsikata was yet to exhaust all the local remedies available to him.
In the light of the submissions, the commission noted that Mr Tsikata’s allegations were in respect of an ongoing/unconcluded trial and that information provided by him even stated that the case was still pending before the courts of Ghana.
“Should the ongoing trial end against the complainant’s favour, he has further rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ghana, in accordance with articles 137 and 131 of the Constitution of Ghana,” the commission noted.
The former GNPC boss had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
He complained to the commission that the charge on which he was being tried constituted a violation of the right against non-retroactive criminalisation under Article 7 (2) of the African Charter and several provisions of the Constitution of Ghana.
He argued that he was being tried for an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time that it was done.
On April 27, 2006, Mr Tsikata’s 10-page complaint of 36 paragraphs in which he chronicled when he was first arraigned before the circuit court in October 2001, his challenge of the constitutionality of the Fast Track Court and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge purposely to review his case, up to the current stage of the case, was received by the commission.
He stated that the manifest determination of the government to ensure, without any reference to the facts and legal issues, that incarceration was the only possible outcome of the criminal proceedings against him unjustly endangered his liberty.
Consequently, he sought the intervention of the commission and urged it to invoke Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure on provisional measures and request the Republic of Ghana not to proceed further with his trial until his case had been heard by the commission.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ghartey, assisted by Marina Atuobi, Nana Serwah Acheampong, both State Attorneys, and Nicholas Fredua Kwarteng, an Assistant State Attorney, also made a submission in reply to the complaint.
He stated that the guidelines for the submission of such cases provided that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies had been exhausted and observed that Tsikata failed to provide any evidence of the domestic legal remedies pursued.
The Attorney-General further argued that Tsikata failed to meet the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, since he could not show that the procedure in the High Court had been protracted or unduly delayed.
“If, indeed, any delay has been occasioned, it would be due to the complainant’s own repeated request for adjournments and interlocutory appeals,” he said.
After Mr Tsikata’s petition was turned down, the Daily Graphic carried the story, which attracted a reaction from him that after sending the petition he did not hear from the commission again until he read its outcome in the Daily Graphic.
In his latest submission, Mr Tsikata said “The decision of the Commission that my complaint was inadmissible was made without the Commission having had the benefit of any further information or argument on admissibility from me for the simple reason that I did not receive the request from the Commission asking me to submit my arguments on admissibility.
“ The Government of Ghana, however, received their communication from the Commission and the Attorney-General responded and alleged, among other things, that I had not exhausted local remedies before submitting my communication to the Commission. My first indication of any intended communications from the Commission to me was when I read about this in a Ghanaian newspaper in January this year”, he said.
He said that after first reading from the Ghanaian newspaper that the Commission had given a decision declaring his communication inadmissible, he sent the Commission an e-mail on 26th January 2007 seeking official confirmation. “After almost a week, when I still had not had a response and when further claims were made in the newspaper about communications to me from the Commission, I sent a further e-mail to the Commission on 1st February 2007. Subsequently, on 13th February 2007, I received an e-mail with a letter dated 5th February 2007 from the Commission Secretariat notifying me officially of the decision of the Commission”, he noted.
He said he was seeking a re-consideration under Rule 118 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission of the decision of the Commission that his petition is inadmissible and added that the situation in his case was quite different from the situation the Commission encountered, for instance, in Motale Zacharia Sakwe/Cameroon 230/99 where the Commission noted “that on the surface of the complaint it appears that the complainant did not exhaust domestic remedies”.
Essentially, he said, the decision of the Commission seemed to have turned on the consideration that, while making references to “several recourses to domestic courts for redress”, I gave “no indication of the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies”.
He said after his letter of April 11, 2007 requesting a reconsideration, he received a letter from the Secretariat sent by e-mail, initially on April 24, 2007 and in a revised form on April 26, 2007, requiring him to “forward the new facts on the exhaustion of local remedies which would serve as the basis for re-opening the Communication by 10th May 2007.”
“After a decision of the Supreme Court upholding my challenge I was brought before a “normal High Court”, where my counsel objected to the charge brought against me on the basis that it infringed Article 19(5) of the Constitution which expresses the same principle as Article 7(2) of the African Charter, which read
“A person shall not be charged with or held to be guilty of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took place constitute an offence” , he said.
According to him, the objection was upheld and the judge indicated that the provision in the Constitution of Ghana was clear in its terms and he did not have to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation and enforcement.
“My counsel, at the close of the case for the prosecution, again raised, among other issues, the violation of my right not to be charged with, nor convicted of, a criminal offence based on an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was done” he said.
He said his counsel also raised the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which reflected the presumption of innocence in Article 7(1) of the African Charter but the trial judge, without giving any reasons, rejected the submission.
“Arriving at a decision of this nature without giving reasons was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Ghana as well as the African Charter. The failure of the trial judge to uphold the submission of no case at the end of the case of the prosecution was a violation of my rights under Article 7 of the African Charter.
“After the decision of the trial judge, I pursued local remedies and my counsel filed an appeal on my behalf to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, in affirming the decision of the trial judge, based itself on a repealed law as the answer to the submissions of my counsel on retroactive criminalisation”, he stated.
He acknowledged that while recourse to a repealed law which he had not even been charged under would be wrong, the majority decision of the Supreme Court claimed that the decision of the Court of Appeal was not based on the repealed law, which was obviously inconsistent with the record of the Court of Appeal judgement.
Therefore, the Supreme Court, he said, failed to enforce his rights under Articles 7 of the African Charter and again, in the exceptional circumstances where the majority decision even failed to consider the provisions of the Evidence Decree, aggrieved by the decision of the Court, he applied, through his counsel, for a review of the Supreme Court and the review panel, presided over by the Chief Justice (CJ), summarily dismissed the review application.
“By going all the way to Supreme Court of Ghana with the issues, inter alia, of retro-active criminalisation and right to fair trial which should have been enforced by the judge in the High Court upon the submission of no case, I exhausted local remedies in respect of those issues and there is no further domestic recourse available to me, hence my recourse to the Commission.
“Indeed, the Supreme Court compounded the denial of my right to a fair trial under the Charter when they decided that, at the stage of a submission of no case, the standard of proof on which the case for the prosecution should be judged by is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but a “lower standard”. This patently erroneous decision, made by the court without any reference to the statute governing the assessment of evidence in trials in Ghana, the Evidence Decree, itself was an explicit denial to me of “the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal” provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter.
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR FORMER GNPC BOSS APPEAL
THE Supreme Court yesterday adjourned to October 30, 2007 the hearing of the civil appeal filed by the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tsatsu Tsikata, challenging the Court of Appeal decision that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) was immune from judicial processes to testify in court.
Tsikata is seeking the court’s order to compel the IFC to testify in the case in which he has been charged with causing financial loss to the state.
He lost his appeal at the Court of Appeal to compel the IFC to testify in the case but immediately after the Court of Appeal’s unanimous verdict, he filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court, thus putting on hold the judgement in the substantive case.
According to Tsikata, the statutory provisions in respect of the immunity of the IFC, among other reasons, were misrepresented by the Court of Appeal.
At the Supreme Court’s sitting yesterday, Mr Justice William Atuguba, who presided over a five-member panel, said the court received a letter from counsel of the appellant in the morning that they had received the hearing notice on short notice.
As a result, Mr Justice Atuguba asked the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, whether she had received a copy, since, on the face of it the letter was copied to her. She replied in the affirmative and stated that that should not stop the case from going ahead.
Major R.S. Agbenatoe, one of the lawyers for Tsikata, told the court that the essence of the letter was that they had been served on short notice for the hearing of the matter.
He said the hearing notice was served on them at 10.00 a.m. on July 20, 2007 and, therefore, they were entitled to some days in order to prepare.
Mr Justice Atuguba agreed that four days were not reasonable and he adjourned the matter to enable the parties to begin the filing processes.
Following the pendancy of the appeal, judgement in the substantive case has been on hold since December last year.
The high-profile case, which has been pending since 2002, has suffered various fates, following a resort to the law by the defence, and since the outcome of the Supreme Court decision could affect the judgement in the trial court, it has to be on hold.
The Fast Track Court, on January 24, 2006, ruled that the IFC, its employees and assets were immune from judicial processes and, therefore, it could not be called to testify in the matter which Tsikata believed was crucial to his defence.
The court held that if the IFC was not prepared to waive its immunity, the court could not compel it to do so.
That was after Tsikata had requested the Court of Appeal to set aside decisions of the trial court and order the IFC to appear, testify and produce documents in its custody in respect of the funding of studies conducted on the Valley Farms project.
The former chief executive of the GNPC had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
Tsikata is seeking the court’s order to compel the IFC to testify in the case in which he has been charged with causing financial loss to the state.
He lost his appeal at the Court of Appeal to compel the IFC to testify in the case but immediately after the Court of Appeal’s unanimous verdict, he filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court, thus putting on hold the judgement in the substantive case.
According to Tsikata, the statutory provisions in respect of the immunity of the IFC, among other reasons, were misrepresented by the Court of Appeal.
At the Supreme Court’s sitting yesterday, Mr Justice William Atuguba, who presided over a five-member panel, said the court received a letter from counsel of the appellant in the morning that they had received the hearing notice on short notice.
As a result, Mr Justice Atuguba asked the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, whether she had received a copy, since, on the face of it the letter was copied to her. She replied in the affirmative and stated that that should not stop the case from going ahead.
Major R.S. Agbenatoe, one of the lawyers for Tsikata, told the court that the essence of the letter was that they had been served on short notice for the hearing of the matter.
He said the hearing notice was served on them at 10.00 a.m. on July 20, 2007 and, therefore, they were entitled to some days in order to prepare.
Mr Justice Atuguba agreed that four days were not reasonable and he adjourned the matter to enable the parties to begin the filing processes.
Following the pendancy of the appeal, judgement in the substantive case has been on hold since December last year.
The high-profile case, which has been pending since 2002, has suffered various fates, following a resort to the law by the defence, and since the outcome of the Supreme Court decision could affect the judgement in the trial court, it has to be on hold.
The Fast Track Court, on January 24, 2006, ruled that the IFC, its employees and assets were immune from judicial processes and, therefore, it could not be called to testify in the matter which Tsikata believed was crucial to his defence.
The court held that if the IFC was not prepared to waive its immunity, the court could not compel it to do so.
That was after Tsikata had requested the Court of Appeal to set aside decisions of the trial court and order the IFC to appear, testify and produce documents in its custody in respect of the funding of studies conducted on the Valley Farms project.
The former chief executive of the GNPC had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
I AM POLICE INFORMANT, WITNESS TELLS COURT
A police informant, Michael Obeng Ntim, who testified as the second prosecution witness in the case in which Constable Ekow Russel of the Accra Regional Police and Maxwell Antwi, a car dealer, are being tried for narcotic offences, yesterday denied that he blew the whistle because he was not offered any reward by Russel.
Testifying under cross-examination by Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey (Rtd), counsel for Constable Russel, the witness said he had been a police informant and in the past he had been rewarded for giving information on narcotic suspects.
"I went to the Accra Regional Police Headquarters for my reward but I reported the matter not because I was not given any reward," he said.
Constable Russel is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs, while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Constable Russel is also said to have admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
The policeman is said to have led a team to effect the arrest of the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, during which eight slabs of the substance were seized but he delivered only one slab to the office to make a case against them.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to send the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
According to Ntim, three days after the operation on January 15, 2007, he went to the Accra Regional Police Headquarters when Russel was not telling him anything about the reward.
He said when he told Russel that he expected some form of reward after giving the information, Russell told him that he had handed the case to his superior officer, Inspector Oppong, and that the suspects were in custody.
Ntim said that while he wanted to be rewarded for the information he gave to Constable Russel, he became an informant in order to rid the country of cocaine dealers to give boost to the crusade against narcotic drugs.
"I know that the country is crusading against cocaine, therefore, when I received the report that some Nigerian were dealing in the substance, I felt it wise to report to the police.”
When Captain Effah-Dartey put it to the witness that he was not patriotic because he depended on giving information to the police for a living, he replied in the negative and stated that as to whether he would be given a reward was a secondary matter.
He said when in the first instance he gave information to the police about some narcotic suspects who eventually ran away, he received two shirts as a reward and maintained that it was not for the reward that he did that but his duty as a citizen to flush out cocaine dealers from the system.
"I did not receive cash rewards for the previous information," Ntim said when counsel put to him that he was not being truthful to the court because he was given cash reward.
Asked how he got to be acquainted to Constable Russel, the witness said he got to know him after they had met at Abeka Lapaz in Accra and stated that he had never given information to the accused person in the past.
He said that he called the accused person to inform him about the activities of the cocaine dealers because he knew Constable Russel to be diligent with his work when it came to arresting suspects.
The witness, however, said he could not vouch for the character of the accused person.
When counsel asked Ntim why he did not call the CID to give them the information, he said that he did not do that because personnel from the CID tended to delay in taking action on information, therefore, he called Constable Russel who was with the Rapid Response Unit of the police.
Ntim said apart from Constable Russel and a driver who were in mufti, all the policemen who accompanied them to Tema to arrest the cocaine dealers were in uniform and nobody was introduced to him by the accused person.
He said he was able to know that they were policemen because of their uniform.
Ntim further maintained that when they were returning to Accra from Tema, their car stopped along the way and Constable Russel gave one slab each of the cocaine to two persons he named as Capito and Alhaji and three slabs to some Nigerians while he (Russel) also took three away.
Counsel suggested to the witness that he was not being truthful because as a patriotic citizen he would not have looked on while the accused persons distributed the cocaine and to that he responded that while the accused person was armed, he also spoke Hausa with the others.
In a follow-up question as to why he did not report when he realised that Constable Russel distributed the cocaine, Ntim said he did not know the reason for which the cocaine was shared and even if he had done so, the accused person would have gone with all the cocaine and there was nothing with which he could substantiate his report.
Testifying under cross-examination by Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey (Rtd), counsel for Constable Russel, the witness said he had been a police informant and in the past he had been rewarded for giving information on narcotic suspects.
"I went to the Accra Regional Police Headquarters for my reward but I reported the matter not because I was not given any reward," he said.
Constable Russel is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs, while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Constable Russel is also said to have admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
The policeman is said to have led a team to effect the arrest of the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, during which eight slabs of the substance were seized but he delivered only one slab to the office to make a case against them.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to send the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
According to Ntim, three days after the operation on January 15, 2007, he went to the Accra Regional Police Headquarters when Russel was not telling him anything about the reward.
He said when he told Russel that he expected some form of reward after giving the information, Russell told him that he had handed the case to his superior officer, Inspector Oppong, and that the suspects were in custody.
Ntim said that while he wanted to be rewarded for the information he gave to Constable Russel, he became an informant in order to rid the country of cocaine dealers to give boost to the crusade against narcotic drugs.
"I know that the country is crusading against cocaine, therefore, when I received the report that some Nigerian were dealing in the substance, I felt it wise to report to the police.”
When Captain Effah-Dartey put it to the witness that he was not patriotic because he depended on giving information to the police for a living, he replied in the negative and stated that as to whether he would be given a reward was a secondary matter.
He said when in the first instance he gave information to the police about some narcotic suspects who eventually ran away, he received two shirts as a reward and maintained that it was not for the reward that he did that but his duty as a citizen to flush out cocaine dealers from the system.
"I did not receive cash rewards for the previous information," Ntim said when counsel put to him that he was not being truthful to the court because he was given cash reward.
Asked how he got to be acquainted to Constable Russel, the witness said he got to know him after they had met at Abeka Lapaz in Accra and stated that he had never given information to the accused person in the past.
He said that he called the accused person to inform him about the activities of the cocaine dealers because he knew Constable Russel to be diligent with his work when it came to arresting suspects.
The witness, however, said he could not vouch for the character of the accused person.
When counsel asked Ntim why he did not call the CID to give them the information, he said that he did not do that because personnel from the CID tended to delay in taking action on information, therefore, he called Constable Russel who was with the Rapid Response Unit of the police.
Ntim said apart from Constable Russel and a driver who were in mufti, all the policemen who accompanied them to Tema to arrest the cocaine dealers were in uniform and nobody was introduced to him by the accused person.
He said he was able to know that they were policemen because of their uniform.
Ntim further maintained that when they were returning to Accra from Tema, their car stopped along the way and Constable Russel gave one slab each of the cocaine to two persons he named as Capito and Alhaji and three slabs to some Nigerians while he (Russel) also took three away.
Counsel suggested to the witness that he was not being truthful because as a patriotic citizen he would not have looked on while the accused persons distributed the cocaine and to that he responded that while the accused person was armed, he also spoke Hausa with the others.
In a follow-up question as to why he did not report when he realised that Constable Russel distributed the cocaine, Ntim said he did not know the reason for which the cocaine was shared and even if he had done so, the accused person would have gone with all the cocaine and there was nothing with which he could substantiate his report.
VENEZUELANS CLOSE CASE
Joel Meija Duarte Moises, one of the two Venezuelans standing trial for allegedly importing 588 kilogrammes of cocaine, yesterday denied that his passport had been seized by another Venezuelan, Vasquez Gerado Duarte David, to ensure that he did not run away with the cocaine.
“Noble Dosu took my passport and if it is not with him then it is with Superintendent Edward Tabiri,” he told the Fast Track High Court through a Spanish interpreter.
The accused person, who is a machine operator, was concluding his evidence under cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in the case in which he is standing trial with Italio Gervasio Rosero, alias Italio Cabeza Castillo, a businessman.
They have been charged with conspiracy to commit crime, importing 588 kilogrammes of narcotic drugs without lawful authority and possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority but they have pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
They have been refused bail.
A third accused person, Vasquez Gerado Duarte David, alias Bude or Shamo, also a Venezuelan, is on the run.
Moises denied that he had come to Ghana to flout the laws regarding the purchase of diamonds, since it was not true that a karat of diamond was sold between $600 and $700.
According to him, that was what he had been told, depending on the quality, and that he arrived in the country to do the diamond business with Dosu.
Asked whether he was aware of the conflict of blood diamonds, the accused person replied in the negative and maintained that he came to Ghana to transact business in diamonds.
Ms Aikins put it to the accused person that because of the conflict of blood diamonds, diamonds in Ghana were only sold at the Precious Mineral Marketing Commission (PMMC) after one had registered and had been issued with a licence but Moises said he was unaware of that procedure.
When the acting DPP told Moises that he never knew Dosu nor had anything to do with him until he met him at the airport, the accused person replied, “I did not know him.”
However, when Ms Aikins suggested to him that Dosu was sent to the airport by Vasquez in order to facilitate his arrival, Moises stated that Dosu was the person he was to deal in the diamonds with.
Moises said on arrival at the airport, Dosu took him through the process of getting a visa and after paying the required fees, he was granted a 15-day visa.
According to him, it was Dosu who invited him to Ghana.
In his evidence-in-chief, Castillo said he was a trader and came to Ghana on November 20, 2005 as a tourist and lodged at a hotel at Achimota which he could not name and said anytime he arrived at Achimota he was able to make his way to the hotel.
He said four days after he arrived in the country, he was walking with some people, including a lady, on a street at East Legon in Accra at about 3.00 p.m. when he saw some policemen and police cars parked near a house.
Castillo said while he was walking, one person he later got to know as a policeman called Commey stopped him and engaged him in a conversation, after which Commey said he had arrested him.
He said after his arrest, he was taken into the house and sent to the second floor but nothing was seized from him, apart from his mobile phone.
According to him, he had his passport and suitcase in the hotel where he lodged but when a friend took the suitcase away, he lost everything, except the passport, which he was prepared to tender in court on the next hearing.
He said prior to his arrest, he had never been to the East Legon house, neither had anyone promised to give him accommodation in that house.
“Noble Dosu took my passport and if it is not with him then it is with Superintendent Edward Tabiri,” he told the Fast Track High Court through a Spanish interpreter.
The accused person, who is a machine operator, was concluding his evidence under cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in the case in which he is standing trial with Italio Gervasio Rosero, alias Italio Cabeza Castillo, a businessman.
They have been charged with conspiracy to commit crime, importing 588 kilogrammes of narcotic drugs without lawful authority and possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority but they have pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
They have been refused bail.
A third accused person, Vasquez Gerado Duarte David, alias Bude or Shamo, also a Venezuelan, is on the run.
Moises denied that he had come to Ghana to flout the laws regarding the purchase of diamonds, since it was not true that a karat of diamond was sold between $600 and $700.
According to him, that was what he had been told, depending on the quality, and that he arrived in the country to do the diamond business with Dosu.
Asked whether he was aware of the conflict of blood diamonds, the accused person replied in the negative and maintained that he came to Ghana to transact business in diamonds.
Ms Aikins put it to the accused person that because of the conflict of blood diamonds, diamonds in Ghana were only sold at the Precious Mineral Marketing Commission (PMMC) after one had registered and had been issued with a licence but Moises said he was unaware of that procedure.
When the acting DPP told Moises that he never knew Dosu nor had anything to do with him until he met him at the airport, the accused person replied, “I did not know him.”
However, when Ms Aikins suggested to him that Dosu was sent to the airport by Vasquez in order to facilitate his arrival, Moises stated that Dosu was the person he was to deal in the diamonds with.
Moises said on arrival at the airport, Dosu took him through the process of getting a visa and after paying the required fees, he was granted a 15-day visa.
According to him, it was Dosu who invited him to Ghana.
In his evidence-in-chief, Castillo said he was a trader and came to Ghana on November 20, 2005 as a tourist and lodged at a hotel at Achimota which he could not name and said anytime he arrived at Achimota he was able to make his way to the hotel.
He said four days after he arrived in the country, he was walking with some people, including a lady, on a street at East Legon in Accra at about 3.00 p.m. when he saw some policemen and police cars parked near a house.
Castillo said while he was walking, one person he later got to know as a policeman called Commey stopped him and engaged him in a conversation, after which Commey said he had arrested him.
He said after his arrest, he was taken into the house and sent to the second floor but nothing was seized from him, apart from his mobile phone.
According to him, he had his passport and suitcase in the hotel where he lodged but when a friend took the suitcase away, he lost everything, except the passport, which he was prepared to tender in court on the next hearing.
He said prior to his arrest, he had never been to the East Legon house, neither had anyone promised to give him accommodation in that house.
TWO BRITISH TEENAGERS IN COURT OVER COCAINE
THE two British teenage girls who attempted to smuggle six kilogrammes of cocaine from Ghana to the United Kingdom made a brief appearance at an Accra juvenile court yesterday, amidst tight security.
Yasemin Vatansever and Yatunde Diya, both 16, had, earlier in the morning, been discharged by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal and taken to the court which sat at the Fast Track High Court and constituted by a three-member panel.
Heavily sandwiched by security personnel, the two teenagers were sent to the court in a mini bus and sent straight to the courtroom where only the prosecution, the defence teams and officials from the British High Commission in Accra were allowed entry.
The trial attracted a heavy presence of anxious local and foreign journalists, as well as photographers, who had a hectic time trying to catch a glimpse of the girls. As the journalists were at it, the girls shied away by pulling their cardigans to protect their faces.
Information gathered from reliable sources indicated that the pleas of the girls were not taken and they were remanded to reappear on July 26, 2007.
That is to enable the prosecution to conduct further investigations into the matter.
The prosecution, it was learnt, was led by Mrs Evelyn Keelson, a State Attorney, while the defence team included Mr Wisdom Antonio.
Vatansever and Diya were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 2, 2007, and apart from their brief appearance in court at the Regional Tribunal, nothing was heard of them until the news was broken in the British media on July 12, 2007.
Reporting on yesterday’s appearance in court, The Daily Mail of London quoted Sabine Zanker of Fair Trials Abroad, a UK-based non-governmental organisation (NGO), as saying that she was pleased the case was being processed so quickly.
"The lawyer in Ghana has reached an agreement to have the trial expedited, which is in the girls' interest," said Ms Zanker.
"Their welfare is, of course, our priority. It will be a struggle to prepare the defence in that time but it is in their best interest."
She said if they were found guilty, the teenagers could face up to 10 years in jail.
Ms Zanker said the girls, who had been in custody since their arrest, were coping well, considering their circumstances.
"They are getting great support from the British High Commission and they are visited once or twice a day. Representatives from the consulate were in court today. Of course, it is a big shock for them," she said.
Earlier this month, Miss Vatansever had told Channel 4 News from prison: "There were basically two boys over here who gave us two bags. We never thought anything bad was inside ... and they told us to go to the UK and drop it off to some boy ... at the airport. It was basically like a set-up. They didn't tell us nothing; we didn't think nothing because basically we are innocent. We don't know nothing about these drugs and stuff; we don't know nothing."
Yasemin Vatansever and Yatunde Diya, both 16, had, earlier in the morning, been discharged by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal and taken to the court which sat at the Fast Track High Court and constituted by a three-member panel.
Heavily sandwiched by security personnel, the two teenagers were sent to the court in a mini bus and sent straight to the courtroom where only the prosecution, the defence teams and officials from the British High Commission in Accra were allowed entry.
The trial attracted a heavy presence of anxious local and foreign journalists, as well as photographers, who had a hectic time trying to catch a glimpse of the girls. As the journalists were at it, the girls shied away by pulling their cardigans to protect their faces.
Information gathered from reliable sources indicated that the pleas of the girls were not taken and they were remanded to reappear on July 26, 2007.
That is to enable the prosecution to conduct further investigations into the matter.
The prosecution, it was learnt, was led by Mrs Evelyn Keelson, a State Attorney, while the defence team included Mr Wisdom Antonio.
Vatansever and Diya were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 2, 2007, and apart from their brief appearance in court at the Regional Tribunal, nothing was heard of them until the news was broken in the British media on July 12, 2007.
Reporting on yesterday’s appearance in court, The Daily Mail of London quoted Sabine Zanker of Fair Trials Abroad, a UK-based non-governmental organisation (NGO), as saying that she was pleased the case was being processed so quickly.
"The lawyer in Ghana has reached an agreement to have the trial expedited, which is in the girls' interest," said Ms Zanker.
"Their welfare is, of course, our priority. It will be a struggle to prepare the defence in that time but it is in their best interest."
She said if they were found guilty, the teenagers could face up to 10 years in jail.
Ms Zanker said the girls, who had been in custody since their arrest, were coping well, considering their circumstances.
"They are getting great support from the British High Commission and they are visited once or twice a day. Representatives from the consulate were in court today. Of course, it is a big shock for them," she said.
Earlier this month, Miss Vatansever had told Channel 4 News from prison: "There were basically two boys over here who gave us two bags. We never thought anything bad was inside ... and they told us to go to the UK and drop it off to some boy ... at the airport. It was basically like a set-up. They didn't tell us nothing; we didn't think nothing because basically we are innocent. We don't know nothing about these drugs and stuff; we don't know nothing."
TAGOR OPENS DEFENCE IN COKE CASE
A key suspect in one of the most sensational cocaine trials in the country, Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, yesterday disclosed that his alleged accomplice, Alhaji Issa Abass, had told him that the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) had suspected ACP Kofi Boakye of dealing in narcotics and had, therefore, put surveillance on him.
He said as a result, a NACOB official he only named as Ben tasked them to record the conversation that took place in ACP Boakye’s house.
Tagor made the disclosure at the Fast Track High Court during his evidence-in-chief in the case in which he and Alhaji Abass are standing trial for offences related to narcotics.
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 Abass 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.
Initially, Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin at the residence of ACP Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons. But fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Led in evidence by Nana Barima Asante Bediatuo, one of his lawyers, Tagor said Alhaji Abass even showed him a tape recorder which he was going to use to record a conversation which was to be held in ACP Boakye’s’ house.
“Alhaji Abass showed me the tape recorder and asked me never to be scared because the NACOB people were behind it and that we should make ACP Boakye talk,” he said, and added that Abass said in order to bait ACP Boakye to talk, he (Tagor) should follow his (Abass’s) line of speech in order to support him.
That, he explained, was why they spoke the way they did so that they could get ACP Boakye to talk.
Giving the background to how the meeting took place, Tagor, who said he got that name in school because he bore semblance to another student, said he was a businessman and dealt in plant hire, among other things.
He said the name of his business entity was Cross Trade Investment and he tendered the certificates of Incorporation and to Commence Business, as well as its regulations.
He said he was known as Kwabena Amaning Kwarten but when he was arrested the Kwarten was omitted.
According to him, in May 2006, Kwabena Acheampong informed him that the police were after him and, therefore, he should report to ACP Boakye.
However, he said Acheampong advised him not to turn up because if he went they would arrest him. Instead, Acheampong came to pick him the next morning to ACP Boakye’s office at the Police Headquarters.
Tagor said when they got to ACP Boakye’s office, Alhaji Abass was already coming out from the office.
He said ACP Boakye’s bodyguards refused Acheampong entry into his office so he (Tagor) alone went inside to see the police officer who, on seeing him, violently instructed him to sit down.
“Since you have been in the country, you have not come to pay homage because all the young guys who return from abroad come to do that,” Tagor quoted ACP Boakye as having told him.
He said ACP Boakye then held his shoulder but he tried to brush him aside. Suddenly, a lady entered the room, forcing a smile from ACP Boakye, as if nothing had happened.
As soon as the lady left, he said, ACP Boakye refocused attention on him and demanded to know why he (Tagor) was spreading rumours in town that he (ACP Boakye) had visited the MV Benjamin to steal cocaine.
“You will see, you will see,” he said ACP Boakye threatened him, and indicated that as a law enforcement officer, he would ‘show’ him.
According to Tagor, while that was happening, a gentleman of Nigerian origin came into the office and ACP Boakye recoiled and managed a smile.
After the gentleman had left, he said ACP Boakye then told him that he (Tagor) and Alhaji Abass dealt in cocaine with some Colombians, as a result of which he (Tagor) had bought a car for his driver, which he denied.
He said ACP Boakye later drove him out of his office, amidst threats that he would see what would happen to him. When he came out, Acheampong asked why he looked so serious, which he offered an explanation.
Tagor said after he had narrated the story to Acheampong, he (Acheampong) informed him that Alhaji Abass had called to ask him to call back and when he obliged, they arranged to meet later on the Spintex Road in Accra where Tagor briefed Alhaji Abass about his meeting with ACP Boakye.
He said Alhaji Abass told him that he should not worry because ACP Boakye had a questionable character.
Tagor said he received a call from Ahator, one of ACP Boakye’s bodyguards, that his boss wanted to meet him at the Legon On the Run, explaining that because he was scared, he informed Alhaji Abass, who said he should not be scared.
When he turned up at the place, he said ACP Boakye never showed up. Rather, it was Ahator who came to ask him “to be one with the commander because the commander can protect you”.
He said since he did not understand what the policeman said, he again called Alhaji Abass and told him before he left for Kumasi.
Tagor said while in Kumasi, he received a phone call from Alhaji Moro, whom he had heard about when he was young, and while sitting in Alhaji Moro’s car, the Alhaji called ACP Boakye and then put the phone on loud speaker so that he could hear their conversation.
“When I get Tagor, what should I do?” Tagor said the Alhaji asked ACP Boakye, who responded that he should bring him to Accra.
Tagor said Alhaji Moro, after his conversation with ACP Boakye, asked what was wrong. When they arrived in Accra, Tagor called Alhaji Abass and on meeting him, Abass told Tagor what the NACOB officials had told him (Alhaji Abass).
When Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, Tagor’s lead counsel, took over, Tagor said the meeting was arranged by ACP Boakye and that he (Tagor) had been aware that Alhaji Abass was recording it.
He denied conspiring with Alhaji Abass to look for the missing cocaine in order to enjoy the benefits because ACP Boakye asked them to put their ears on the ground and get in touch with him should they find the cocaine.
During cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Tagor said he started his secondary education at Pope John’s in Koforidua, before he left for St Augustine’s in Cape Coast and then Labone Secondary for his A’ Levels, which he could not complete before he left the country for the USA.
He agreed with Ms Aikins that he was called Ernest Kwabena Osei when he was in school but he later changed his name to Kwabena Amaning Kwarten and explained that he lost his father at a very tender age and used a name given to him by his mother and his stepfather.
Tagor said it was his aunt at Kaneshie who told him the real story about his father, disagreeing with the assertion that even at that tender age in school he was used to changing his name.
He denied that his evidence in court was a fabrication because he had been in custody with Alhaji Abass and they might have discussed what to tell the court.
He further denied owning other property apart from his one house at East Legon and said he did not disclose what he had told the court at the Georgina Wood Committee because he knew NACOB would come to their rescue.
He said as a result, a NACOB official he only named as Ben tasked them to record the conversation that took place in ACP Boakye’s house.
Tagor made the disclosure at the Fast Track High Court during his evidence-in-chief in the case in which he and Alhaji Abass are standing trial for offences related to narcotics.
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 Abass 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.
Initially, Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin at the residence of ACP Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons. But fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Led in evidence by Nana Barima Asante Bediatuo, one of his lawyers, Tagor said Alhaji Abass even showed him a tape recorder which he was going to use to record a conversation which was to be held in ACP Boakye’s’ house.
“Alhaji Abass showed me the tape recorder and asked me never to be scared because the NACOB people were behind it and that we should make ACP Boakye talk,” he said, and added that Abass said in order to bait ACP Boakye to talk, he (Tagor) should follow his (Abass’s) line of speech in order to support him.
That, he explained, was why they spoke the way they did so that they could get ACP Boakye to talk.
Giving the background to how the meeting took place, Tagor, who said he got that name in school because he bore semblance to another student, said he was a businessman and dealt in plant hire, among other things.
He said the name of his business entity was Cross Trade Investment and he tendered the certificates of Incorporation and to Commence Business, as well as its regulations.
He said he was known as Kwabena Amaning Kwarten but when he was arrested the Kwarten was omitted.
According to him, in May 2006, Kwabena Acheampong informed him that the police were after him and, therefore, he should report to ACP Boakye.
However, he said Acheampong advised him not to turn up because if he went they would arrest him. Instead, Acheampong came to pick him the next morning to ACP Boakye’s office at the Police Headquarters.
Tagor said when they got to ACP Boakye’s office, Alhaji Abass was already coming out from the office.
He said ACP Boakye’s bodyguards refused Acheampong entry into his office so he (Tagor) alone went inside to see the police officer who, on seeing him, violently instructed him to sit down.
“Since you have been in the country, you have not come to pay homage because all the young guys who return from abroad come to do that,” Tagor quoted ACP Boakye as having told him.
He said ACP Boakye then held his shoulder but he tried to brush him aside. Suddenly, a lady entered the room, forcing a smile from ACP Boakye, as if nothing had happened.
As soon as the lady left, he said, ACP Boakye refocused attention on him and demanded to know why he (Tagor) was spreading rumours in town that he (ACP Boakye) had visited the MV Benjamin to steal cocaine.
“You will see, you will see,” he said ACP Boakye threatened him, and indicated that as a law enforcement officer, he would ‘show’ him.
According to Tagor, while that was happening, a gentleman of Nigerian origin came into the office and ACP Boakye recoiled and managed a smile.
After the gentleman had left, he said ACP Boakye then told him that he (Tagor) and Alhaji Abass dealt in cocaine with some Colombians, as a result of which he (Tagor) had bought a car for his driver, which he denied.
He said ACP Boakye later drove him out of his office, amidst threats that he would see what would happen to him. When he came out, Acheampong asked why he looked so serious, which he offered an explanation.
Tagor said after he had narrated the story to Acheampong, he (Acheampong) informed him that Alhaji Abass had called to ask him to call back and when he obliged, they arranged to meet later on the Spintex Road in Accra where Tagor briefed Alhaji Abass about his meeting with ACP Boakye.
He said Alhaji Abass told him that he should not worry because ACP Boakye had a questionable character.
Tagor said he received a call from Ahator, one of ACP Boakye’s bodyguards, that his boss wanted to meet him at the Legon On the Run, explaining that because he was scared, he informed Alhaji Abass, who said he should not be scared.
When he turned up at the place, he said ACP Boakye never showed up. Rather, it was Ahator who came to ask him “to be one with the commander because the commander can protect you”.
He said since he did not understand what the policeman said, he again called Alhaji Abass and told him before he left for Kumasi.
Tagor said while in Kumasi, he received a phone call from Alhaji Moro, whom he had heard about when he was young, and while sitting in Alhaji Moro’s car, the Alhaji called ACP Boakye and then put the phone on loud speaker so that he could hear their conversation.
“When I get Tagor, what should I do?” Tagor said the Alhaji asked ACP Boakye, who responded that he should bring him to Accra.
Tagor said Alhaji Moro, after his conversation with ACP Boakye, asked what was wrong. When they arrived in Accra, Tagor called Alhaji Abass and on meeting him, Abass told Tagor what the NACOB officials had told him (Alhaji Abass).
When Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, Tagor’s lead counsel, took over, Tagor said the meeting was arranged by ACP Boakye and that he (Tagor) had been aware that Alhaji Abass was recording it.
He denied conspiring with Alhaji Abass to look for the missing cocaine in order to enjoy the benefits because ACP Boakye asked them to put their ears on the ground and get in touch with him should they find the cocaine.
During cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Tagor said he started his secondary education at Pope John’s in Koforidua, before he left for St Augustine’s in Cape Coast and then Labone Secondary for his A’ Levels, which he could not complete before he left the country for the USA.
He agreed with Ms Aikins that he was called Ernest Kwabena Osei when he was in school but he later changed his name to Kwabena Amaning Kwarten and explained that he lost his father at a very tender age and used a name given to him by his mother and his stepfather.
Tagor said it was his aunt at Kaneshie who told him the real story about his father, disagreeing with the assertion that even at that tender age in school he was used to changing his name.
He denied that his evidence in court was a fabrication because he had been in custody with Alhaji Abass and they might have discussed what to tell the court.
He further denied owning other property apart from his one house at East Legon and said he did not disclose what he had told the court at the Georgina Wood Committee because he knew NACOB would come to their rescue.
ACCRA HIGH COURT FOILS FBI EXTRADITION ATTEMPT
AN attempt by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Ghana Police to arrest a Ghanaian accountant and extradite him to the United States to testify in a tax offence case against his former employer has been foiled by an Accra High Court.
The Ghanaian, Mr Kodjo Djimini, flew back home after receiving death threats from his former employers because the FBI had refused to give him protection as a prosecution witness. He was however arrested by the police and detained at the police headquarters in a purported execution of an arrest warrant allegedly obtained from the US.
But the police say that they received a “red alert” warrant from a court in the USA for the extradition of the accountant, and that due process had to be followed since Ghana and the USA have a common extradition agreement.
Deputy Director of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, DCOP Patrick Timbillah, described as false claims by Djimini that he was arrested without a warrant.
DCOP Timbillah said Djimini had to be located and sent to court to be granted bail to enable the extradition process to be completed.
Following a swift motion ex -parte for an order of Habeas Corpus filed by Alhaji Musah Ahmed on behalf of Mr Djimini against the Attorney General, Inspector General of Police (IGP) and Director of Criminal Investigations Department (CID) for his arrest and detention without bail or trial on June 21, 2007, the court on June 22, 2007 ordered his release.
The court ordered the defendants to produce Mr Djimini on June 25 to show why he was being detained and when the Attorney General obliged the court was not convinced as to why the applicant was being detained.
In his affidavit in support of the motion, Mr Djimini said he was a Ghanaian by birth and nationality and that prior to his arrival in Ghana recently, he was resident in the USA and engaged in the lawful pursuit of his profession as an accountant.
He said back in the USA, he worked for several companies, one of which was later found to have engaged in tax related offences.
“Subsequently, I was invited as a former accountant of the said company to testify on behalf of the prosecution against the said company for tax related charges”, he said.
According to him, he agreed and asked for witness protection from the FBI.However, when it became obvious that they were unable to give him protection after several threatening calls were received by him that he risked his life if he went to testify.
Mr Djimini said that all efforts to get the FBI to protect him yielded no results and as a result he was left with no other option than to leave the USA for his native country.
He said that he was arrested by the deputy Director of CID under the instructions of the IGP and detained at the police headquarters in purported execution of an arrest warrant obtained from the USA.
“I have not been served with any process or order from any court. That I am not aware of any lawful reason for my detention at the Police Headquarters and that the true object of my extradition is to punish me for no reason at all”, he said.
According to him, his arrest and detention were unlawful as no prima facie case had been made against him while there was no evidence whatsoever to link him to any offence allegedly committed in the USA.
He said since the extradition being sought against him was not in good faith, not in the interest of justice with regard to the death threats against him in the USA, the court could order his release from police cells.
At the last hearing of the case, there was no representation from the Attorney General’s Department and therefore, the case was adjourned until July 26, 2007.
The Ghanaian, Mr Kodjo Djimini, flew back home after receiving death threats from his former employers because the FBI had refused to give him protection as a prosecution witness. He was however arrested by the police and detained at the police headquarters in a purported execution of an arrest warrant allegedly obtained from the US.
But the police say that they received a “red alert” warrant from a court in the USA for the extradition of the accountant, and that due process had to be followed since Ghana and the USA have a common extradition agreement.
Deputy Director of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, DCOP Patrick Timbillah, described as false claims by Djimini that he was arrested without a warrant.
DCOP Timbillah said Djimini had to be located and sent to court to be granted bail to enable the extradition process to be completed.
Following a swift motion ex -parte for an order of Habeas Corpus filed by Alhaji Musah Ahmed on behalf of Mr Djimini against the Attorney General, Inspector General of Police (IGP) and Director of Criminal Investigations Department (CID) for his arrest and detention without bail or trial on June 21, 2007, the court on June 22, 2007 ordered his release.
The court ordered the defendants to produce Mr Djimini on June 25 to show why he was being detained and when the Attorney General obliged the court was not convinced as to why the applicant was being detained.
In his affidavit in support of the motion, Mr Djimini said he was a Ghanaian by birth and nationality and that prior to his arrival in Ghana recently, he was resident in the USA and engaged in the lawful pursuit of his profession as an accountant.
He said back in the USA, he worked for several companies, one of which was later found to have engaged in tax related offences.
“Subsequently, I was invited as a former accountant of the said company to testify on behalf of the prosecution against the said company for tax related charges”, he said.
According to him, he agreed and asked for witness protection from the FBI.However, when it became obvious that they were unable to give him protection after several threatening calls were received by him that he risked his life if he went to testify.
Mr Djimini said that all efforts to get the FBI to protect him yielded no results and as a result he was left with no other option than to leave the USA for his native country.
He said that he was arrested by the deputy Director of CID under the instructions of the IGP and detained at the police headquarters in purported execution of an arrest warrant obtained from the USA.
“I have not been served with any process or order from any court. That I am not aware of any lawful reason for my detention at the Police Headquarters and that the true object of my extradition is to punish me for no reason at all”, he said.
According to him, his arrest and detention were unlawful as no prima facie case had been made against him while there was no evidence whatsoever to link him to any offence allegedly committed in the USA.
He said since the extradition being sought against him was not in good faith, not in the interest of justice with regard to the death threats against him in the USA, the court could order his release from police cells.
At the last hearing of the case, there was no representation from the Attorney General’s Department and therefore, the case was adjourned until July 26, 2007.
KORLE BU STAFF SUE ADMINISTRATORS
MORE than 439 workers and staff of the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital have sued the principal administrators of the hospital, including Prof Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng for defrauding them.
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants gave them the impression that they had control, management and ownership of land situated at Oyibi in the Greater Accra region, which they did not and made them paid ¢10 million each for a plot.
They are, therefore seeking an order from the court to compel the defendants issue them with the registered documents covering the plots of land they bout and also put them in possession of the land.
In the alternative, they are seeking an order to compel the defendants to refund to them all moneys collected from them for the purchase of the land, general damages, as well as interest and costs.
But the court had directed the parties to seek an amicable settlement out of court after the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgement in default of defence.
The defendants did not file any defence to the suit but opposed the motion for judgement in default on the grounds that they had entered into negotiations with some leaders of the plaintiffs to discuss, settle and resolve the matter.
Moreover, the defendants said that since the negotiations had not broken down and were on-going, they were surprise about the sudden turn of events that the plaintiffs resorted to the court to pursue the same matter.
The writ was filed by Dr R.B.K. Abraham, Dr J.C.B. Dakubo, Mr Theophilus Mensah, Ms Brace Lily Opokua and Ms Alice Adjormadoh, all of Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital for themselves and their other colleagues.
The defendants, on the other hand, are Prof Frimpong-Boateng, Dr B.D.R.T. Annan, Director of Medical Affairs, Mr Christopher Nartey, Director of Administration, Mr Emmanuel E.B. Annan Kakabaah, Director of Finance, Mr Alex Arhin, Secretary to Oybi Land Committee and the hospital, as an entity.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs stated that sometime in 2004, the defendants caused publications in their in-house magazine, “Korle Bu Bulletin” and on various notice boards an announcement that they (defendants) had secured a large tract of land at Oyibi on the Kantamanso Road for allocation to staff on hire purchase basis.
According to them, the notice requested that the plaintiffs paid ¢8 million per plot and that the first deduction, which was a deposit of ¢1 million was to be effected through the February 2004 Additional Duty Hours Allowance (ADHA) while the balance of ¢7 million was to be spread over a period of 11 consecutive months.
The plaintiffs said that in response to the offers, they expressed interest and were accordingly deducted at source to meet the payment of their respective plots but the price was increased in due course to ¢10 million, including additional ¢2 million charged each plaintiff to support administrative and documentation processes.
They said in an attempt to assure the plaintiffs of the propriety of the transaction, the defendants issued them with documents to some of the plaintiffs but they were later found to be fake and subsequently withdrawn.
Showing the particulars of fraud, the plaintiffs stated that by organising trips in batches to them to the site of the land, thus assuring them the legitimacy of the entire transaction and failing to deliver to them their part of the bargain, the defendants ought to be deemed to have defrauded the plaintiffs.
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants gave them the impression that they had control, management and ownership of land situated at Oyibi in the Greater Accra region, which they did not and made them paid ¢10 million each for a plot.
They are, therefore seeking an order from the court to compel the defendants issue them with the registered documents covering the plots of land they bout and also put them in possession of the land.
In the alternative, they are seeking an order to compel the defendants to refund to them all moneys collected from them for the purchase of the land, general damages, as well as interest and costs.
But the court had directed the parties to seek an amicable settlement out of court after the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgement in default of defence.
The defendants did not file any defence to the suit but opposed the motion for judgement in default on the grounds that they had entered into negotiations with some leaders of the plaintiffs to discuss, settle and resolve the matter.
Moreover, the defendants said that since the negotiations had not broken down and were on-going, they were surprise about the sudden turn of events that the plaintiffs resorted to the court to pursue the same matter.
The writ was filed by Dr R.B.K. Abraham, Dr J.C.B. Dakubo, Mr Theophilus Mensah, Ms Brace Lily Opokua and Ms Alice Adjormadoh, all of Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital for themselves and their other colleagues.
The defendants, on the other hand, are Prof Frimpong-Boateng, Dr B.D.R.T. Annan, Director of Medical Affairs, Mr Christopher Nartey, Director of Administration, Mr Emmanuel E.B. Annan Kakabaah, Director of Finance, Mr Alex Arhin, Secretary to Oybi Land Committee and the hospital, as an entity.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs stated that sometime in 2004, the defendants caused publications in their in-house magazine, “Korle Bu Bulletin” and on various notice boards an announcement that they (defendants) had secured a large tract of land at Oyibi on the Kantamanso Road for allocation to staff on hire purchase basis.
According to them, the notice requested that the plaintiffs paid ¢8 million per plot and that the first deduction, which was a deposit of ¢1 million was to be effected through the February 2004 Additional Duty Hours Allowance (ADHA) while the balance of ¢7 million was to be spread over a period of 11 consecutive months.
The plaintiffs said that in response to the offers, they expressed interest and were accordingly deducted at source to meet the payment of their respective plots but the price was increased in due course to ¢10 million, including additional ¢2 million charged each plaintiff to support administrative and documentation processes.
They said in an attempt to assure the plaintiffs of the propriety of the transaction, the defendants issued them with documents to some of the plaintiffs but they were later found to be fake and subsequently withdrawn.
Showing the particulars of fraud, the plaintiffs stated that by organising trips in batches to them to the site of the land, thus assuring them the legitimacy of the entire transaction and failing to deliver to them their part of the bargain, the defendants ought to be deemed to have defrauded the plaintiffs.
COP SACKED ME FROM HIS OFFICE, WITNESS
A police informant on Thursday told the Accra Fast Track High Court that fugitive Detective Inspector Justice Oppong of the Accra Regional Police Headquarters sacked him from his office when he followed up on a cocaine arrest and said he (Oppong) even doubted the quality of the cocaine.
The informant, Michael Obeng Ntim, was testifying as the second prosecution witness in the case in which Constable Ekow Russel of the Accra Regional Police and Maxwell Antwi, a car dealer, are being tried for narcotic offences.
Constable Russell is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs, while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Constable Russel is also said to have admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
The policeman is said to have led a team to effect the arrest of the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, during which eight slabs of the substance were seized but he delivered only one slab to the office to make a case against them.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to send the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
The witness gave an account of how he had been informed by some Nigerians at his chop bar in Accra to assist them to get a policeman to arrest some brothers of theirs who had imported cocaine to Tema.
Following that, Ntim said, he informed Constable Russel about the deal and that led to the arrest of the dealers.
Led in evidence by Mrs Evelyn Keelson, a State Attorney, the witness said three days after the operation on January 15, 2007, he went to the Accra Regional Police Headquarters when Russel was not telling him anything about the reward.
He said when he told Russell that he expected some form of reward after giving the information, Russell told him that he had handed the case to his superior officer, Inspector Oppong, and that the suspects were in custody.
“When I went to Nana Oppong (Inspector Oppong), he drove me away but I told him to listen to me, since he did not know me. After listening to me, he said he had not sent anybody to arrest cocaine dealers so I should go and bring Russell, who confirmed my story.
“Nana Oppong told me the cocaine that Russel brought to the office was only one slab but I told him that eight slabs were seized. He told me Sebastian had been sent to court and that there was no reward for me,” Ntim said through a Twi interpreter.
According to him, he later read in the newspapers that a Nigerian had been arrested with one slab of cocaine in Tema.
Ntim said one month after the publication, he received a telephone call to report at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters where he recounted the story to the authorities.
In a background to the incident, Ntim said he had been at his chop bar on January 15, 2007 when three Nigerians came to eat, during which they sat with him and told him about the deal involving their brothers.
He said since he knew Russel, he called him and arranged for a meeting at the Kaneshie Sports Complex, where Russell met with him and the Nigerians.
The witness said Russell told them that since the issue was above him, he was going to inform his superiors and later call back.
He said at about 4.00 p.m. that day, Russell called to say that he had discussed the issue with his superiors and that the Nigerians and he (Ntim) should meet them on the Accra-Tema Motorway, near the Tetteh Quarshie Interchange, to go to Tema to effect the arrest.
“While waiting there, Russel came with five other policemen in a Benz car and we left for Tema, but while we were there another vehicle driven by Capito came and Russell joined it.
“On reaching the Tema end of the Motorway, Russell asked the police car to park under a tree, while the third car and ours took the Aflao road to a filling station where Russell alighted, together with those in the car, to meet two persons.
“After about 30 minutes Russell came back and I asked whether they had been able to arrest the suspects but he replied that the area was dark and, therefore, we left and agreed to come the next day,” he said.
He said on the next day, they went back to the place and arrested the suspects and headed back to Accra. At the Tetteh Quarshie Interchange, they all alighted and Russell removed the handcuffs from one of those arrested and instead handcuffed Sebastian and Matthew.
Ntim said some of them joined the same vehicle heading for Accra but on reaching the Survey Department area one person alighted and that on the way Russell shifted to Hausa.
According to him, the vehicle parked and Russell opened the boot and brought out the eight slabs of cocaine and gave five to three persons, including Capito, and put the rest in a certain briefcase.
He said after that, Russel took a taxi and asked that they meet at the Kata Hotel. But Russel never turned up, compelling him to call him several times but he failed to respond.
He said when he did not hear from Russel for three days, he went to the Regional Police Headquarters and called him.
The informant, Michael Obeng Ntim, was testifying as the second prosecution witness in the case in which Constable Ekow Russel of the Accra Regional Police and Maxwell Antwi, a car dealer, are being tried for narcotic offences.
Constable Russell is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs, while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Constable Russel is also said to have admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
The policeman is said to have led a team to effect the arrest of the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, during which eight slabs of the substance were seized but he delivered only one slab to the office to make a case against them.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to send the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
The witness gave an account of how he had been informed by some Nigerians at his chop bar in Accra to assist them to get a policeman to arrest some brothers of theirs who had imported cocaine to Tema.
Following that, Ntim said, he informed Constable Russel about the deal and that led to the arrest of the dealers.
Led in evidence by Mrs Evelyn Keelson, a State Attorney, the witness said three days after the operation on January 15, 2007, he went to the Accra Regional Police Headquarters when Russel was not telling him anything about the reward.
He said when he told Russell that he expected some form of reward after giving the information, Russell told him that he had handed the case to his superior officer, Inspector Oppong, and that the suspects were in custody.
“When I went to Nana Oppong (Inspector Oppong), he drove me away but I told him to listen to me, since he did not know me. After listening to me, he said he had not sent anybody to arrest cocaine dealers so I should go and bring Russell, who confirmed my story.
“Nana Oppong told me the cocaine that Russel brought to the office was only one slab but I told him that eight slabs were seized. He told me Sebastian had been sent to court and that there was no reward for me,” Ntim said through a Twi interpreter.
According to him, he later read in the newspapers that a Nigerian had been arrested with one slab of cocaine in Tema.
Ntim said one month after the publication, he received a telephone call to report at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters where he recounted the story to the authorities.
In a background to the incident, Ntim said he had been at his chop bar on January 15, 2007 when three Nigerians came to eat, during which they sat with him and told him about the deal involving their brothers.
He said since he knew Russel, he called him and arranged for a meeting at the Kaneshie Sports Complex, where Russell met with him and the Nigerians.
The witness said Russell told them that since the issue was above him, he was going to inform his superiors and later call back.
He said at about 4.00 p.m. that day, Russell called to say that he had discussed the issue with his superiors and that the Nigerians and he (Ntim) should meet them on the Accra-Tema Motorway, near the Tetteh Quarshie Interchange, to go to Tema to effect the arrest.
“While waiting there, Russel came with five other policemen in a Benz car and we left for Tema, but while we were there another vehicle driven by Capito came and Russell joined it.
“On reaching the Tema end of the Motorway, Russell asked the police car to park under a tree, while the third car and ours took the Aflao road to a filling station where Russell alighted, together with those in the car, to meet two persons.
“After about 30 minutes Russell came back and I asked whether they had been able to arrest the suspects but he replied that the area was dark and, therefore, we left and agreed to come the next day,” he said.
He said on the next day, they went back to the place and arrested the suspects and headed back to Accra. At the Tetteh Quarshie Interchange, they all alighted and Russell removed the handcuffs from one of those arrested and instead handcuffed Sebastian and Matthew.
Ntim said some of them joined the same vehicle heading for Accra but on reaching the Survey Department area one person alighted and that on the way Russell shifted to Hausa.
According to him, the vehicle parked and Russell opened the boot and brought out the eight slabs of cocaine and gave five to three persons, including Capito, and put the rest in a certain briefcase.
He said after that, Russel took a taxi and asked that they meet at the Kata Hotel. But Russel never turned up, compelling him to call him several times but he failed to respond.
He said when he did not hear from Russel for three days, he went to the Regional Police Headquarters and called him.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
VENEZUELAN CONCLUDES EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF
Joel Meija Duarte Moises, one of the two Venezuelans standing trial for allegedly importing 588 kilogrammes of cocaine today denied that his passport was seized by another Venezuelan, Vasquez Gerado Duarte David, to ensure that he did not run away with the cocaine.
“ Noble Dosu took my passport and if it is not with him then it is with Superintendent Edward Tabiri”, he told the Fast Track High Court through a Spanish interpreter.
The accused person, who is a machine operator, was concluding his evidence under cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the case in which he is standing trial with Italio Gervasio Rosero, alias Italio Cabeza Castillo, a businessman.
They have been charged with conspiracy to commit crime, importing 588 kilogrammes of narcotic drugs without lawful authority and possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority but they have pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
They have been refused bail.
A third accused person, also a Venezuelan, Vasquez Gerado Duarte David, alias Bude or Shamo, is on the run.
Moises denied that he came to Ghana to flout the laws regarding the purchase of diamonds since it was not true that a karat of diamond was sold between $600 and $700.
According to him, that was what he was told depending on the quality and that he arrived in the country to do the diamond business with Dosu.
Asked whether he was aware of the conflict of blood diamond, the accused person replied in the negative and maintained that he came to Ghana to transact in diamonds.
Ms Aikins put it to the accused person that because of the conflict of blood diamond, diamond in Ghana were only sold at the Precious Mineral Marketing Commission (PMMC) after one had registered and had been issued with a license but Moises said he was unaware about the procedure.
When the Acting DPP told Moises that he never knew Dosu or had anything to do with him until he met him at the airport, the accused person replied that “I did not know him”.
However when Ms Aikins suggested to him that Dosu was sent to the airport by Vasquez in order to facilitate his arrival, Moises stated that Dosu was the person that he was to deal in the diamond.
Moises said that on arrival at the airport, Dosu took him through the process of getting a visa and after paying the required fees, he was granted a 15-day visa.
According to him, it was Dosu who invited him to Ghana.
In his evidence-in-chief Castillo said he was a trader and came to Ghana on November 20, 2005 as a tourist and lodged in a hotel at Achimota, which he could not name and said anytime he arrived at Achimota he was able to make his way to the hotel.
He said four days after he arrived in the country, he was walking with some people, including a lady at about 3 p.m. on a street at East Legon in Accra when he saw some policemen and police cars parked near a house.
Castillo said while he was walking, one person he later got to know as a policeman called Commey stopped him and engaged him in a conversation after which Commey said he had arrested him.
He said after his arrest he was taken inside the house and sent to the second floor but nothing was seized from him apart from his mobile phone.
According to him, he had his passport and suitcase in the hotel where he lodged but when a friend to the suitcase away he lost everything except the passport, which he was prepared to tender in court on the next hearing.
He prior to his arrest he had never been to the East Legon house and neither had anyone promised to give him accommodation in that house.
“ Noble Dosu took my passport and if it is not with him then it is with Superintendent Edward Tabiri”, he told the Fast Track High Court through a Spanish interpreter.
The accused person, who is a machine operator, was concluding his evidence under cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the case in which he is standing trial with Italio Gervasio Rosero, alias Italio Cabeza Castillo, a businessman.
They have been charged with conspiracy to commit crime, importing 588 kilogrammes of narcotic drugs without lawful authority and possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority but they have pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
They have been refused bail.
A third accused person, also a Venezuelan, Vasquez Gerado Duarte David, alias Bude or Shamo, is on the run.
Moises denied that he came to Ghana to flout the laws regarding the purchase of diamonds since it was not true that a karat of diamond was sold between $600 and $700.
According to him, that was what he was told depending on the quality and that he arrived in the country to do the diamond business with Dosu.
Asked whether he was aware of the conflict of blood diamond, the accused person replied in the negative and maintained that he came to Ghana to transact in diamonds.
Ms Aikins put it to the accused person that because of the conflict of blood diamond, diamond in Ghana were only sold at the Precious Mineral Marketing Commission (PMMC) after one had registered and had been issued with a license but Moises said he was unaware about the procedure.
When the Acting DPP told Moises that he never knew Dosu or had anything to do with him until he met him at the airport, the accused person replied that “I did not know him”.
However when Ms Aikins suggested to him that Dosu was sent to the airport by Vasquez in order to facilitate his arrival, Moises stated that Dosu was the person that he was to deal in the diamond.
Moises said that on arrival at the airport, Dosu took him through the process of getting a visa and after paying the required fees, he was granted a 15-day visa.
According to him, it was Dosu who invited him to Ghana.
In his evidence-in-chief Castillo said he was a trader and came to Ghana on November 20, 2005 as a tourist and lodged in a hotel at Achimota, which he could not name and said anytime he arrived at Achimota he was able to make his way to the hotel.
He said four days after he arrived in the country, he was walking with some people, including a lady at about 3 p.m. on a street at East Legon in Accra when he saw some policemen and police cars parked near a house.
Castillo said while he was walking, one person he later got to know as a policeman called Commey stopped him and engaged him in a conversation after which Commey said he had arrested him.
He said after his arrest he was taken inside the house and sent to the second floor but nothing was seized from him apart from his mobile phone.
According to him, he had his passport and suitcase in the hotel where he lodged but when a friend to the suitcase away he lost everything except the passport, which he was prepared to tender in court on the next hearing.
He prior to his arrest he had never been to the East Legon house and neither had anyone promised to give him accommodation in that house.
TWO BURKINABES JAILED 10 YEARS EACH
TWO Burkinabes domiciled in Italy were each sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment yesterday by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal for narcotic-related offences.
The convicts, Gubre Karim, 34, and Monni Moussa, 27, were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) in Accra on suspicion of carrying cocaine during pre-departure formalities to board a flight to Italy .
A search on them revealed that they had each concealed pellets of cocaine weighing 1296.1422 grammes.
They pleaded guilty to one count each of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and the tribunal, presided over by Mr Justice Frank Manu, convicted and sentenced them on their own pleas.
It also ordered that the convicts should be deported after serving their sentences.
According to the facts of the case, Karim, who claimed to be an artisan, was arrested at the KIA at about 1.45 p.m. on September 9, last year when he was going through pre-departure formalities to board a flight to Italy.
Aviation personnel on duty suspected Karim of carrying narcotics because of his strange movements and demeanour and when his travelling bag was searched, 109 pellets of cocaine were concealed in it.
Karim claimed ownership of the stuff and explained that it had been given to him by someone he named only as David to be delivered to Kwame in Italy for a fee of 5,000 Euros.
He, however, failed to lead security personnel to the said David.
In the case of Moussa, he was also arrested by the same aviation personnel at the KIA on suspicion of carrying narcotic drugs when he was going through pre-departure formalities to board a flight to Italy and during a search it was found that he had concealed 50 pellets, 40 pellets and another 20 pellets of the substance in his underpants, right pocket and left pocket, respectively.
He also mentioned the same name which had earlier been mentioned by Karim as his source of supply and said he was to be paid 4,000 Euros after delivering it to Kwame in Italy.
The convicts, Gubre Karim, 34, and Monni Moussa, 27, were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) in Accra on suspicion of carrying cocaine during pre-departure formalities to board a flight to Italy .
A search on them revealed that they had each concealed pellets of cocaine weighing 1296.1422 grammes.
They pleaded guilty to one count each of possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority and the tribunal, presided over by Mr Justice Frank Manu, convicted and sentenced them on their own pleas.
It also ordered that the convicts should be deported after serving their sentences.
According to the facts of the case, Karim, who claimed to be an artisan, was arrested at the KIA at about 1.45 p.m. on September 9, last year when he was going through pre-departure formalities to board a flight to Italy.
Aviation personnel on duty suspected Karim of carrying narcotics because of his strange movements and demeanour and when his travelling bag was searched, 109 pellets of cocaine were concealed in it.
Karim claimed ownership of the stuff and explained that it had been given to him by someone he named only as David to be delivered to Kwame in Italy for a fee of 5,000 Euros.
He, however, failed to lead security personnel to the said David.
In the case of Moussa, he was also arrested by the same aviation personnel at the KIA on suspicion of carrying narcotic drugs when he was going through pre-departure formalities to board a flight to Italy and during a search it was found that he had concealed 50 pellets, 40 pellets and another 20 pellets of the substance in his underpants, right pocket and left pocket, respectively.
He also mentioned the same name which had earlier been mentioned by Karim as his source of supply and said he was to be paid 4,000 Euros after delivering it to Kwame in Italy.
SUSPECT CONCEALED COCAINE IN UNDERPANTS
A prosecution witness has told the Accra Fast Track High Court trying Constable Ekow Russel and Maxwell Antwi, a car dealer, for narcotic offences that Antwi had concealed cocaine in his underpants when the police arrested him.
According to Lance Corporal Thomas Anyekaseh of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, he had gone to the Kata Hotel area in Accra to wait for a friend when he saw Antwi giving something to someone and at the same time suspiciously hid a similar thing in his underpants.
“I suspected him of dealing in narcotic drugs and, therefore, I confronted him and questioned him about what he had concealed in his underpants. I arrested and handcuffed him with the assistance of people.
“A search I conducted on him revealed a whitish substance wrapped in a white plastic bag and concealed in a handkerchief,” Lance Corporal Anyekaseh said.
He was testifying as the first prosecution witness in the case in which his colleague, who is stationed at the Accra Regional Police Headquarters, is being tried with Antwi.
Constable Russell is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs, while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Constable Russel and seven other colleagues were earlier arraigned at an Accra circuit court on charges relating to the supply of narcotic drugs, stealing narcotic drugs and abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotics.
Two of the accused persons, Sergeant Francis Arthur and Lance Corporal George Akoi, were each granted bail in the sum of ¢300 million with a surety to be justified, while the rest were remanded.
The other policemen are Lance Corporal Isaac Annan, Lance Corporal Dominic Ameza, Constable Collins Ohemeng, Inspector Oppong Kyei, and Lance Corporal Tony Adjei.
At the lower court, Antwi pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing narcotic drugs without authority, while Constable Russel pleaded not guilty to one count of supplying narcotic drugs without authority.
The other policemen pleaded not guilty to abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs.
Led in evidence by Mrs Evelyn Keelson, a State Attorney, the witness said he arrested Antwi at Nyamekye, a suburb of Accra, on March 27, 2007 after he had closed from duty and had gone to visit a friend he did not meet.
He said while waiting at a place near the Kata Hotel at about 6.00 p.m., he saw Antwi dip his hand into his underpants and gave out something to someone, after which he hid a similar thing in his underpants.
Lance Corporal Anyekaseh said after he had arrested Antwi, he sent him to the Organised Crime Unit of the Ghana Police Service, where, during interrogation, Antwi confessed that the substance had been given to him by Constable Russell.
During cross-examination by Mr Musah Ahmed, counsel for Antwi, the witness said he showed his identity card to the accused persons before he arrested him, after he had suspected him of dealing in narcotics.
Witness said he did not tell Antwi that he had put surveillance on him for six days before he arrested him. When asked whether his alleged friend ever turned up, he said if he did, he would not be in a position to say, since he left after arresting the accused person.
According to the witness, he did not have a warrant of arrest at the time he arrested the accused person, adding that he did not need one under the circumstance.
He denied that he put the cocaine in the underpants of the accused person after he had waylaid him.
When counsel put it to the witness that he could not have known what the accused person had concealed in his underpants from where he stood, he replied that he could because the distance between them was not long.
“The substance was hidden in his underpants under his scrotum,” the witness explained.
Asked whether any of the people around during the arrest gave statements to the police, the witness replied that he was not the investigator, compelling counsel to state, “So it is your word against his word, since you did not find anyone to confirm that the cocaine was found on the accused person.”
Lance Corporal Anyekaseh said he was not around when Antwi was interrogated and that he knew Constable Russel before the incident, since the two of them attended the same training programme at the Asutuare Military Camp.
When Captain Nkrabea Effah-Dartey, counsel for Constable Russel, suggested to the witness that he had no idea about the involvement of his client in the matter because his evidence linking him was hearsay, he replied in the affirmative.
Hearing continues on July 12, 2007.
Antwi was said to have told the police that the cocaine was part of some 900 grammes that Constable Russel had given to him to sell.
Constable Russel is also said to have admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
Constable Russel said when the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, were arrested, eight slabs of the substance were seized but he delivered only one slab to the office to make a case against them.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to send the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
According to Lance Corporal Thomas Anyekaseh of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, he had gone to the Kata Hotel area in Accra to wait for a friend when he saw Antwi giving something to someone and at the same time suspiciously hid a similar thing in his underpants.
“I suspected him of dealing in narcotic drugs and, therefore, I confronted him and questioned him about what he had concealed in his underpants. I arrested and handcuffed him with the assistance of people.
“A search I conducted on him revealed a whitish substance wrapped in a white plastic bag and concealed in a handkerchief,” Lance Corporal Anyekaseh said.
He was testifying as the first prosecution witness in the case in which his colleague, who is stationed at the Accra Regional Police Headquarters, is being tried with Antwi.
Constable Russell is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs, while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Constable Russel and seven other colleagues were earlier arraigned at an Accra circuit court on charges relating to the supply of narcotic drugs, stealing narcotic drugs and abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotics.
Two of the accused persons, Sergeant Francis Arthur and Lance Corporal George Akoi, were each granted bail in the sum of ¢300 million with a surety to be justified, while the rest were remanded.
The other policemen are Lance Corporal Isaac Annan, Lance Corporal Dominic Ameza, Constable Collins Ohemeng, Inspector Oppong Kyei, and Lance Corporal Tony Adjei.
At the lower court, Antwi pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing narcotic drugs without authority, while Constable Russel pleaded not guilty to one count of supplying narcotic drugs without authority.
The other policemen pleaded not guilty to abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs.
Led in evidence by Mrs Evelyn Keelson, a State Attorney, the witness said he arrested Antwi at Nyamekye, a suburb of Accra, on March 27, 2007 after he had closed from duty and had gone to visit a friend he did not meet.
He said while waiting at a place near the Kata Hotel at about 6.00 p.m., he saw Antwi dip his hand into his underpants and gave out something to someone, after which he hid a similar thing in his underpants.
Lance Corporal Anyekaseh said after he had arrested Antwi, he sent him to the Organised Crime Unit of the Ghana Police Service, where, during interrogation, Antwi confessed that the substance had been given to him by Constable Russell.
During cross-examination by Mr Musah Ahmed, counsel for Antwi, the witness said he showed his identity card to the accused persons before he arrested him, after he had suspected him of dealing in narcotics.
Witness said he did not tell Antwi that he had put surveillance on him for six days before he arrested him. When asked whether his alleged friend ever turned up, he said if he did, he would not be in a position to say, since he left after arresting the accused person.
According to the witness, he did not have a warrant of arrest at the time he arrested the accused person, adding that he did not need one under the circumstance.
He denied that he put the cocaine in the underpants of the accused person after he had waylaid him.
When counsel put it to the witness that he could not have known what the accused person had concealed in his underpants from where he stood, he replied that he could because the distance between them was not long.
“The substance was hidden in his underpants under his scrotum,” the witness explained.
Asked whether any of the people around during the arrest gave statements to the police, the witness replied that he was not the investigator, compelling counsel to state, “So it is your word against his word, since you did not find anyone to confirm that the cocaine was found on the accused person.”
Lance Corporal Anyekaseh said he was not around when Antwi was interrogated and that he knew Constable Russel before the incident, since the two of them attended the same training programme at the Asutuare Military Camp.
When Captain Nkrabea Effah-Dartey, counsel for Constable Russel, suggested to the witness that he had no idea about the involvement of his client in the matter because his evidence linking him was hearsay, he replied in the affirmative.
Hearing continues on July 12, 2007.
Antwi was said to have told the police that the cocaine was part of some 900 grammes that Constable Russel had given to him to sell.
Constable Russel is also said to have admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
Constable Russel said when the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, were arrested, eight slabs of the substance were seized but he delivered only one slab to the office to make a case against them.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to send the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
PROSECUTION TO CLOSE CASE IN MV BENJAMIN TRIAL
THE prosecution will close its case, involving the owner of the MV Benjamin and the five crew members who are being tried for their roles in the importation of 77 slabs of cocaine, on July 12, 2007.
A Senior State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Atakorah Obuobisa, dropped the hint after Inspector Charles Adabah, the investigator of the case, concluded his evidence as the 13th prosecution witness.
When the trial judge, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, asked whether the prosecution would close its case at the next sitting, Mrs Obuobisa replied that it might call one more witness to close the case on that day.
Consequently, the case was adjourned.
The owner of the vessel, Joseph Kojo Dawson; Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who are alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the substance are being tried.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
Continuing with his evidence under cross-examination by Mr Solomon Korli, counsel for the two Chinese, Inspector Adabah said Xian Li had already given his statement to the police and when he (the investigator) asked for a further statement, the accused person said he was relying on the earlier one given to the police.
He said Xian Li was still on board the vessel when it was alleged to have broken down and it was Xian Li who invited Yin Xing to join him on the vessel, after Isaac Arhin had allegedly briefed Xian Li on the purpose of the voyage that brought in the cocaine.
Inspector Adabah agreed with counsel that the captain of the vessel was in charge of its activities but disagreed that the captain alone kept information to himself.
He said Yin Xing knew what was concealed in the hatch of the vessel, and that was why he prevented security personnel from entering it in order to search for the cocaine, and disagreed with counsel that the hatch had been under the exclusive control of the captain.
A Senior State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Atakorah Obuobisa, dropped the hint after Inspector Charles Adabah, the investigator of the case, concluded his evidence as the 13th prosecution witness.
When the trial judge, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, asked whether the prosecution would close its case at the next sitting, Mrs Obuobisa replied that it might call one more witness to close the case on that day.
Consequently, the case was adjourned.
The owner of the vessel, Joseph Kojo Dawson; Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who are alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the substance are being tried.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
Continuing with his evidence under cross-examination by Mr Solomon Korli, counsel for the two Chinese, Inspector Adabah said Xian Li had already given his statement to the police and when he (the investigator) asked for a further statement, the accused person said he was relying on the earlier one given to the police.
He said Xian Li was still on board the vessel when it was alleged to have broken down and it was Xian Li who invited Yin Xing to join him on the vessel, after Isaac Arhin had allegedly briefed Xian Li on the purpose of the voyage that brought in the cocaine.
Inspector Adabah agreed with counsel that the captain of the vessel was in charge of its activities but disagreed that the captain alone kept information to himself.
He said Yin Xing knew what was concealed in the hatch of the vessel, and that was why he prevented security personnel from entering it in order to search for the cocaine, and disagreed with counsel that the hatch had been under the exclusive control of the captain.
INJUNCTION APPLICATION AGAINST AREEBA WITHDRAWN
AN application for an order of interlocutory injunction filed by Grandview Management to stop an arbitration in London in the case involving Scancom Ltd and its Ghanaian shareholder has been struck out by the Commercial Division of the Accra Fast Track High Court.
That was after the application was withdrawn by counsel for the company, Mr Thaddeus Sory.
Counsel told the court that the application was being withdrawn after consultations with his client.
Scancom Ltd, operators of Areeba mobile phone network, and its majority shareholder, Investcom Holdings LLC, sought an out-of-court settlement in the case in which Mr Richmond Aggrey, the Ghanaian businessman is claiming 20 per cent interest in the company.
Consequently, they argued their application for stay of proceedings to enable the parties to resort to arbitration but the application was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff and Grandview Management Limited, the third co-defendant, who described it as improperly laid and ought to be dismissed.
However, the application was refused by the court on May 31, 2007.
According to the court, granting the application would run counter to the High Court Civil Procedure rule of averting delay and unnecessary expenses, as well as the multiplicity of proceedings in more than one forum.
It did not award costs and adjourned the case to today to listen to the motion by Mr Sory to stop the arbitration process, which the court thought had been waived because of its ruling.
Moving the motion to stay proceedings, counsel for Investcom LLC, Mr Felix Ntirakwa, said the shareholders’ agreement of the company stipulated that whenever there was disagreement over shareholding ownership, arbitration should be resorted to.
His application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958, which proposed London as the venue for arbitration.
Counsel said care must be taken in order not to confuse interest of law situation in court proceedings with stay pending arbitration, saying that there was danger to rely on court issues.
He said the issue at stake related to shares, namely, capital call, dividends and the relationship between the plaintiff and Investcom LLC.
However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Yonni Kulendi, raised issue about whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and, if not, whether an application which proposed London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was a Ghanaian law.
He said the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitrary award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
Counsel said the application was not premised on desire for arbitration but to take procedural advantage to delay the case and also a calculated attempt to deny his client justice.
Mr Nutsupui, counsel for Scancom, who associated himself with the submission by counsel for Investcom LLC, said they were able and willing to participate in the arbitration and that the assertion that plaintiff had since 1999 ceased to be a shareholder did not hold, since he was bound by the shareholders’ agreement.
In its ruling, the court was of the view that clause 13 (5) of the shareholders’ agreement settled the issue of arbitration which was a private dispute resolution arrangement and did not bind persons/people who were not parties to it.
In the substantive case, the plaintiff, Mr Richmond Aggrey, sued Investcom Holdings LLC, Scancom Limited and Grandview Management Limited when Scancom decided to engage in a merger deal with South African giants, MTN Incorporated, claiming 20 per cent interest in the company.
The deal has, however, been concluded with the transfer of all shares in Scancom to the South African company.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, last year restraining Investcom LLC and Grandview Management from “continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and or acquisition of Investcom LLC by MTN without taking into account and or providing for the plaintiff’s/applicant’s 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited”.
The closure of the acquisition, according to Mr Aggrey, would occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of the MTN Group as a third party.
His contention was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom Limited without any explanation.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom Limited to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years and also include his name in the shareholders’ list.
That was after the application was withdrawn by counsel for the company, Mr Thaddeus Sory.
Counsel told the court that the application was being withdrawn after consultations with his client.
Scancom Ltd, operators of Areeba mobile phone network, and its majority shareholder, Investcom Holdings LLC, sought an out-of-court settlement in the case in which Mr Richmond Aggrey, the Ghanaian businessman is claiming 20 per cent interest in the company.
Consequently, they argued their application for stay of proceedings to enable the parties to resort to arbitration but the application was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff and Grandview Management Limited, the third co-defendant, who described it as improperly laid and ought to be dismissed.
However, the application was refused by the court on May 31, 2007.
According to the court, granting the application would run counter to the High Court Civil Procedure rule of averting delay and unnecessary expenses, as well as the multiplicity of proceedings in more than one forum.
It did not award costs and adjourned the case to today to listen to the motion by Mr Sory to stop the arbitration process, which the court thought had been waived because of its ruling.
Moving the motion to stay proceedings, counsel for Investcom LLC, Mr Felix Ntirakwa, said the shareholders’ agreement of the company stipulated that whenever there was disagreement over shareholding ownership, arbitration should be resorted to.
His application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958, which proposed London as the venue for arbitration.
Counsel said care must be taken in order not to confuse interest of law situation in court proceedings with stay pending arbitration, saying that there was danger to rely on court issues.
He said the issue at stake related to shares, namely, capital call, dividends and the relationship between the plaintiff and Investcom LLC.
However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Yonni Kulendi, raised issue about whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and, if not, whether an application which proposed London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was a Ghanaian law.
He said the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitrary award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
Counsel said the application was not premised on desire for arbitration but to take procedural advantage to delay the case and also a calculated attempt to deny his client justice.
Mr Nutsupui, counsel for Scancom, who associated himself with the submission by counsel for Investcom LLC, said they were able and willing to participate in the arbitration and that the assertion that plaintiff had since 1999 ceased to be a shareholder did not hold, since he was bound by the shareholders’ agreement.
In its ruling, the court was of the view that clause 13 (5) of the shareholders’ agreement settled the issue of arbitration which was a private dispute resolution arrangement and did not bind persons/people who were not parties to it.
In the substantive case, the plaintiff, Mr Richmond Aggrey, sued Investcom Holdings LLC, Scancom Limited and Grandview Management Limited when Scancom decided to engage in a merger deal with South African giants, MTN Incorporated, claiming 20 per cent interest in the company.
The deal has, however, been concluded with the transfer of all shares in Scancom to the South African company.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, last year restraining Investcom LLC and Grandview Management from “continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and or acquisition of Investcom LLC by MTN without taking into account and or providing for the plaintiff’s/applicant’s 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited”.
The closure of the acquisition, according to Mr Aggrey, would occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of the MTN Group as a third party.
His contention was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom Limited without any explanation.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom Limited to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years and also include his name in the shareholders’ list.
SHIPPING MAGNATE'S SON REFUSED BAIL
HALEEM Banda, the 28-year-old man who was arrested for an alleged nightclub brawl has appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court on four counts of threat of death and possession of arms and ammunition without authority.
The accused person who is a managing director of a company in Tema and said to be the son of Alhaji Asuma Banda, the shipping magnate, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
He had been refused bail and the court, presided over by Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge said it was going to fast-track the trial.
Consequently, it took the evidence of three prosecution witnesses who were also crossed-examined by counsel for the accused person.
Narrating the facts of the case, Mrs Stella Badu, a Senior State Attorney said the first complainant, Kofi Okyere Darko (KOD), was a broadcaster while the second complainant, Kiki Banson, was a businessman.
She said on June 10, 2007 at about 1:30 a.m., the accused person stormed the Cinderella Nightclub in Cantonments and threatened, Kiki and KOD with death.
The suspect was said to have given KOD a heavy blow which sent him sprawling and threatened to kill him if he tried to get up.
Mrs Badu said the accused person on June 12, 2007 had in his possession four live pistol ammunition without authority while he also had in his possession a pump action gun with an expired licence.
In his evidence-in-chief, KOD said on June 10, 2007, he went to the Cinderella Nightclub in the company of Kiki and while there the accused person rained insults on Kiki, who ignored Haleem because there was a case pending at the court between the two.
He said Haleem threatened to kill Kiki and said that if Kiki was a man he should open his mouth.
According to him, he tried to intervene but the accused person asked him to shut, therefore, he and Kiki decided to go out to board their car.
He said the accused person followed them and when he tried again to explain things to him, Haleem hit the right side of his neck with a blow that sent him to the ground.
The witness said while he fell down Haleem fired three warning shots, and pointed a gun at his neck and head, threatening to kill him if he uttered a word.
“I heard his name for the first time when people around said that this Haleem boy is causing a lot of trouble in town. Asoma Banda’s son and so what”, KOD said.
He said after the incident the accused person almost knocked him with his car when he sped off the scene.
During cross-examination by Mr Agbesi Dzakpasu, counsel for the accused person, the witness admitted that he spoke to Joy FM, an Accra-based radio station about the incident.
He maintained that he heard the three gunshots which were fired by Haleem when he was falling down.
“I will kill you and if you like you can go and report to the police”, he quoted the accused person threatening him and explained that he heard the words well because the DJ at the nightclub had stopped playing music.
KOD disagreed with counsel that the threat to kill him was an after thought.
Another witness, Samuel Lamkwei, a bouncer at the nightclub, said he was at the main gate of the nightclub on the day of the incident when he heard three gunshots from the car park.
He said after that he saw people running all directions and not quite long, he saw Kiki doubling his steps to the enter the club and followed by Haleem.
According to him, when Haleem got to the gate he realised that he was wielding a gun and when he asked Haleem about the gun he was brushed aside but he followed him to the club and informed another bouncer about it.
He said he was leaving the scene to take his post when he overheard Haleem say “where is he, where is he?”.
Lamkwei said not quite after taking post, a police patrol team arrived and demanded to see Kiki so he went to inform one Sly, a bouncer who went to call Kiki.
He said that he did not know who Haleem referred to when he said “where is he, where is he?”, but he was aware that Kiki was inside the club although he did not know exactly where he was.
Sly Abugabi, another bouncer at the club told the court that on the day of the incident, he was inside the club when Kiki entered after which Lamkwei came to inform him that Haleem was wielding a gun.
He said Haleem shouted in English “ where is the bastard. I will kill him”, thus sending people running away.
The accused person who is a managing director of a company in Tema and said to be the son of Alhaji Asuma Banda, the shipping magnate, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
He had been refused bail and the court, presided over by Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge said it was going to fast-track the trial.
Consequently, it took the evidence of three prosecution witnesses who were also crossed-examined by counsel for the accused person.
Narrating the facts of the case, Mrs Stella Badu, a Senior State Attorney said the first complainant, Kofi Okyere Darko (KOD), was a broadcaster while the second complainant, Kiki Banson, was a businessman.
She said on June 10, 2007 at about 1:30 a.m., the accused person stormed the Cinderella Nightclub in Cantonments and threatened, Kiki and KOD with death.
The suspect was said to have given KOD a heavy blow which sent him sprawling and threatened to kill him if he tried to get up.
Mrs Badu said the accused person on June 12, 2007 had in his possession four live pistol ammunition without authority while he also had in his possession a pump action gun with an expired licence.
In his evidence-in-chief, KOD said on June 10, 2007, he went to the Cinderella Nightclub in the company of Kiki and while there the accused person rained insults on Kiki, who ignored Haleem because there was a case pending at the court between the two.
He said Haleem threatened to kill Kiki and said that if Kiki was a man he should open his mouth.
According to him, he tried to intervene but the accused person asked him to shut, therefore, he and Kiki decided to go out to board their car.
He said the accused person followed them and when he tried again to explain things to him, Haleem hit the right side of his neck with a blow that sent him to the ground.
The witness said while he fell down Haleem fired three warning shots, and pointed a gun at his neck and head, threatening to kill him if he uttered a word.
“I heard his name for the first time when people around said that this Haleem boy is causing a lot of trouble in town. Asoma Banda’s son and so what”, KOD said.
He said after the incident the accused person almost knocked him with his car when he sped off the scene.
During cross-examination by Mr Agbesi Dzakpasu, counsel for the accused person, the witness admitted that he spoke to Joy FM, an Accra-based radio station about the incident.
He maintained that he heard the three gunshots which were fired by Haleem when he was falling down.
“I will kill you and if you like you can go and report to the police”, he quoted the accused person threatening him and explained that he heard the words well because the DJ at the nightclub had stopped playing music.
KOD disagreed with counsel that the threat to kill him was an after thought.
Another witness, Samuel Lamkwei, a bouncer at the nightclub, said he was at the main gate of the nightclub on the day of the incident when he heard three gunshots from the car park.
He said after that he saw people running all directions and not quite long, he saw Kiki doubling his steps to the enter the club and followed by Haleem.
According to him, when Haleem got to the gate he realised that he was wielding a gun and when he asked Haleem about the gun he was brushed aside but he followed him to the club and informed another bouncer about it.
He said he was leaving the scene to take his post when he overheard Haleem say “where is he, where is he?”.
Lamkwei said not quite after taking post, a police patrol team arrived and demanded to see Kiki so he went to inform one Sly, a bouncer who went to call Kiki.
He said that he did not know who Haleem referred to when he said “where is he, where is he?”, but he was aware that Kiki was inside the club although he did not know exactly where he was.
Sly Abugabi, another bouncer at the club told the court that on the day of the incident, he was inside the club when Kiki entered after which Lamkwei came to inform him that Haleem was wielding a gun.
He said Haleem shouted in English “ where is the bastard. I will kill him”, thus sending people running away.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
WOMAN GETS 10 YEARS HARD LABOUR
THE Greater Accra Regional Tribunal has sentenced a woman to 10 years imprisonment in hard labour for narcotic-related offences.
The woman, Janet Afeme, pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted exportation of narcotics without licence from the Ministry of Health and possession of narcotic drugs and she was convicted and sentenced on her own plea.
According to the facts of the case, Janet was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport at about 9.30 a.m. on November 30, last year when she was going through departure formalities to board a KLM flight to Amsterdam.
Officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) suspected her to be carrying narcotic drugs and a search revealed that she had concealed 48 cake sizes of a whitish substance suspected to be cocaine in her underpants.
She told the NACOB officials that she received the substance from someone she named only as Peter and that it was to be delivered to someone in Amsterdam for a fee of 7,000 Euros.
When the substance was sent to the Ghana Standards Board for test, it proved positive for cocaine, with a net weight of 2.946 grammes.
The woman, Janet Afeme, pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted exportation of narcotics without licence from the Ministry of Health and possession of narcotic drugs and she was convicted and sentenced on her own plea.
According to the facts of the case, Janet was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport at about 9.30 a.m. on November 30, last year when she was going through departure formalities to board a KLM flight to Amsterdam.
Officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) suspected her to be carrying narcotic drugs and a search revealed that she had concealed 48 cake sizes of a whitish substance suspected to be cocaine in her underpants.
She told the NACOB officials that she received the substance from someone she named only as Peter and that it was to be delivered to someone in Amsterdam for a fee of 7,000 Euros.
When the substance was sent to the Ghana Standards Board for test, it proved positive for cocaine, with a net weight of 2.946 grammes.
COP, ONE OTHER PLEAD NOT GUILTY
CONSTABLE Ekow Russel of the Accra Regional Police Headquarters, and Maxwell Antwi, a car dealer today pleaded not guilty when they appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court on three counts of narcotic-related offences.
The policeman is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Constable Russel and seven other colleagues were earlier arraigned at an Accra Circuit Court on charges relating to the supply of narcotic drugs, stealing narcotic drugs and abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotics.
Two of the accused persons, Sergeant Francis Arthur and Lance Corporal George Akoi, were each granted bail in the sum of ¢300 million with a surety to be justified, while the rest were remanded.
The other policemen are Lance Corporal Isaac Annan, Lance Corporal Dominic Ameza, Constable Collins Ohemeng, Inspector Oppong Kyei, the Station Officer of the Monitors Unit of the Accra Region, and Lance Corporal Tony Adjei.
At the lower court, Antwi pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing narcotic drugs without authority, while Constable Russel pleaded not guilty to one count of supplying narcotic drugs without authority.
The other policemen pleaded not guilty to abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs.
The facts of the old case were that on March 27, 2007, personnel from the Organised Crime Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service Headquarters arrested Antwi with cocaine and, during interrogation, he mentioned Constable Russel as his source of supply.
He told the police that it was part of some 900 grammes of a substance that Constable Russel gave to him to sell and added that he had already sold some and given the money to Constable Russel.
Constable Russel confirmed the story when he was also arrested and explained that he obtained the substance from some Nigerian dealers he arrested.
He said on his arrest, Constable Russel admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
Constable Russel said when the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, were arrested, eight slabs of the substance were seized but only one slab was delivered to the office to make a case against the dealers.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to bring the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
The policeman is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Constable Russel and seven other colleagues were earlier arraigned at an Accra Circuit Court on charges relating to the supply of narcotic drugs, stealing narcotic drugs and abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotics.
Two of the accused persons, Sergeant Francis Arthur and Lance Corporal George Akoi, were each granted bail in the sum of ¢300 million with a surety to be justified, while the rest were remanded.
The other policemen are Lance Corporal Isaac Annan, Lance Corporal Dominic Ameza, Constable Collins Ohemeng, Inspector Oppong Kyei, the Station Officer of the Monitors Unit of the Accra Region, and Lance Corporal Tony Adjei.
At the lower court, Antwi pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing narcotic drugs without authority, while Constable Russel pleaded not guilty to one count of supplying narcotic drugs without authority.
The other policemen pleaded not guilty to abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs.
The facts of the old case were that on March 27, 2007, personnel from the Organised Crime Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service Headquarters arrested Antwi with cocaine and, during interrogation, he mentioned Constable Russel as his source of supply.
He told the police that it was part of some 900 grammes of a substance that Constable Russel gave to him to sell and added that he had already sold some and given the money to Constable Russel.
Constable Russel confirmed the story when he was also arrested and explained that he obtained the substance from some Nigerian dealers he arrested.
He said on his arrest, Constable Russel admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
Constable Russel said when the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, were arrested, eight slabs of the substance were seized but only one slab was delivered to the office to make a case against the dealers.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to bring the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
COURT STRUCKS OUT MOTION
AN application for an order of interlocutory injunction filed by Grandview Management to stop an arbitration in London in the case involving Scancom Ltd and its Ghanaian shareholder was struck out today by the Commercial Division of the Accra Fast Track High Court.
That was after the application was withdrawn by counsel for the company, Mr Thaddeus Sory.
Counsel told the court that the application was being withdrawn after consultations with his client.
Scancom Ltd, operators of Areeba mobile phone network, and its majority shareholder, Investcom Holdings LLC, sought an out-of-court settlement in the case in which Mr Richmond Aggrey, the Ghanaian businessman is claiming 20 per cent interest in the company.
Consequently, they argued their application for stay of proceedings to enable the parties to resort to arbitration but the application was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff and Grandview Management Limited, the third co-defendant, who described it as improperly laid and ought to be dismissed.
However, the application was refused by the court on May 31, 2007.
According to the court, granting the application would run counter to the High Court Civil Procedure rule of averting delay and unnecessary expenses, as well as the multiplicity of proceedings in more than one forum.
It did not award costs and adjourned the case to today to listen to the motion by Mr Sory to stop the arbitration process, which the court thought had been waived because of its ruling.
Moving the motion to stay proceedings, counsel for Investcom LLC, Mr Felix Ntirakwa, said the shareholders’ agreement of the company stipulated that whenever there was disagreement over shareholding ownership, arbitration should be resorted to.
His application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958, which proposed London as the venue for arbitration.
Counsel said care must be taken in order not to confuse interest of law situation in court proceedings with stay pending arbitration, saying that there was danger to rely on court issues.
He said the issue at stake related to shares, namely, capital call, dividends and the relationship between the plaintiff and Investcom LLC.
However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Yonni Kulendi, raised issue about whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and, if not, whether an application which proposed London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was a Ghanaian law.
He said the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitrary award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
Counsel said the application was not premised on desire for arbitration but to take procedural advantage to delay the case and also a calculated attempt to deny his client justice.
Mr Nutsupui, counsel for Scancom, who associated himself with the submission by counsel for Investcom LLC, said they were able and willing to participate in the arbitration and that the assertion that plaintiff had since 1999 ceased to be a shareholder did not hold, since he was bound by the shareholders’ agreement.
In its ruling, the court was of the view that clause 13 (5) of the shareholders’ agreement settled the issue of arbitration which was a private dispute resolution arrangement and did not bind persons/people who were not parties to it.
In the substantive case, the plaintiff, Mr Richmond Aggrey, sued Investcom Holdings LLC, Scancom Limited and Grandview Management Limited when Scancom decided to engage in a merger deal with South African giants, MTN Incorporated, claiming 20 per cent interest in the company.
The deal has, however, been concluded with the transfer of all shares in Scancom to the South African company.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, last year restraining Investcom LLC and Grandview Management from “continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and or acquisition of Investcom LLC by MTN without taking into account and or providing for the plaintiff’s/applicant’s 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited”.
The closure of the acquisition, according to Mr Aggrey, would occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of the MTN Group as a third party.
His contention was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom Limited without any explanation.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom Limited to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years and also include his name in the shareholders’ list.
That was after the application was withdrawn by counsel for the company, Mr Thaddeus Sory.
Counsel told the court that the application was being withdrawn after consultations with his client.
Scancom Ltd, operators of Areeba mobile phone network, and its majority shareholder, Investcom Holdings LLC, sought an out-of-court settlement in the case in which Mr Richmond Aggrey, the Ghanaian businessman is claiming 20 per cent interest in the company.
Consequently, they argued their application for stay of proceedings to enable the parties to resort to arbitration but the application was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff and Grandview Management Limited, the third co-defendant, who described it as improperly laid and ought to be dismissed.
However, the application was refused by the court on May 31, 2007.
According to the court, granting the application would run counter to the High Court Civil Procedure rule of averting delay and unnecessary expenses, as well as the multiplicity of proceedings in more than one forum.
It did not award costs and adjourned the case to today to listen to the motion by Mr Sory to stop the arbitration process, which the court thought had been waived because of its ruling.
Moving the motion to stay proceedings, counsel for Investcom LLC, Mr Felix Ntirakwa, said the shareholders’ agreement of the company stipulated that whenever there was disagreement over shareholding ownership, arbitration should be resorted to.
His application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958, which proposed London as the venue for arbitration.
Counsel said care must be taken in order not to confuse interest of law situation in court proceedings with stay pending arbitration, saying that there was danger to rely on court issues.
He said the issue at stake related to shares, namely, capital call, dividends and the relationship between the plaintiff and Investcom LLC.
However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Yonni Kulendi, raised issue about whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and, if not, whether an application which proposed London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was a Ghanaian law.
He said the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitrary award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
Counsel said the application was not premised on desire for arbitration but to take procedural advantage to delay the case and also a calculated attempt to deny his client justice.
Mr Nutsupui, counsel for Scancom, who associated himself with the submission by counsel for Investcom LLC, said they were able and willing to participate in the arbitration and that the assertion that plaintiff had since 1999 ceased to be a shareholder did not hold, since he was bound by the shareholders’ agreement.
In its ruling, the court was of the view that clause 13 (5) of the shareholders’ agreement settled the issue of arbitration which was a private dispute resolution arrangement and did not bind persons/people who were not parties to it.
In the substantive case, the plaintiff, Mr Richmond Aggrey, sued Investcom Holdings LLC, Scancom Limited and Grandview Management Limited when Scancom decided to engage in a merger deal with South African giants, MTN Incorporated, claiming 20 per cent interest in the company.
The deal has, however, been concluded with the transfer of all shares in Scancom to the South African company.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, last year restraining Investcom LLC and Grandview Management from “continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and or acquisition of Investcom LLC by MTN without taking into account and or providing for the plaintiff’s/applicant’s 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited”.
The closure of the acquisition, according to Mr Aggrey, would occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of the MTN Group as a third party.
His contention was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom Limited without any explanation.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom Limited to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years and also include his name in the shareholders’ list.
GA CHIEF APPEALS AGAINST COURT DECISION
THE Ablekuma Mantse and Sempe Atofo in the Greater Accra Region, Nii Larbi Mensah IV, has appealed against a Kumasi High Court order to the National House of Chiefs (NHC) to delete his name from the register of the house because it was not properly done .
Nii Mensah, known in private life as Francis Nii Aryee Addo-Quaye, is praying the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s decision, given on June 22, 2007, as well as the dismissal of the application for an order of mandamus against him.
He is also asking that costs of ¢20 million awarded against him should be set aside, and rather made in his favour.
The notice of appeal, dated June 27, 2007 was filed on June 26, 2007 by Mr A.A. Somuah-Asamoah, counsel for the interested party/appellant.
The Kumasi court, presided over by Mr Justice Kwame Ansu-Gyeabour also asked the registrar of the Ga Traditional Council to take prompt steps to get a new panel to hear the case, titled, “E.T.A. Nettey Vrs Adjin Tetteh and Seven Others” in connection with the Ablekuma Chieftaincy affair.
The court’s order followed an application for an order of mandamus filed by one Adjin Tetteh praying the court to remove the name of Francis Nii Aryee Addo-Quaye, as Chief of Ablekuma under the stool name, Nii Larbie Mensah IV from the register of the house and instead insert his (Adjin Tetteh’s) name in line with his recognition by the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council in October, 1997.
Adjin Tetteh contended that he was nominated, elected and enstooled as Chief of Ablekuma and that the Ga Traditional Council had recognised him as such by a judgement.
According to him, he became aware that Nii Larbie had been given recognition by the NHC as substantive Chief of Ablekuma through a publication in the Daily Graphic of June 24, 2006.
In a supplementary affidavit that he filed, he declared that since the insertion and deletion of names from the register of the NHC was an administrative act, when it was wrongly effected the court was clothed with authority to enquire into it.
He said it was his name that should have been inserted into the register and not that of Nii Larbie Mensah.
In his affidavit in opposition, Nii Mensah stated that his name was inserted in the NHC register based on the advice of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs.
He also contended that he was properly nominated, elected and enstooled as the Ablekuma Mantse and Sempe Atofo in accordance with Ga custom.
With regard to the judgement of the Ga Traditional Council judgement mentioned by the applicant, the respondent explained that it was quashed by an Accra High Court on November 11, 1998 and that an appeal filed against the High Court ruling was also dismissed on July 20, 2000 by the Court of Appeal.
He, therefore, stated that the “the allegation by the applicant that the research committee of the Regional House of Chiefs undertook an erroneous administrative act is untenable and misconceived”.
In his ruling, Justice Ansu-Gyeabour said, “I am of the considered view that three main issues are raised for consideration in the facts of the case”.
After considering the arguments of the parties, Justice Ansu-Gyeabour said it was a fact that the court had no power under the Constitution to determine at first instance any matter affecting chieftaincy.
He said it was therefore plain that the court had no power to decide that any of the two parties was properly nominated, elected and enstooled as the Chief of Ablekuma.
The judge, however, indicated that in matters of administration like the case in question the courts had the power to go into them to straighten matters.
Mr Justice Ansu-Gyeabour quoted from Article 23 of the Constitution which stated that “administrative bodies should deal fairly and reasonably with members of the public” and said, “To me it is manifestly clear that by basing its entry in the national register of the house on wrong information from the regional house of chiefs, the officers of the NHC did not act equitably, fairly and in a just manner”.
In his grounds of appeal, Nii Mensah said the High Court judge erred in stating that it was wrong for the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs to have said in their letter dated February 24, 2006 that there was no petition or writ against his enstoolment.
He said the judge erred in holding that the study which the Research Committee of the NHC did was based on a false premise by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs.
The appellant said the judge further erred in holding that the NHC based its entry in the national register of chiefs on wrong information.
He said the judge erred in holding that the method adopted by the authorities of the Ga Traditional Council and the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs in forwarding his name to the NHC for processing and subsequent entry into the national register of chiefs was not correct.
“The learned High Court judge erred in holding that the NHC did not act equitably, fairly and in a just manner”, he said and added that the judge wrongly exercised his discretion in awarding costs against him.
Nii Mensah, known in private life as Francis Nii Aryee Addo-Quaye, is praying the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s decision, given on June 22, 2007, as well as the dismissal of the application for an order of mandamus against him.
He is also asking that costs of ¢20 million awarded against him should be set aside, and rather made in his favour.
The notice of appeal, dated June 27, 2007 was filed on June 26, 2007 by Mr A.A. Somuah-Asamoah, counsel for the interested party/appellant.
The Kumasi court, presided over by Mr Justice Kwame Ansu-Gyeabour also asked the registrar of the Ga Traditional Council to take prompt steps to get a new panel to hear the case, titled, “E.T.A. Nettey Vrs Adjin Tetteh and Seven Others” in connection with the Ablekuma Chieftaincy affair.
The court’s order followed an application for an order of mandamus filed by one Adjin Tetteh praying the court to remove the name of Francis Nii Aryee Addo-Quaye, as Chief of Ablekuma under the stool name, Nii Larbie Mensah IV from the register of the house and instead insert his (Adjin Tetteh’s) name in line with his recognition by the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council in October, 1997.
Adjin Tetteh contended that he was nominated, elected and enstooled as Chief of Ablekuma and that the Ga Traditional Council had recognised him as such by a judgement.
According to him, he became aware that Nii Larbie had been given recognition by the NHC as substantive Chief of Ablekuma through a publication in the Daily Graphic of June 24, 2006.
In a supplementary affidavit that he filed, he declared that since the insertion and deletion of names from the register of the NHC was an administrative act, when it was wrongly effected the court was clothed with authority to enquire into it.
He said it was his name that should have been inserted into the register and not that of Nii Larbie Mensah.
In his affidavit in opposition, Nii Mensah stated that his name was inserted in the NHC register based on the advice of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs.
He also contended that he was properly nominated, elected and enstooled as the Ablekuma Mantse and Sempe Atofo in accordance with Ga custom.
With regard to the judgement of the Ga Traditional Council judgement mentioned by the applicant, the respondent explained that it was quashed by an Accra High Court on November 11, 1998 and that an appeal filed against the High Court ruling was also dismissed on July 20, 2000 by the Court of Appeal.
He, therefore, stated that the “the allegation by the applicant that the research committee of the Regional House of Chiefs undertook an erroneous administrative act is untenable and misconceived”.
In his ruling, Justice Ansu-Gyeabour said, “I am of the considered view that three main issues are raised for consideration in the facts of the case”.
After considering the arguments of the parties, Justice Ansu-Gyeabour said it was a fact that the court had no power under the Constitution to determine at first instance any matter affecting chieftaincy.
He said it was therefore plain that the court had no power to decide that any of the two parties was properly nominated, elected and enstooled as the Chief of Ablekuma.
The judge, however, indicated that in matters of administration like the case in question the courts had the power to go into them to straighten matters.
Mr Justice Ansu-Gyeabour quoted from Article 23 of the Constitution which stated that “administrative bodies should deal fairly and reasonably with members of the public” and said, “To me it is manifestly clear that by basing its entry in the national register of the house on wrong information from the regional house of chiefs, the officers of the NHC did not act equitably, fairly and in a just manner”.
In his grounds of appeal, Nii Mensah said the High Court judge erred in stating that it was wrong for the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs to have said in their letter dated February 24, 2006 that there was no petition or writ against his enstoolment.
He said the judge erred in holding that the study which the Research Committee of the NHC did was based on a false premise by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs.
The appellant said the judge further erred in holding that the NHC based its entry in the national register of chiefs on wrong information.
He said the judge erred in holding that the method adopted by the authorities of the Ga Traditional Council and the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs in forwarding his name to the NHC for processing and subsequent entry into the national register of chiefs was not correct.
“The learned High Court judge erred in holding that the NHC did not act equitably, fairly and in a just manner”, he said and added that the judge wrongly exercised his discretion in awarding costs against him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)