Am back. now my readers and followers can make use of my blog and benefit therefrom.
Regrets for that long break.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Friday, August 07, 2009
Court of Appeal frees cocaine barons after 20 months in jail, A-G to go to Supreme Court
THE Court of Appeal yesterday acquitted and discharged Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, and Alhaji Issah Abass after they had spent almost 20 months in prison for an alleged narcotic related offence.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice E.K. Piesare, set aside the November 27, 2007 conviction by the Accra Fast Track High Court of 15 years’ imprisonment each with hard labour.
Other members of the panel were Mr Justice Yaw Apau and Mr Justice E.A. Addo.
The appellants were on November 27, 2007 convicted and sentenced when the court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Victor Dotse, then a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, found them guilty on charges of conspiracy and engaging in prohibited business related to narcotics without authority.
That was after the Georgina Wood Committee set up to investigate an alleged 76 parcels of cocaine missing on board the MV Benjamin at the Tema Port had recommended the trial of the appellants.
In its unanimous decision, the court ordered the immediate release of the two, saying the conviction and the sentence were flawed and against the weight of Criminal Law.
The court described the lower court’s decision as a nullity and a cancerous tumour in the country’s legal anatomy which needed to be flushed out of the system.
According to the court, the charges, together with the accompanying particulars, were defective and deficient, while the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the appellants.
The court was of the opinion that the trial judge erred in the first place by calling on the appellants to open their defence after the prosecution had closed its case when, in fact, there was nothing which had incriminated them for them to have been called upon to open their defence.
It said the court’s reliance on a recorded conversation which took place in ACP Kofi Boakye’s house was wrong in law, since that could not be termed as an admission of guilt or a confession statement.
“A confession statement is sufficient to sustain a conviction when it is direct and positive,” it held, and added that in the instant case there was no evidence that the appellants conspired to look for the missing 76 parcels of cocaine which was on board the MV Benjamin.
The court held that what was done by ACP Boakye was in pursuant of his duty as a top police boss in his anxiety to clear his name regarding rumours that linked him to the missing cocaine, although he was a material witness whom the prosecution failed to call to testify.
“ACP Boakye was worried because of information that Tagor and Alhaji Abass had been spreading rumours that he went to Tema and stole the cocaine from the vessel,” the court held, and added that the police officer was not a participant in the alleged confession statement but rather he was desperate and needed help to save his name.
The court maintained that the purpose of the said meeting was not for the appellants to go and look for the missing cocaine and reap the benefits there from but it was called by ACP Boakye in his anxiety to trace the whereabouts of the cocaine so that he could save his name.
ACP Boakye, the court affirmed, was the only person who could have assisted the court concerning all the details about what actually transpired at the meeting in his house, arguing that failure to call him meant there was no evidence for which he could, for instance, be charged.
The court lambasted the prosecution witnesses whom it described as having been in court to show their academic credentials because their evidence did not in any way assist the court.
It stated that it was wrong for the judge to have literally accepted the appellants’ reference to “niema” in Twi to mean ‘cocaine’ because it was not correct that the police investigator who, in his testimony, had claimed that he had gone to the underworld of the drug business had actually done so.
It said that the best person who could have testified to that was the one who was living in the underworld and not the police investigator.
The court said the offences for which the appellants were convicted were never stated, neither was the place and time stated.
“Failing to fill the gap was fatal to the case of the prosecution. The charge was mainly based on an admission of the appellants,” the court held, and wondered where in Accra and in which period of the month of May 2006 had the offence n place and also the nature of the offence.
It noted that those were issues that could have been answered by the prosecution but the trial judge glossed over them and erroneously called the appellants to open their defence.
The court likened the case to two scenarios, namely, murder and rape, in which people went around bragging that they had either killed someone or raped somebody when there was no evidence to that effect.
According to the court, under such circumstances, investigations ought to be conducted to verify the statement and those investigation should establish that, indeed, someone had been killed or raped.
In respect of the appellants, the court averred that investigations did not list out their involvement in any prior act, while the said statement was not made on any authority to warrant it being called a confession statement.
It said there was no evidence to the effect that 76 parcels of cocaine had been missing which the appellants decided to look for, except that there were rumours in the country to that effect, which called for the setting up of a committee which also could not establish its whereabouts.
At exactly 1:13 p.m. when it became obvious that the judgement had gone in his favour, Tagor screwed his neck from the box and looked in the direction of his wife who was seated in the gallery.
Lead counsel for Tagor, Dr Dominic Ayine, said of the judgement, “The three-hour wait was worth its while,” while the prosecution said it was going to study it to see the next course of action.
The other defence lawyers included Mr Kissi Adjabeng and Mr Osafo Buaben.
Sympathisers and relatives who thronged the court premises shed tears of joy and were lost for words when contacted for their comments.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice E.K. Piesare, set aside the November 27, 2007 conviction by the Accra Fast Track High Court of 15 years’ imprisonment each with hard labour.
Other members of the panel were Mr Justice Yaw Apau and Mr Justice E.A. Addo.
The appellants were on November 27, 2007 convicted and sentenced when the court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Victor Dotse, then a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, found them guilty on charges of conspiracy and engaging in prohibited business related to narcotics without authority.
That was after the Georgina Wood Committee set up to investigate an alleged 76 parcels of cocaine missing on board the MV Benjamin at the Tema Port had recommended the trial of the appellants.
In its unanimous decision, the court ordered the immediate release of the two, saying the conviction and the sentence were flawed and against the weight of Criminal Law.
The court described the lower court’s decision as a nullity and a cancerous tumour in the country’s legal anatomy which needed to be flushed out of the system.
According to the court, the charges, together with the accompanying particulars, were defective and deficient, while the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the appellants.
The court was of the opinion that the trial judge erred in the first place by calling on the appellants to open their defence after the prosecution had closed its case when, in fact, there was nothing which had incriminated them for them to have been called upon to open their defence.
It said the court’s reliance on a recorded conversation which took place in ACP Kofi Boakye’s house was wrong in law, since that could not be termed as an admission of guilt or a confession statement.
“A confession statement is sufficient to sustain a conviction when it is direct and positive,” it held, and added that in the instant case there was no evidence that the appellants conspired to look for the missing 76 parcels of cocaine which was on board the MV Benjamin.
The court held that what was done by ACP Boakye was in pursuant of his duty as a top police boss in his anxiety to clear his name regarding rumours that linked him to the missing cocaine, although he was a material witness whom the prosecution failed to call to testify.
“ACP Boakye was worried because of information that Tagor and Alhaji Abass had been spreading rumours that he went to Tema and stole the cocaine from the vessel,” the court held, and added that the police officer was not a participant in the alleged confession statement but rather he was desperate and needed help to save his name.
The court maintained that the purpose of the said meeting was not for the appellants to go and look for the missing cocaine and reap the benefits there from but it was called by ACP Boakye in his anxiety to trace the whereabouts of the cocaine so that he could save his name.
ACP Boakye, the court affirmed, was the only person who could have assisted the court concerning all the details about what actually transpired at the meeting in his house, arguing that failure to call him meant there was no evidence for which he could, for instance, be charged.
The court lambasted the prosecution witnesses whom it described as having been in court to show their academic credentials because their evidence did not in any way assist the court.
It stated that it was wrong for the judge to have literally accepted the appellants’ reference to “niema” in Twi to mean ‘cocaine’ because it was not correct that the police investigator who, in his testimony, had claimed that he had gone to the underworld of the drug business had actually done so.
It said that the best person who could have testified to that was the one who was living in the underworld and not the police investigator.
The court said the offences for which the appellants were convicted were never stated, neither was the place and time stated.
“Failing to fill the gap was fatal to the case of the prosecution. The charge was mainly based on an admission of the appellants,” the court held, and wondered where in Accra and in which period of the month of May 2006 had the offence n place and also the nature of the offence.
It noted that those were issues that could have been answered by the prosecution but the trial judge glossed over them and erroneously called the appellants to open their defence.
The court likened the case to two scenarios, namely, murder and rape, in which people went around bragging that they had either killed someone or raped somebody when there was no evidence to that effect.
According to the court, under such circumstances, investigations ought to be conducted to verify the statement and those investigation should establish that, indeed, someone had been killed or raped.
In respect of the appellants, the court averred that investigations did not list out their involvement in any prior act, while the said statement was not made on any authority to warrant it being called a confession statement.
It said there was no evidence to the effect that 76 parcels of cocaine had been missing which the appellants decided to look for, except that there were rumours in the country to that effect, which called for the setting up of a committee which also could not establish its whereabouts.
At exactly 1:13 p.m. when it became obvious that the judgement had gone in his favour, Tagor screwed his neck from the box and looked in the direction of his wife who was seated in the gallery.
Lead counsel for Tagor, Dr Dominic Ayine, said of the judgement, “The three-hour wait was worth its while,” while the prosecution said it was going to study it to see the next course of action.
The other defence lawyers included Mr Kissi Adjabeng and Mr Osafo Buaben.
Sympathisers and relatives who thronged the court premises shed tears of joy and were lost for words when contacted for their comments.
Who killed the Ghanaians in the Gambia?
The signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Ghana and the Gambia in Sirte, Libya, which culminated in agreement by the Gambian government to make contributions to the families of six Ghanaians murdered in the Gambia seems to have fuelled the debate on the matter in the media and entire country.
When news about the alleged killing of the Ghanaians and other West African nationals in the Gambia was broken, many issues cropped up with some Ghanaians suggesting the extreme that Ghana should attack that country.
Those who suggested attack as the solution to the problem put up arguments that the Gambia was no country that could match the might of Ghana in military terms.
Matters have been compounded the more with the release of a report of the UN/ECOWAS about the complicity of the Gambia in the matter.
In the MoU signed in Sirte, the Gambia has offered to contribute to the families of the six people that that country accepted were indeed killed.
The Gambia has denied any wrongdoing in the matter to warrant any condemnation and even to accept responsibility except that it attributed the action to self defence and blamed it on some elements within its security set up. Their action was to quell the activities of certain mercenaries thought to be on a mission to overthrow the government of President Yahaya Jammeh.
This article will consider the issue of state responsibility under international law and whether or not the Gambia should be held responsible for the killing of the innocent Ghanaians and other nationals.
The laws of state responsibility are the broad and basic rules that govern when and how a state should be held responsible for any infraction of international dimension.
Rather than set forth any particular obligations, the rules of state responsibility determine, in general, when an obligation has been breached and the legal consequences thereafter; they establish the conditions for an act to qualify as internationally wrongful, the circumstances under which actions of officials, private individuals and other entities may be attributed to the state. They also set out general defences to liability and the consequences of liability.
It is these conditions that this article will address itself to.
With the adoption of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ("Draft Articles") by the International Law Commission (ILC) in August 2001, the theory of the law of state responsibility has come a long way in its development.
The International Court of Justice has long held on the issue of state responsibility in such cases as the Spanish Zone of Morocco Claims, and the Chorzow Factory case, in which the issue of reparation was made very clear.
Some other older cases and commentaries have discussed whether state responsibility is based on notions of fault or strict liability. These include the Home Missionary Society Claims, the Neer Claim case and the Caire Claim case.
It may be said that states are more "strictly liable" for the actions of their officials than for the actions of private individuals where in the latter case, it may be necessary to prove some "failure to control" the private individuals (i.e. "fault") before the state itself is held responsible.
In the strict liability sense, the principle of objective responsibility holds that once an unlawful act has been committed by an agent of the state that state should be responsible to the state suffering the damage.
This position was rejected in the Neer Claim case while the Caire Claim case upheld the test.
Before a state can be held responsible for any action, it is necessary to prove a causal connection between the injury and an official act or omission attributable to the state alleged to be in breach of its obligations.
This has become an increasingly significant contemporary issue, due to non-state actors such as civil society groups, multinational corporations, and non-governmental organisations, as well as militant groups, which play greater international roles.
The state is responsible for all actions of its officials and organs, even if the organ or official is formally independent and is acting ultra vires.
Persons or entities not classified as organs of the State may still be imputable, when they are otherwise empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority, and act in that capacity in the particular instance.
Persons or entities not performing public functions may equally be imputable, if they in fact acted under the direction or control of the State although the act need not be authorised by the state authorities.
For instance, where there is a breakdown of normal governmental authority and control, such as in so-called "failed states", the actions of those acting as the "government" in a de facto sense will be acts of the state.
The acts of an "insurrectional or other movement that becomes the new government of an existing state or succeeds in establishing a new state" can also be attributed to the state.
This is also the case where a state acknowledges and adopts the conduct of private persons as its own. If private persons, elements or groups within a state engage in acts the government is not responsible except when the government rather than condemn the act praises or associates itself with it.
For instance if a Ghanaian rogue attacks a British intern in Ghana, the government will not be responsible for that act except when the act was committed by a soldier or policeman.
Under such a circumstance, the state is held as such. This was what happened in the Iran-US case when militants attacked the US embassy. In that case, the International Court held that the initial attack by the militants could not be imputed to the state. However, the subsequent approval by Ayatollah Khomeni and other state organs of Iran translated the acts into state act.
Article five of the ILC Draft Article provides that the conduct of any state organ having that status under its municipal law is considered as an act of the state concerned where the organ was acting in that capacity.
Similarly, ultra vires acts may be imputed to a state even if it is established that the act was beyond the legal limits or capacity of officers involved provided they acted as competent officials.
There is no denying the fact that Ghanaians and other West African nationals in their bid to get to Europe use other African countries as transit where some of them die under very horrifying circumstances.
Therefore, to mistake our befallen brothers for mercenaries is neither here nor there. I have not heard the Gambia deny the killings except to justify these senseless killings for acts of certain mercenaries, which is no justification anyway.
Only last week, the Gambian consul in Ghana phoned in to a TV3 programme to express his country’s regret about the incident.
If anything at all, those people who were killed could have been arrested to face the municipal laws of Gambia after having been investigated. This was not done and for me, once the killers have been identified as coming from the fold of the Gambian security set up, that makes the Gambia responsible in every respect.
The MoU begs the question and should not be used to throw dust into the eyes of Ghanaians and the international community. President Jammeh should be made to face the music rather than camouflaging the matter with just contributing to the families of only six people alleged to have been killed.
Is the contribution a reparation or what? The choice of words is deceptive and to evade the issue at stake. Accepting responsibility makes the payment of reparation necessary and in such forms as in kind as was done in the Temple case involving Thailand and Cambodia, monetary contribution as in the I Am Alone case, which the Gambia is reinventing as a contribution.
To say the least, this is an insult to the integrity of the people of Ghana and unacceptable. Definitely, the issue should not be left to rot. It must be pursued to its logical conclusion.
The breach of an international obligation entails legal consequences thus it creates new obligations for the breaching state, principally, duties of cessation and non-repetition (Draft Article 30), and a duty to make full reparation (Draft Article 31).
If illegal actions are continuing, the state has a duty to cease, which has been done.
The Gambia cannot rely on the defence of self defence because those killed were in no way armed or posed any threat to the security of that country. If they had been arrested while armed then probably it could rely on this defence.
And resolving to arrest the perpetrators in the Gambia is good but flawed in the sense that that should not be used to deflate the tension and also make nonsense of the law.
That is a matter between the government of Gambia and its citizens but as far as international law annd the international community are concerned, it has done wrong and need to be held responsible for that wrong.
It must acknowledge that fact before passing the buck.
When news about the alleged killing of the Ghanaians and other West African nationals in the Gambia was broken, many issues cropped up with some Ghanaians suggesting the extreme that Ghana should attack that country.
Those who suggested attack as the solution to the problem put up arguments that the Gambia was no country that could match the might of Ghana in military terms.
Matters have been compounded the more with the release of a report of the UN/ECOWAS about the complicity of the Gambia in the matter.
In the MoU signed in Sirte, the Gambia has offered to contribute to the families of the six people that that country accepted were indeed killed.
The Gambia has denied any wrongdoing in the matter to warrant any condemnation and even to accept responsibility except that it attributed the action to self defence and blamed it on some elements within its security set up. Their action was to quell the activities of certain mercenaries thought to be on a mission to overthrow the government of President Yahaya Jammeh.
This article will consider the issue of state responsibility under international law and whether or not the Gambia should be held responsible for the killing of the innocent Ghanaians and other nationals.
The laws of state responsibility are the broad and basic rules that govern when and how a state should be held responsible for any infraction of international dimension.
Rather than set forth any particular obligations, the rules of state responsibility determine, in general, when an obligation has been breached and the legal consequences thereafter; they establish the conditions for an act to qualify as internationally wrongful, the circumstances under which actions of officials, private individuals and other entities may be attributed to the state. They also set out general defences to liability and the consequences of liability.
It is these conditions that this article will address itself to.
With the adoption of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ("Draft Articles") by the International Law Commission (ILC) in August 2001, the theory of the law of state responsibility has come a long way in its development.
The International Court of Justice has long held on the issue of state responsibility in such cases as the Spanish Zone of Morocco Claims, and the Chorzow Factory case, in which the issue of reparation was made very clear.
Some other older cases and commentaries have discussed whether state responsibility is based on notions of fault or strict liability. These include the Home Missionary Society Claims, the Neer Claim case and the Caire Claim case.
It may be said that states are more "strictly liable" for the actions of their officials than for the actions of private individuals where in the latter case, it may be necessary to prove some "failure to control" the private individuals (i.e. "fault") before the state itself is held responsible.
In the strict liability sense, the principle of objective responsibility holds that once an unlawful act has been committed by an agent of the state that state should be responsible to the state suffering the damage.
This position was rejected in the Neer Claim case while the Caire Claim case upheld the test.
Before a state can be held responsible for any action, it is necessary to prove a causal connection between the injury and an official act or omission attributable to the state alleged to be in breach of its obligations.
This has become an increasingly significant contemporary issue, due to non-state actors such as civil society groups, multinational corporations, and non-governmental organisations, as well as militant groups, which play greater international roles.
The state is responsible for all actions of its officials and organs, even if the organ or official is formally independent and is acting ultra vires.
Persons or entities not classified as organs of the State may still be imputable, when they are otherwise empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority, and act in that capacity in the particular instance.
Persons or entities not performing public functions may equally be imputable, if they in fact acted under the direction or control of the State although the act need not be authorised by the state authorities.
For instance, where there is a breakdown of normal governmental authority and control, such as in so-called "failed states", the actions of those acting as the "government" in a de facto sense will be acts of the state.
The acts of an "insurrectional or other movement that becomes the new government of an existing state or succeeds in establishing a new state" can also be attributed to the state.
This is also the case where a state acknowledges and adopts the conduct of private persons as its own. If private persons, elements or groups within a state engage in acts the government is not responsible except when the government rather than condemn the act praises or associates itself with it.
For instance if a Ghanaian rogue attacks a British intern in Ghana, the government will not be responsible for that act except when the act was committed by a soldier or policeman.
Under such a circumstance, the state is held as such. This was what happened in the Iran-US case when militants attacked the US embassy. In that case, the International Court held that the initial attack by the militants could not be imputed to the state. However, the subsequent approval by Ayatollah Khomeni and other state organs of Iran translated the acts into state act.
Article five of the ILC Draft Article provides that the conduct of any state organ having that status under its municipal law is considered as an act of the state concerned where the organ was acting in that capacity.
Similarly, ultra vires acts may be imputed to a state even if it is established that the act was beyond the legal limits or capacity of officers involved provided they acted as competent officials.
There is no denying the fact that Ghanaians and other West African nationals in their bid to get to Europe use other African countries as transit where some of them die under very horrifying circumstances.
Therefore, to mistake our befallen brothers for mercenaries is neither here nor there. I have not heard the Gambia deny the killings except to justify these senseless killings for acts of certain mercenaries, which is no justification anyway.
Only last week, the Gambian consul in Ghana phoned in to a TV3 programme to express his country’s regret about the incident.
If anything at all, those people who were killed could have been arrested to face the municipal laws of Gambia after having been investigated. This was not done and for me, once the killers have been identified as coming from the fold of the Gambian security set up, that makes the Gambia responsible in every respect.
The MoU begs the question and should not be used to throw dust into the eyes of Ghanaians and the international community. President Jammeh should be made to face the music rather than camouflaging the matter with just contributing to the families of only six people alleged to have been killed.
Is the contribution a reparation or what? The choice of words is deceptive and to evade the issue at stake. Accepting responsibility makes the payment of reparation necessary and in such forms as in kind as was done in the Temple case involving Thailand and Cambodia, monetary contribution as in the I Am Alone case, which the Gambia is reinventing as a contribution.
To say the least, this is an insult to the integrity of the people of Ghana and unacceptable. Definitely, the issue should not be left to rot. It must be pursued to its logical conclusion.
The breach of an international obligation entails legal consequences thus it creates new obligations for the breaching state, principally, duties of cessation and non-repetition (Draft Article 30), and a duty to make full reparation (Draft Article 31).
If illegal actions are continuing, the state has a duty to cease, which has been done.
The Gambia cannot rely on the defence of self defence because those killed were in no way armed or posed any threat to the security of that country. If they had been arrested while armed then probably it could rely on this defence.
And resolving to arrest the perpetrators in the Gambia is good but flawed in the sense that that should not be used to deflate the tension and also make nonsense of the law.
That is a matter between the government of Gambia and its citizens but as far as international law annd the international community are concerned, it has done wrong and need to be held responsible for that wrong.
It must acknowledge that fact before passing the buck.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Am on a short leave
It's been quite a long time that I have appeared on this page.
One may wonder why but am currently on my legal leave to do something for the future legally. Will definetly be back with a boom.
Cheers and can equally reach me via sahstephen2002@yahoo.co.uk
One may wonder why but am currently on my legal leave to do something for the future legally. Will definetly be back with a boom.
Cheers and can equally reach me via sahstephen2002@yahoo.co.uk
Friday, March 14, 2008
RAINSTORM WAS NORMAL - METEO DEPT
PUBLISHED ABOUT A WEEK AGO
The Meteorological Services Department has described the rainstorm that hit the northern parts of Accra and other areas of the country as a normal phenomenon, especially as the country moves away from the dry season.
Mr Amos Narh, a Senior Meteorologist told Daily Graphic that the occurrence was bound to happen in this transitional period of the year.
He said the rains also affected areas in the Eastern, Central and Western regions and Abetifi, for instance, recorded 46.1 mm, Asamankese 34.2 mm and Assin Fosu in the Central Region, 37.2 mm while Axim in the Western Region recorded the highest rainfall figure of 55.7 mm.
According to him, what happened was a local development, particularly over the high grounds and forest regions and it was an indication that the country was about to enter the rainy season.
He said more of what happened should be expected especially in the afternoons when the South Westerly winds become more stronger.
Mr Narh said that hilly areas should also expect the occurrence in the evenings and late afternoons.
He said the heavy rains that moved from the east to the west of the country would be experienced later in the year and there was the need to take precautionary measures to avoid the perennial floods in Accra.
The senior meteorologist said since parts of Accra got flooded in the peak of the rains, the drains and gutters should be desilted so that water ways would be free to enable rainwater to flow.
The Meteorological Services Department has described the rainstorm that hit the northern parts of Accra and other areas of the country as a normal phenomenon, especially as the country moves away from the dry season.
Mr Amos Narh, a Senior Meteorologist told Daily Graphic that the occurrence was bound to happen in this transitional period of the year.
He said the rains also affected areas in the Eastern, Central and Western regions and Abetifi, for instance, recorded 46.1 mm, Asamankese 34.2 mm and Assin Fosu in the Central Region, 37.2 mm while Axim in the Western Region recorded the highest rainfall figure of 55.7 mm.
According to him, what happened was a local development, particularly over the high grounds and forest regions and it was an indication that the country was about to enter the rainy season.
He said more of what happened should be expected especially in the afternoons when the South Westerly winds become more stronger.
Mr Narh said that hilly areas should also expect the occurrence in the evenings and late afternoons.
He said the heavy rains that moved from the east to the west of the country would be experienced later in the year and there was the need to take precautionary measures to avoid the perennial floods in Accra.
The senior meteorologist said since parts of Accra got flooded in the peak of the rains, the drains and gutters should be desilted so that water ways would be free to enable rainwater to flow.
NATIONAL LOTTO AUTHORITY RESTRAINED BY COURT
AN Accra High Court today granted an interlocutory injunction filed by the Ghana Lotto Operators Association and six others to restrain the National Lottery Authority (NLA) from interfering with the property rights or lotto operating business of those concerned.
However, according to the court, the order would be in force for one month during which the registrar of the court should take steps to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abadah said the order would elapse after the one month whether the matter had been referred to the highest court of the land or not .
According to the court, the outcome of the case in the Supreme Court would guide it in its decision in the case because the issue of constitutionality had been raised by the NLA.
The plaintiffs including Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From-Home Enterprises filed the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from “interfering with the property rights or lotto operating business of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of this matter.”
The matter was dealt with by a High Court in September last year, which referred the parties to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the directive from the National Lottery Authority to private lotto operators to surrender machines or equipment used for the operation of lottery to the Director-General by August 14, 2007 was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable.
Consequent to the order, they want an order to set aside that directive and a further order to restrain the NLA from “unlawfully, unconstitutionally or unreasonably interfering with the property rights of the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs maintain that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), which outlawed the operations of lotto business by private lotto operators, infringes the constitutionally guaranteed right of the private lotto operators to free economic activity.
According to them, the creation of the National Lottery Authority to take over and monopolise the operation of the lotto business in Ghana infringed the constitutional injunction to the government to ensure a pronounced role of the private sector in the economy.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, said they had been in private lotto operating business since 1989 and currently had a large number of employees and independent agents who conduct business for them or assist them in the operation of their lotto business.
According to them, the NLA in July advertised in the media about its establishment and said it was the only body that was mandated under the Act to operate lotto business in the country.
Plaintiffs contend that they had their own marketing agents and could not be easily relegated to the position of lotto marketing agents.
The advertisement, they claimed, also directed all persons, who before Act 722 came into force had their own machine or equipment for lottery business to surrender such equipment to the Director-General of NLA before August 14.
“The machines or equipment in question are our own property acquired with our own resources. We do not only have assets but also liabilities that cannot be severed from the assets,” they contended.
To them, the NLA did not negotiate with them as stipulated by Act 722 regarding the machines or equipment .
The plaintiffs said they could neither be compelled to surrender their property to the NLA nor can the defendant compulsorily acquire their property without prior agreement as to compensation and other consequence.
However, according to the court, the order would be in force for one month during which the registrar of the court should take steps to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abadah said the order would elapse after the one month whether the matter had been referred to the highest court of the land or not .
According to the court, the outcome of the case in the Supreme Court would guide it in its decision in the case because the issue of constitutionality had been raised by the NLA.
The plaintiffs including Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From-Home Enterprises filed the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from “interfering with the property rights or lotto operating business of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of this matter.”
The matter was dealt with by a High Court in September last year, which referred the parties to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the directive from the National Lottery Authority to private lotto operators to surrender machines or equipment used for the operation of lottery to the Director-General by August 14, 2007 was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable.
Consequent to the order, they want an order to set aside that directive and a further order to restrain the NLA from “unlawfully, unconstitutionally or unreasonably interfering with the property rights of the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs maintain that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), which outlawed the operations of lotto business by private lotto operators, infringes the constitutionally guaranteed right of the private lotto operators to free economic activity.
According to them, the creation of the National Lottery Authority to take over and monopolise the operation of the lotto business in Ghana infringed the constitutional injunction to the government to ensure a pronounced role of the private sector in the economy.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, said they had been in private lotto operating business since 1989 and currently had a large number of employees and independent agents who conduct business for them or assist them in the operation of their lotto business.
According to them, the NLA in July advertised in the media about its establishment and said it was the only body that was mandated under the Act to operate lotto business in the country.
Plaintiffs contend that they had their own marketing agents and could not be easily relegated to the position of lotto marketing agents.
The advertisement, they claimed, also directed all persons, who before Act 722 came into force had their own machine or equipment for lottery business to surrender such equipment to the Director-General of NLA before August 14.
“The machines or equipment in question are our own property acquired with our own resources. We do not only have assets but also liabilities that cannot be severed from the assets,” they contended.
To them, the NLA did not negotiate with them as stipulated by Act 722 regarding the machines or equipment .
The plaintiffs said they could neither be compelled to surrender their property to the NLA nor can the defendant compulsorily acquire their property without prior agreement as to compensation and other consequence.
JUDICIAL SERVICE INAUGURATES CLERKSHIP PROGRAMME
THE Judicial Service has inaugurated a clerkship programme to engage newly qualified lawyers to work with Justices of the Superior Courts.
The services that the Judicial Clerks would perform include legal research, drafting of memoranda, court opinions, proof reading and verification of references and citations.
The programme is being implemented by the Judicial Service in collaboration with the Faculties of Law of Fordham University in New York, USA and the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).
The engagement is initially for one year and renewable depending on a number of conditions and factors.
It is based on the clerkship system in the US courts where the lawyers engaged were selected from the best graduates from the Law School.
For a start, four of such clerks were inaugurated into office in Accra yesterday and were each given a personal computer to work with.
In his inaugural address, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, a justice of the Supreme Court, urged the first batch of clerks to give their best in order to improve the quality of justice delivery in the superior courts.
The Judiciary, he noted, experimented with a similar programme in the 80s but could not be sustained for a number of reasons, among which was that the judges could not vouch for the confidentiality of the clerks.
Mr Justice Brobbey said following that the judges were not prepared to take risks with the new lawyers around them as far as leaking information on judgements before they were read publicly was concerned.
The services that the Judicial Clerks would perform include legal research, drafting of memoranda, court opinions, proof reading and verification of references and citations.
The programme is being implemented by the Judicial Service in collaboration with the Faculties of Law of Fordham University in New York, USA and the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).
The engagement is initially for one year and renewable depending on a number of conditions and factors.
It is based on the clerkship system in the US courts where the lawyers engaged were selected from the best graduates from the Law School.
For a start, four of such clerks were inaugurated into office in Accra yesterday and were each given a personal computer to work with.
In his inaugural address, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, a justice of the Supreme Court, urged the first batch of clerks to give their best in order to improve the quality of justice delivery in the superior courts.
The Judiciary, he noted, experimented with a similar programme in the 80s but could not be sustained for a number of reasons, among which was that the judges could not vouch for the confidentiality of the clerks.
Mr Justice Brobbey said following that the judges were not prepared to take risks with the new lawyers around them as far as leaking information on judgements before they were read publicly was concerned.
MAN JAILED 25 YEARS FOR ABUSING DAUGHTER
A 36-year-old father of four, Joseph Adotey, who sexually abused his 11-year-old daughter and made her pregnant has been jailed 25 years by an Accra Circuit Court.
Medical reports indicated that the class five pupil tested positive for pregnancy but she had been bleeding following physical assault on her by the father.
A further test would be conducted by doctors today to find out whether there is a threat of miscarriage or not.
Adotey was arrested after his daughter had reported his conduct to a Good Samaritan who reported him to the Odorkor branch of the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DVVSU) of the Ghana Police Service.
He admitted the offence but attributed it to the devil.
Adotey pleaded guilty to charges of incest, defilement and assault and was accordingly convicted and sentenced to 25 years to run concurrently.
The facts of the case are that Adotey lived with his four children at Darkuman Cable in Accra and last week, the victim reported to the Good Samaritan that her father had had sex with her for four times, the last, being on February 8, 2008.
When the girl went home she narrated what had transpired between her and the Good Samaritan to her other siblings who also informed their father about it.
According to the prosecution, Adotey did not take kindly to that and subjected the victim to severe physical assault and packed her personal belongings, threatening to burn them.
The Good Samaritan then reported Adotey to the police and he was arrested.
He told the court that he had a problem with his wife who had gone to her hometown, Gomoa Abofu in the Central Region.
The victim had been handed over to a responsible adult to take care of her.
Medical reports indicated that the class five pupil tested positive for pregnancy but she had been bleeding following physical assault on her by the father.
A further test would be conducted by doctors today to find out whether there is a threat of miscarriage or not.
Adotey was arrested after his daughter had reported his conduct to a Good Samaritan who reported him to the Odorkor branch of the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DVVSU) of the Ghana Police Service.
He admitted the offence but attributed it to the devil.
Adotey pleaded guilty to charges of incest, defilement and assault and was accordingly convicted and sentenced to 25 years to run concurrently.
The facts of the case are that Adotey lived with his four children at Darkuman Cable in Accra and last week, the victim reported to the Good Samaritan that her father had had sex with her for four times, the last, being on February 8, 2008.
When the girl went home she narrated what had transpired between her and the Good Samaritan to her other siblings who also informed their father about it.
According to the prosecution, Adotey did not take kindly to that and subjected the victim to severe physical assault and packed her personal belongings, threatening to burn them.
The Good Samaritan then reported Adotey to the police and he was arrested.
He told the court that he had a problem with his wife who had gone to her hometown, Gomoa Abofu in the Central Region.
The victim had been handed over to a responsible adult to take care of her.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
SHIPPING MAGNATE'S SON CONVICTED
AFTER nine months in custody, Haleem Banda, a businessman was today sentenced to one years’ imprisonment and a fine of GH¢6,000 for threat of death and unlawful possession of arms and ammunition.
The Accra Fast Track High Court said the sentence is to take retrospective effect from June 12, 2007, when the 32-year-old managing director of a company in Tema and son of Alhaji Asuma Banda, the shipping magnate was arrested.
The effect of the sentence is that if Banda is able to pay the fine, he would walk a free man, according to the prison calender.
The court convicted him on the two counts of possession of arms and ammunition and fined him 500 penalty units (GH¢12 per penalty unit) to run concurrently.
Banda was arrested for a nightclub brawl and faced two counts of threat of death and another two counts of possession of arms and ammunition without authority.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges but after the trial the court found him guilty on three of the counts and accordingly convicted him.
He was, however, acquitted and discharged on one count of threat of death.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge took into consideration the fact that Banda was not known to the law and offered him the opportunity to start his life afresh.
According to the prosecution, on June 10, 2007 at about 1:30 a.m., the accused person stormed the Cinderella Nightclub in Cantonments and threatened, Kofi Okyere Darko (KOD), a broadcaster, and Kiki Banson, a businessman, 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.
On June 12, 2007, Banda was said to have in his possession four live pistol ammunition without authority while he also had in his possession a pump action gun with an expired licence.
Regarding the first count of threat of death relating to KOD, the court held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredients in the particulars and the impression was that other people heard the gunshots fired by Banda while he was also seen with the pistol, which was later confiscated by the police.
That evidence, the court said, was at variance with what Banda said; that the pistol had been confiscated by the police about seven years earlier.
The court said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the second count of threat of death on Mr Banson did not match the particulars of that offence and was not credible enough.
It said the evidence relating to both counts of possession indicated that Banda possessed the arms and ammunition which had an expired permit.
Counsel for the convict, Mr Addo Atuah prayed the court to be lenient with his client because there was no evidence of any physical injury to any person in respect of the count of threat of death while he was also a first offender and a young man who had already spent nine months in custody.
The Accra Fast Track High Court said the sentence is to take retrospective effect from June 12, 2007, when the 32-year-old managing director of a company in Tema and son of Alhaji Asuma Banda, the shipping magnate was arrested.
The effect of the sentence is that if Banda is able to pay the fine, he would walk a free man, according to the prison calender.
The court convicted him on the two counts of possession of arms and ammunition and fined him 500 penalty units (GH¢12 per penalty unit) to run concurrently.
Banda was arrested for a nightclub brawl and faced two counts of threat of death and another two counts of possession of arms and ammunition without authority.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges but after the trial the court found him guilty on three of the counts and accordingly convicted him.
He was, however, acquitted and discharged on one count of threat of death.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge took into consideration the fact that Banda was not known to the law and offered him the opportunity to start his life afresh.
According to the prosecution, on June 10, 2007 at about 1:30 a.m., the accused person stormed the Cinderella Nightclub in Cantonments and threatened, Kofi Okyere Darko (KOD), a broadcaster, and Kiki Banson, a businessman, 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.
On June 12, 2007, Banda was said to have in his possession four live pistol ammunition without authority while he also had in his possession a pump action gun with an expired licence.
Regarding the first count of threat of death relating to KOD, the court held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredients in the particulars and the impression was that other people heard the gunshots fired by Banda while he was also seen with the pistol, which was later confiscated by the police.
That evidence, the court said, was at variance with what Banda said; that the pistol had been confiscated by the police about seven years earlier.
The court said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the second count of threat of death on Mr Banson did not match the particulars of that offence and was not credible enough.
It said the evidence relating to both counts of possession indicated that Banda possessed the arms and ammunition which had an expired permit.
Counsel for the convict, Mr Addo Atuah prayed the court to be lenient with his client because there was no evidence of any physical injury to any person in respect of the count of threat of death while he was also a first offender and a young man who had already spent nine months in custody.
BARCLAYS BANK MD IN COURT
THE Managing Director of Barclays Bank Limited, Margaret Mwanakate and the Head of Human Resources Business Partner, Laureen Lokko, has appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank following the pendency of a motion for injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
After hearing the arguments of lawyers of both parties, the court fixed April 16, 2008, to rule on the matter.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo, and Matthew Kotoku.
According to Mr Albert Adaare, counsel for the applicants, the respondents were in contempt of the court because they prevented the affected workers from going to work and violated provisions in their collective bargaining agreement that suspended employees shall continue to report to his or her nearest branch and during the period be paid their full salary.
He said that respondents were aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for the respondents, Mr Charles Hayibor, described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the applicants were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the applicants had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008, an assertion which was disproved by Mr Adaare that although the affected workers had been paid their January salaries they were paid for only 10 days in February.
The disagreement between the applicants and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the applicants in support of the motion for contempt said that on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective bargaining agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily was were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the applicants, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers as trade union leaders within the bank.
The applicants said that on February, 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said that the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner, were personally aware of the pendency of the application for injunction.
In spite of their knowledge, the applicants said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded and treated with disdain the application, which was a sacred process of the court.
The said that for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances, which they said the bank described as monthly salaries.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank following the pendency of a motion for injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
After hearing the arguments of lawyers of both parties, the court fixed April 16, 2008, to rule on the matter.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo, and Matthew Kotoku.
According to Mr Albert Adaare, counsel for the applicants, the respondents were in contempt of the court because they prevented the affected workers from going to work and violated provisions in their collective bargaining agreement that suspended employees shall continue to report to his or her nearest branch and during the period be paid their full salary.
He said that respondents were aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for the respondents, Mr Charles Hayibor, described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the applicants were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the applicants had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008, an assertion which was disproved by Mr Adaare that although the affected workers had been paid their January salaries they were paid for only 10 days in February.
The disagreement between the applicants and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the applicants in support of the motion for contempt said that on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective bargaining agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily was were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the applicants, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers as trade union leaders within the bank.
The applicants said that on February, 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said that the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner, were personally aware of the pendency of the application for injunction.
In spite of their knowledge, the applicants said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded and treated with disdain the application, which was a sacred process of the court.
The said that for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances, which they said the bank described as monthly salaries.
TOUR OPERATOR LIAISES WITH FOREIGN MINISTRY TO BRING BACK STRANDED PASSENGERS
SEASONS Travel and Tours (STT), the tour operator responsible for the 153 stranded passengers in Barbados, is liaising with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to get them transit visas to return home via Europe.
The Manager of the company, Mr Eric Bannerman, said last Friday that the passengers included Nigerians, Jamaicans, Ghanaians and Canadians who were returning to their destinations and that the actual passengers who would return to Ghana were about 30.
He said the company was paying for their accommodation in decent guest houses while it awaited the arrangements with the Foreign Ministry.
Mr Bannerman was responding to questions on arrangements to bring back the passengers, especially when Ghana International Airlines Limited (GIA) had denied that the passengers were its passengers.
According to the airline, it did not have any contractual relationship with the passengers because the passengers bought their tickets from STT.
“GIA did not either directly or indirectly sell tickets to the passengers,” it said in reaction by its acting CEO, Ms Gifty Annan-Myers, to protest about the headline of the story which portrayed the GIA as being responsible for the passengers.
The GIA said STT contracted the airline to transport its passengers to and from Barbados upon the payment of an agreed consideration fare (charter price) at seven days before each flight. The GIA under the agreement was to undertake two return flights to Barbados.
The first flight, according to GIA, left Accra on January 31, 2008 with 151 passengers and returned with no passengers to Accra on February 1, 2008 and STT paid the fixed portion of the charter price for that while the reimbursable expenses were yet to be paid by STT.
It said the second flight from Accra to Bridgetown was scheduled for February 15, 2008. However, STT had so far not been able to pay GIA the charter price.
The GIA said the problem had arisen because the Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport was demanding that STT repatriate the passengers who landed on February 1, 2008 before it would be allowed to bring in any more passengers.
It said STT insisted that it would run into huge financial loss if it did not put passengers on the aircraft that would fly from Accra to that country to bring the first group to Accra.
In view of the development, GIA said it offered to carry the passengers at an agreed fare on its schedule flight from London Gatwick to Accra if STT transported them from Bridgetown to London.
The GIA said that it was informed by STT that 19 of the 151 passengers were willing and ready to return to Accra and in pursuance of that GIA, upon a request from STT, wrote to the British High Commission in Bridgetown on February 22, 2008 confirming that seats had been reserved for all the 19 passengers on GIA flight from London to Accra on February 23, 2008.
But the visas were not issued because the British consulate needed additional documentation.
After two postponements of the return flight on February 15 and February 29, 2008, the passengers were reported to have run out of money and many of them have resorted to working illegally as labourers.
Barbados government officials said some of the passengers had officially requested for work permits to allow them to support themselves while in that country.
The Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport has stated that it is doing everything to ensure that the stranded passengers return home successfully.
“The first indication received by the Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport of any intention to operate a direct charter service from Ghana to Barbados was an e-mail application dated January 17, 2008 from the GIA, in association with Seasons Travel and Tours, to permit a charter tour operation into Barbados on January 20, 2008 and depart the next day,” a government statement said.
Having received the application, the ministry said it queried the actual period of the tour, since no return date had been given, but on January 28, 2008, a revised application was received from the GIA, stating in part that the revised dates were now January 31, 2008, with a subsequent service on February 15 to return passengers.
It said on January 29, 2008, the GIA advised the ministry that it should expect 160 passengers in Barbados on January 31, 2008, out of which 40 would be proceeding to other Caribbean countries via alternative arrangements.
The remaining 120 were to return to Ghana on the flight on February 15, 2008.
Based on the arrangement and exchanges, a permit for the charter was issued to the GIA and, according to immigration documents, 153 passengers were landed in Barbados from the GIA flight, including those going to other Caribbean countries.
The Barbados government said the local ground handling agency for Seasons Travel and Tours had been very proactive in efforts to repatriate the passengers, while it was taking urgent steps, through Ghana’s High Commission, towards the speedy repatriation of the stranded passengers.
The Manager of the company, Mr Eric Bannerman, said last Friday that the passengers included Nigerians, Jamaicans, Ghanaians and Canadians who were returning to their destinations and that the actual passengers who would return to Ghana were about 30.
He said the company was paying for their accommodation in decent guest houses while it awaited the arrangements with the Foreign Ministry.
Mr Bannerman was responding to questions on arrangements to bring back the passengers, especially when Ghana International Airlines Limited (GIA) had denied that the passengers were its passengers.
According to the airline, it did not have any contractual relationship with the passengers because the passengers bought their tickets from STT.
“GIA did not either directly or indirectly sell tickets to the passengers,” it said in reaction by its acting CEO, Ms Gifty Annan-Myers, to protest about the headline of the story which portrayed the GIA as being responsible for the passengers.
The GIA said STT contracted the airline to transport its passengers to and from Barbados upon the payment of an agreed consideration fare (charter price) at seven days before each flight. The GIA under the agreement was to undertake two return flights to Barbados.
The first flight, according to GIA, left Accra on January 31, 2008 with 151 passengers and returned with no passengers to Accra on February 1, 2008 and STT paid the fixed portion of the charter price for that while the reimbursable expenses were yet to be paid by STT.
It said the second flight from Accra to Bridgetown was scheduled for February 15, 2008. However, STT had so far not been able to pay GIA the charter price.
The GIA said the problem had arisen because the Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport was demanding that STT repatriate the passengers who landed on February 1, 2008 before it would be allowed to bring in any more passengers.
It said STT insisted that it would run into huge financial loss if it did not put passengers on the aircraft that would fly from Accra to that country to bring the first group to Accra.
In view of the development, GIA said it offered to carry the passengers at an agreed fare on its schedule flight from London Gatwick to Accra if STT transported them from Bridgetown to London.
The GIA said that it was informed by STT that 19 of the 151 passengers were willing and ready to return to Accra and in pursuance of that GIA, upon a request from STT, wrote to the British High Commission in Bridgetown on February 22, 2008 confirming that seats had been reserved for all the 19 passengers on GIA flight from London to Accra on February 23, 2008.
But the visas were not issued because the British consulate needed additional documentation.
After two postponements of the return flight on February 15 and February 29, 2008, the passengers were reported to have run out of money and many of them have resorted to working illegally as labourers.
Barbados government officials said some of the passengers had officially requested for work permits to allow them to support themselves while in that country.
The Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport has stated that it is doing everything to ensure that the stranded passengers return home successfully.
“The first indication received by the Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport of any intention to operate a direct charter service from Ghana to Barbados was an e-mail application dated January 17, 2008 from the GIA, in association with Seasons Travel and Tours, to permit a charter tour operation into Barbados on January 20, 2008 and depart the next day,” a government statement said.
Having received the application, the ministry said it queried the actual period of the tour, since no return date had been given, but on January 28, 2008, a revised application was received from the GIA, stating in part that the revised dates were now January 31, 2008, with a subsequent service on February 15 to return passengers.
It said on January 29, 2008, the GIA advised the ministry that it should expect 160 passengers in Barbados on January 31, 2008, out of which 40 would be proceeding to other Caribbean countries via alternative arrangements.
The remaining 120 were to return to Ghana on the flight on February 15, 2008.
Based on the arrangement and exchanges, a permit for the charter was issued to the GIA and, according to immigration documents, 153 passengers were landed in Barbados from the GIA flight, including those going to other Caribbean countries.
The Barbados government said the local ground handling agency for Seasons Travel and Tours had been very proactive in efforts to repatriate the passengers, while it was taking urgent steps, through Ghana’s High Commission, towards the speedy repatriation of the stranded passengers.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
SMART TURN OUT AT NATIONAL PARADE
A SMART turnout of schoolchildren and security agencies at the Independence Square in Accra yesterday climaxed the celebration of Ghana’s 51 years of independence.
The ceremony, which attracted a massive gathering of people from all walks of life, showcased military hardware and Ghanaian culture in dress and dance.
On show were armoured vehicles, multi-rocket launchers, jet fighters, Fokker 27 transport planes and police crowd control vehicles, among others.
Most of those who attended the ceremony were dressed in either kente, smock or white cloth as part of their show of patriotism and respect for the country.
At exactly 8.30 am, the President, dressed in a black suit over blue shirt with a multicoloured neck tie to match, and his wife Theresa emerged from the Ohene Djan Sports Stadium end of the square in his sleek black presidential Mercedes Benz.
His car was ushered in to the ceremonial grounds by a large motorcade and police personnel on beautifully decorated horses to add colour to the occasion, the last by President Kufuor, after what many have described as dedicated service to the nation.
Before his arrival, the Vice President, Alhaji Aliu Mahama, gorgeously dressed in his white ‘agbada’ with a black Muslim hat to match, and his wife Ramatu arrived to an abridged national salute by the mass band.
The President, on his arrival, immediately took the national salute and retired to his seat after exchanging pleasantries with some of the VVIP dignitaries, including The Speaker of Parliament, Mr Ebenezer Sakyi-Hughes, his wife, and the Chief Justice, Mrs Goergina Woode.
That set the tone for the commencement of proceedings for the simple but very colourful parade.
Traditional and Christian prayers were offered by pupils from the Osu Klottey sub-metropolis, while pupils from Ayawaso sub-metropolis also offered the Muslim prayers for peace and unity, a violence-free elections in the country and wisdom and vision for the nation’s leaders.
After that, President Kufuor, accompanied by the Inspector General of Police, Mr Patrick Kwarteng Acheampong, Chief of Defence Staff, Lt Gen J.B. Dankwa and the Ministers of the Interior and Defence, inspected the contingent and later lit the national flame at the Cenotaph for the unknown soldier.
A social dance of the Nzemas and the Ahantas from the Western Region, Kundum, was performed by pupils from the Chemuna and Sempe Junior High Schools in the Ablekuma sub-metropolis while pupils from the Labone SDA Preparatory School in Accra entertained the crowd to a splendid gymnastic activity in which the group wrote “51” and “So far so good”, probably to indicate Ghana’s achievement through the years.
A contingent of 45 officers and 900 other ranks drawn from the Ghana Armed Forces, Ghana Air Force, Navy, Police, Immigration Service, Ghana National Fire Service, Prisons Service and Customs Excise and Preventive Service, as well as the a Ghana Education Service (GES) contingent of 32 teachers and 480 schoolchildren. took part in the parade.
The GES contingent was made up of basic schools from Ablekuma North, Osu Klottey, 5 Garrison and Kpeshie sub-metropolis and two private schools, an HIV/AIDS awareness group and a special group from the Dzorwulu Special School.
The others were second cycle schools such as Accra High, Ebenezer Secondary School and Presbyterian Secondary School at La.
The Army cadet from Kinbu Secondary Technical, Navy Cadet from Labone Secondary School, Air Force cadet from Odorgonno Secondary School and Police cadet from Depot/Airport Basic School were also at the parade.
The parade was under the command of Brig Gen Austin Apogan-Yella and had the mass band of the central bands of the Ghana Armed Forces, Ghana Police, the Ghana Navy and the Ghana Air Force, as well as the GES Accra Metro School band providing music.
It was attended by people from all walks of life, including Ministers of State, Members of Parliament, traditional rulers, members of the Bar and the Bench, clergymen and politicians, and members of the Diplomatic Corps.
During the march past by the contingents, they formed a line to spell “Ayekoo”, meaning well done while the Ghana Armed Forces and Ghana Police Service displayed their might in working apparatus.
Some of the military equipment bore inscriptions such as” Ghana Armed Forces, Partners in development” and Ghana Armed Forces, Ensuring peace and stability”.
While the ceremony was on-going , the Ghana Armed Forces gave the crowd an added impetus of satisfaction when some helicopters and military aircraft simultaneously hovered past, spewing smoke of the national colours of red, gold and green.
At the same time, a Ghana Navy ship was sighted on the ocean doing some displays while the 21-gun salute also boomed in the background amidst cheers from the teeming crowd.
Before President Kufuor could deliver his last independence address, a student from the Armed Forces Secondary Technical performed a drum appellation, which was interpreted by a female student from the Labone Secondary School.
Some senior service commanders were presented with Ghana’s Golden Jubilee medals.
The ceremony, which attracted a massive gathering of people from all walks of life, showcased military hardware and Ghanaian culture in dress and dance.
On show were armoured vehicles, multi-rocket launchers, jet fighters, Fokker 27 transport planes and police crowd control vehicles, among others.
Most of those who attended the ceremony were dressed in either kente, smock or white cloth as part of their show of patriotism and respect for the country.
At exactly 8.30 am, the President, dressed in a black suit over blue shirt with a multicoloured neck tie to match, and his wife Theresa emerged from the Ohene Djan Sports Stadium end of the square in his sleek black presidential Mercedes Benz.
His car was ushered in to the ceremonial grounds by a large motorcade and police personnel on beautifully decorated horses to add colour to the occasion, the last by President Kufuor, after what many have described as dedicated service to the nation.
Before his arrival, the Vice President, Alhaji Aliu Mahama, gorgeously dressed in his white ‘agbada’ with a black Muslim hat to match, and his wife Ramatu arrived to an abridged national salute by the mass band.
The President, on his arrival, immediately took the national salute and retired to his seat after exchanging pleasantries with some of the VVIP dignitaries, including The Speaker of Parliament, Mr Ebenezer Sakyi-Hughes, his wife, and the Chief Justice, Mrs Goergina Woode.
That set the tone for the commencement of proceedings for the simple but very colourful parade.
Traditional and Christian prayers were offered by pupils from the Osu Klottey sub-metropolis, while pupils from Ayawaso sub-metropolis also offered the Muslim prayers for peace and unity, a violence-free elections in the country and wisdom and vision for the nation’s leaders.
After that, President Kufuor, accompanied by the Inspector General of Police, Mr Patrick Kwarteng Acheampong, Chief of Defence Staff, Lt Gen J.B. Dankwa and the Ministers of the Interior and Defence, inspected the contingent and later lit the national flame at the Cenotaph for the unknown soldier.
A social dance of the Nzemas and the Ahantas from the Western Region, Kundum, was performed by pupils from the Chemuna and Sempe Junior High Schools in the Ablekuma sub-metropolis while pupils from the Labone SDA Preparatory School in Accra entertained the crowd to a splendid gymnastic activity in which the group wrote “51” and “So far so good”, probably to indicate Ghana’s achievement through the years.
A contingent of 45 officers and 900 other ranks drawn from the Ghana Armed Forces, Ghana Air Force, Navy, Police, Immigration Service, Ghana National Fire Service, Prisons Service and Customs Excise and Preventive Service, as well as the a Ghana Education Service (GES) contingent of 32 teachers and 480 schoolchildren. took part in the parade.
The GES contingent was made up of basic schools from Ablekuma North, Osu Klottey, 5 Garrison and Kpeshie sub-metropolis and two private schools, an HIV/AIDS awareness group and a special group from the Dzorwulu Special School.
The others were second cycle schools such as Accra High, Ebenezer Secondary School and Presbyterian Secondary School at La.
The Army cadet from Kinbu Secondary Technical, Navy Cadet from Labone Secondary School, Air Force cadet from Odorgonno Secondary School and Police cadet from Depot/Airport Basic School were also at the parade.
The parade was under the command of Brig Gen Austin Apogan-Yella and had the mass band of the central bands of the Ghana Armed Forces, Ghana Police, the Ghana Navy and the Ghana Air Force, as well as the GES Accra Metro School band providing music.
It was attended by people from all walks of life, including Ministers of State, Members of Parliament, traditional rulers, members of the Bar and the Bench, clergymen and politicians, and members of the Diplomatic Corps.
During the march past by the contingents, they formed a line to spell “Ayekoo”, meaning well done while the Ghana Armed Forces and Ghana Police Service displayed their might in working apparatus.
Some of the military equipment bore inscriptions such as” Ghana Armed Forces, Partners in development” and Ghana Armed Forces, Ensuring peace and stability”.
While the ceremony was on-going , the Ghana Armed Forces gave the crowd an added impetus of satisfaction when some helicopters and military aircraft simultaneously hovered past, spewing smoke of the national colours of red, gold and green.
At the same time, a Ghana Navy ship was sighted on the ocean doing some displays while the 21-gun salute also boomed in the background amidst cheers from the teeming crowd.
Before President Kufuor could deliver his last independence address, a student from the Armed Forces Secondary Technical performed a drum appellation, which was interpreted by a female student from the Labone Secondary School.
Some senior service commanders were presented with Ghana’s Golden Jubilee medals.
COURT ISSUES WARRANT FOR ARREST OF PASTOR FOR DEFILEMENT
AN Accra circuit court has issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Pastor Nana Akwasi Agyeman who is accused of defiling eight girls under his care.
The court ignored pleas by counsel for Pastor Agyeman to stand the case down to enable them to provide evidence that the Man of God had been taken seriously ill and could not come to court.
Pastor Agyeman was alleged to have defiled the girls, aged between three and 12, between May and December 2006 at his St John’s residence near Dome in Accra.
The girls’ parents, who are all domiciled in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, were said to have arranged with the pastor to take care of the girls in Ghana.
Initially, the pastor faced eight counts of defilement and pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢50,000 with two sureties.
However, when the case was called yesterday, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi in six of the counts, which unconfirmed information said would form the basis of a fresh trial at the Fast Track High Court.
According to the facts of the case, Pastor Agyeman was the pastor of the Shiva Linga Church based in Abidjan. He also runs a prayer centre in Accra, along with being a herbalist.
The complainants are either members of his church or became associated with the pastor through his prayer centre.
The prosecution said the accused person lived in both Abidjan and Accra and that while in Accra, he lived with a number of children who were brought from Abidjan to live with him.
Pastor Agyeman is alleged to have secretly had sexual intercourse with the eight girls in his bedroom and bathroom.
The prosecution said he was found out when he had sex with a 12-year-old girl who visited him from Abidjan in December 2006.
The girl said while she was on holidays in Accra, the accused person defiled her and she, therefore, reported the matter to her parents when she returned to Abidjan.
She was alleged to have also said that the accused person had defiled most of the girls under his care and when their parents called them on telephone to enquire, the allegation was confirmed to them.
When the accused person was confronted with the allegation, he denied it, but two other parents whose children were said to have fallen victim came to Ghana and reported the matter to the police.
When the victims were issued with medical forms to undergo medical examination, doctors confirmed that all the eight girls had been defiled.
The court ignored pleas by counsel for Pastor Agyeman to stand the case down to enable them to provide evidence that the Man of God had been taken seriously ill and could not come to court.
Pastor Agyeman was alleged to have defiled the girls, aged between three and 12, between May and December 2006 at his St John’s residence near Dome in Accra.
The girls’ parents, who are all domiciled in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, were said to have arranged with the pastor to take care of the girls in Ghana.
Initially, the pastor faced eight counts of defilement and pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢50,000 with two sureties.
However, when the case was called yesterday, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi in six of the counts, which unconfirmed information said would form the basis of a fresh trial at the Fast Track High Court.
According to the facts of the case, Pastor Agyeman was the pastor of the Shiva Linga Church based in Abidjan. He also runs a prayer centre in Accra, along with being a herbalist.
The complainants are either members of his church or became associated with the pastor through his prayer centre.
The prosecution said the accused person lived in both Abidjan and Accra and that while in Accra, he lived with a number of children who were brought from Abidjan to live with him.
Pastor Agyeman is alleged to have secretly had sexual intercourse with the eight girls in his bedroom and bathroom.
The prosecution said he was found out when he had sex with a 12-year-old girl who visited him from Abidjan in December 2006.
The girl said while she was on holidays in Accra, the accused person defiled her and she, therefore, reported the matter to her parents when she returned to Abidjan.
She was alleged to have also said that the accused person had defiled most of the girls under his care and when their parents called them on telephone to enquire, the allegation was confirmed to them.
When the accused person was confronted with the allegation, he denied it, but two other parents whose children were said to have fallen victim came to Ghana and reported the matter to the police.
When the victims were issued with medical forms to undergo medical examination, doctors confirmed that all the eight girls had been defiled.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
AYIETA FAMILY TO SETTLE CASE OUT OF COURT
The Court of Appeal has granted leave to the Ayieta family of the Builsa Traditional Area to attempt an out of court settlement in the case involving Robert Atong Abekabta and others on one side and Alexis Tampuri Azantilow and others.
Consequently, the court has adjourned the matter sine die and urged the parties to file the terms of settlement within 30 days beginning February 25, 2008.
Mr Justice B.T Aryeetey, presided, with Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban and Mr Justice R.K. Apaloo as the members.
The background of the case was that following the death of Nab Dr Azantilow Ayieta, paramount Chief of the Builsa Traditional Area on November 14, 2006, his biological children decided to put the body in a public mortuary in Bolgatanga.
That action was not acceptable to the rest of the Ayieta family who felt that was contrary to their customary practice.
The aggrieved family members allegedly broke into the mortuary to remove the corpse amidst fanfare, drumming and other activities.
After that they allegedly held an “adua” a Muslim rituals performed after 40 days of the death of an icon of tradition.
The rest of the family instituted an action against the biological children to restrain them from breaking tradition and also involve the nine constituents of the Ayieta family in the performance of the burial and funeral of the late Nab Azantilow.
The High Court declined jurisdiction in the matter on the grounds that it affected chieftaincy.
Not satisfied with that position, the plaintiffs instituted the instant action at the Court of Appeal, which had urged the family to settle the matter out of court.
Consequently, the court has adjourned the matter sine die and urged the parties to file the terms of settlement within 30 days beginning February 25, 2008.
Mr Justice B.T Aryeetey, presided, with Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban and Mr Justice R.K. Apaloo as the members.
The background of the case was that following the death of Nab Dr Azantilow Ayieta, paramount Chief of the Builsa Traditional Area on November 14, 2006, his biological children decided to put the body in a public mortuary in Bolgatanga.
That action was not acceptable to the rest of the Ayieta family who felt that was contrary to their customary practice.
The aggrieved family members allegedly broke into the mortuary to remove the corpse amidst fanfare, drumming and other activities.
After that they allegedly held an “adua” a Muslim rituals performed after 40 days of the death of an icon of tradition.
The rest of the family instituted an action against the biological children to restrain them from breaking tradition and also involve the nine constituents of the Ayieta family in the performance of the burial and funeral of the late Nab Azantilow.
The High Court declined jurisdiction in the matter on the grounds that it affected chieftaincy.
Not satisfied with that position, the plaintiffs instituted the instant action at the Court of Appeal, which had urged the family to settle the matter out of court.
CHINESE EMBASSY DONATES COMPUTERS TO JUDICIAL SERVICE
THE Chinese Embassy in Accra has donated eight Dell computers and accessories to the Judicial Service at a short ceremony at the Supreme Court buildings in Accra.
The Political Counsellor and Deputy Head of the Embassy, Mr Wang Lushan, presented the computers to Mr Justice William Atuguba, Justice of the Supreme Court, who received them on behalf of Her Ladyship, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood.
Mr Wang was hopeful that the computers would help to increase the efficiency of work in the Judicial Service.
He said that the presentation was part of the total effort of the Chinese government’s effort to support Ghana’s development process.
Mr Justice Atuguba thanked the government and people of China and said the presentation would enhance the establishment of healthy co-operation between Ghana and China at the judiciary level.
The Political Counsellor and Deputy Head of the Embassy, Mr Wang Lushan, presented the computers to Mr Justice William Atuguba, Justice of the Supreme Court, who received them on behalf of Her Ladyship, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood.
Mr Wang was hopeful that the computers would help to increase the efficiency of work in the Judicial Service.
He said that the presentation was part of the total effort of the Chinese government’s effort to support Ghana’s development process.
Mr Justice Atuguba thanked the government and people of China and said the presentation would enhance the establishment of healthy co-operation between Ghana and China at the judiciary level.
GHANAIAN PASSENGERS STRANDED
ONE hundred and fifty three passengers, made up of Ghanaians and some Nigerians, are stranded in Barbados after arriving on the island aboard a Ghana International Airlines (GIA) charter flight from Accra.
After two postponements of the return flight on February 15 and February 29, 2008, the passengers are reported to have run out of money and many of them have resorted to working illegally as labourers.
Barbados government officials say some of the passengers have officially requested for work permits to allow them to support themselves while in that country.
Reacting to the situation, the GIA said it was contracted by Season’s Travel and Tours, a company certified by the Ghana Tourists Board to permit a charter tour operation, to airlift the passengers to the Caribbean island on February 1, 2008 and that its services were paid for.
The tour operator had defaulted in paying for the return flight, especially when the government of that country required the GIA to fly empty to that country, a situation which could not be borne by the operator since it entailed extra cost, Ms Gifty Annan-Myers, the acting Chief Executive Officer of the GIA, told the Daily Graphic in a telephone interview.
The Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport has stated that it is doing everything to ensure that the stranded passengers return home successfully.
A statement reportedly issued on the stranded passengers said the Ghanaians were among those who, on February 1, 2008, visited that country for a two-week stay, adding that as a result of the breakdown of private tour arrangements, the government had intervened and was actively seeking ways to facilitate their repatriation.
The visit, it noted, was organised through a private sector arrangement by the Ghanaian tour company, using a Barbadian counterpart as ground handler.
“The first indication received by the Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport of any intention to operate a direct charter service from Ghana to Barbados was an e-mail application dated January 17, 2008 from the GIA, in association with Season’s Travel and Tours, to permit a charter tour operation into Barbados on January 20, 2008 and depart the next day,” the statement said.
Having received the application, the ministry said, it queried the actual period of the tour, since no return date had been given, but on January 28, 2008, a revised application was received from the GIA, stating in part that the revised dates were now January 31, 2008, with a subsequent service on February 15 to return passengers.
It said on January 29, 2008, the GIA advised the ministry that it should expected 160 passengers in Barbados on January 31, 2008, out of which 40 would be proceeding to other Caribbean countries via alternative arrangements.
The remaining 120 were to return to Ghana on the flight on February 15, 2008.
Based on the arrangement and exchanges, a permit for the charter was issued to the GIA and, according to immigration documents, 153 passengers were landed in Barbados from the GIA flight, including those going to other Caribbean countries.
The Barbados government said the local ground handling agency for Season’s Travel and Tours had been very proactive in efforts to repatriate the passengers, while it was taking urgent steps, through Ghana’s High Commission, towards the speedy repatriation of the stranded passengers.
Ms Annan-Myers told the Daily Graphic that Season’s Travels and Tours contracted the GIA to lift the passengers to Barbados and that, after paying for the outward flight, the return flight had not been paid for.
According to her, the arrangement was that the tour operators were to pay the return flight seven days before February 15, 2008 and when their attention was drawn to that, the operators replied that the Barbados government wanted the GIA to send an empty flight to bring back the passengers. She said that entailed a heavy cost which the company could not bear.
Ms Annan-Myers said the GIA was ever ready and on standby when Season’s Travels were ready and that the airline had even offered to send the passengers to London from where it could bring them to Ghana.
After two postponements of the return flight on February 15 and February 29, 2008, the passengers are reported to have run out of money and many of them have resorted to working illegally as labourers.
Barbados government officials say some of the passengers have officially requested for work permits to allow them to support themselves while in that country.
Reacting to the situation, the GIA said it was contracted by Season’s Travel and Tours, a company certified by the Ghana Tourists Board to permit a charter tour operation, to airlift the passengers to the Caribbean island on February 1, 2008 and that its services were paid for.
The tour operator had defaulted in paying for the return flight, especially when the government of that country required the GIA to fly empty to that country, a situation which could not be borne by the operator since it entailed extra cost, Ms Gifty Annan-Myers, the acting Chief Executive Officer of the GIA, told the Daily Graphic in a telephone interview.
The Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport has stated that it is doing everything to ensure that the stranded passengers return home successfully.
A statement reportedly issued on the stranded passengers said the Ghanaians were among those who, on February 1, 2008, visited that country for a two-week stay, adding that as a result of the breakdown of private tour arrangements, the government had intervened and was actively seeking ways to facilitate their repatriation.
The visit, it noted, was organised through a private sector arrangement by the Ghanaian tour company, using a Barbadian counterpart as ground handler.
“The first indication received by the Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport of any intention to operate a direct charter service from Ghana to Barbados was an e-mail application dated January 17, 2008 from the GIA, in association with Season’s Travel and Tours, to permit a charter tour operation into Barbados on January 20, 2008 and depart the next day,” the statement said.
Having received the application, the ministry said, it queried the actual period of the tour, since no return date had been given, but on January 28, 2008, a revised application was received from the GIA, stating in part that the revised dates were now January 31, 2008, with a subsequent service on February 15 to return passengers.
It said on January 29, 2008, the GIA advised the ministry that it should expected 160 passengers in Barbados on January 31, 2008, out of which 40 would be proceeding to other Caribbean countries via alternative arrangements.
The remaining 120 were to return to Ghana on the flight on February 15, 2008.
Based on the arrangement and exchanges, a permit for the charter was issued to the GIA and, according to immigration documents, 153 passengers were landed in Barbados from the GIA flight, including those going to other Caribbean countries.
The Barbados government said the local ground handling agency for Season’s Travel and Tours had been very proactive in efforts to repatriate the passengers, while it was taking urgent steps, through Ghana’s High Commission, towards the speedy repatriation of the stranded passengers.
Ms Annan-Myers told the Daily Graphic that Season’s Travels and Tours contracted the GIA to lift the passengers to Barbados and that, after paying for the outward flight, the return flight had not been paid for.
According to her, the arrangement was that the tour operators were to pay the return flight seven days before February 15, 2008 and when their attention was drawn to that, the operators replied that the Barbados government wanted the GIA to send an empty flight to bring back the passengers. She said that entailed a heavy cost which the company could not bear.
Ms Annan-Myers said the GIA was ever ready and on standby when Season’s Travels were ready and that the airline had even offered to send the passengers to London from where it could bring them to Ghana.
NINE NIGERIANS JAILED 5 YEARS FOR 419 FRAUD
NINE people who faked various documents, including the letterheads of the Office of The President, and used them to defraud a number of victims in Accra have each been jailed five years by an Accra circuit court.
The nine, all Nigerians and believed to belong to an advanced fee fraud (419) syndicate, also forged documents belonging to National Security, the Ministry of Defence, the Ghana Police Service, the Office of the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General, the Bank of Ghana, among others.
They include Victor Okechuku Okoye Ibuze, who is at large and was sentenced in absentia, and Ibrahim Mato, alias Edward Mensah.
The rest are Benson Nnadi, Budy Sampson, Raymond Popson, Ashanor Wright Waheed, Adeotan Oluwafemi Adenyi, Abolade Oluwaseyi Toyosi and Ekpemadu Chuku Andy.
They were convicted and sentenced to five years each on one count of conspiracy and another count of possessing forged documents, while Mato was further convicted and sentenced to 18 months on another count of forgery of passport.
All the counts are to run concurrently.
According to the facts of the case, the nine lived at Achimota in Accra and described themselves variously as businessmen, traders, computer engineers and technicians.
The prosecution said the group operated an Internet cafe at Achimota from where the convicts prepared forged documents to convince their victims that huge sums of money had been deposited in some banks in Ghana for them, for which the victims had to make payments in dollars as deposits.
Through their modus operandi, the prosecution said, the convicts convinced a French national that he had $8.5 million bequeathed to him at the Kokomlemle Branch of the SG-SSB Bank and that he had to pay 185,000 Euro for its release.
The prosecution said through some fraudulent correspondence with the forged documents, the syndicate managed to invite their victim to Ghana on May 25, 2005 and collected 35,000 Euro as part payment for the 185,000 Euro charge.
After that transaction, the victim was asked to go back to France, where he discussed the issue with a Ghanaian to whom he showed the forged documents.
The Ghanaian told the victim that all the documents had been forged and, therefore, he should report the matter to the Ghana Police, which he did.
Therefore, when the syndicate invited the victim to Ghana again on August 16, 2005, its members were arrested by the police when they went to pick him from the airport.
Upon their arrest and subsequent search, the forged documents and other items, including computers, were seized.
The nine, all Nigerians and believed to belong to an advanced fee fraud (419) syndicate, also forged documents belonging to National Security, the Ministry of Defence, the Ghana Police Service, the Office of the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General, the Bank of Ghana, among others.
They include Victor Okechuku Okoye Ibuze, who is at large and was sentenced in absentia, and Ibrahim Mato, alias Edward Mensah.
The rest are Benson Nnadi, Budy Sampson, Raymond Popson, Ashanor Wright Waheed, Adeotan Oluwafemi Adenyi, Abolade Oluwaseyi Toyosi and Ekpemadu Chuku Andy.
They were convicted and sentenced to five years each on one count of conspiracy and another count of possessing forged documents, while Mato was further convicted and sentenced to 18 months on another count of forgery of passport.
All the counts are to run concurrently.
According to the facts of the case, the nine lived at Achimota in Accra and described themselves variously as businessmen, traders, computer engineers and technicians.
The prosecution said the group operated an Internet cafe at Achimota from where the convicts prepared forged documents to convince their victims that huge sums of money had been deposited in some banks in Ghana for them, for which the victims had to make payments in dollars as deposits.
Through their modus operandi, the prosecution said, the convicts convinced a French national that he had $8.5 million bequeathed to him at the Kokomlemle Branch of the SG-SSB Bank and that he had to pay 185,000 Euro for its release.
The prosecution said through some fraudulent correspondence with the forged documents, the syndicate managed to invite their victim to Ghana on May 25, 2005 and collected 35,000 Euro as part payment for the 185,000 Euro charge.
After that transaction, the victim was asked to go back to France, where he discussed the issue with a Ghanaian to whom he showed the forged documents.
The Ghanaian told the victim that all the documents had been forged and, therefore, he should report the matter to the Ghana Police, which he did.
Therefore, when the syndicate invited the victim to Ghana again on August 16, 2005, its members were arrested by the police when they went to pick him from the airport.
Upon their arrest and subsequent search, the forged documents and other items, including computers, were seized.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
CHIEF EXCUTIVE OFFICER JAILED 8 YRS
AN Accra circuit court has sentenced Kwaku Owusu Bempah, 51, and the Chief Executive Officer of Temecular Investments Ltd to eight years’ imprisonment for stealing $100,982 belonging to the Adabraka branch of Merchant Bank.
The convict pleaded not guilty to the charge but after the hearing the court found him guilty, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him.
Two others, Kwaku Gyamfi and Abena Gyimah, who were at large during the trial were, however, discharged because according to the court, they were exonerated by the convict who admitted in his evidence that he signed all the cheques to steal the money.
The facts of the case were that on March 1, 2006, the three persons presented documents to the Adabraka branch of the bank as business partners who wanted to open foreign accounts.
Consequently, the opened the accounts with a $100,982 cheque from the Citibank in New York in the name of Temecular Investments Ltd with Bempah as the sole signatory.
According to the prosecution, on March 29, 2006, Bempah began to withdraw money from the accounts and by July 31, 2006, he had exhausted money in the accounts.
However, on December 26, m2006, the bank received a fax message from Citibank in New York that the cheque, which was presented by Bempah was stolen.
It was found out that Bempah and his accomplices altered it to bear their company’s name.
Following that Merchant Bank was being compelled to pay the money to Citibank as Citibank had credited the Merchant Bank accounts.
When the case was reported to the police Bempah admitted the offence in his caution statement and stated that the cheque was brought by his two accomplices.
The cheque was originally issued in the name of Northrop Grumman Company but Bempah and his accomplices managed to lay hands on it and altered the same to read their company’s name.
The convict pleaded not guilty to the charge but after the hearing the court found him guilty, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him.
Two others, Kwaku Gyamfi and Abena Gyimah, who were at large during the trial were, however, discharged because according to the court, they were exonerated by the convict who admitted in his evidence that he signed all the cheques to steal the money.
The facts of the case were that on March 1, 2006, the three persons presented documents to the Adabraka branch of the bank as business partners who wanted to open foreign accounts.
Consequently, the opened the accounts with a $100,982 cheque from the Citibank in New York in the name of Temecular Investments Ltd with Bempah as the sole signatory.
According to the prosecution, on March 29, 2006, Bempah began to withdraw money from the accounts and by July 31, 2006, he had exhausted money in the accounts.
However, on December 26, m2006, the bank received a fax message from Citibank in New York that the cheque, which was presented by Bempah was stolen.
It was found out that Bempah and his accomplices altered it to bear their company’s name.
Following that Merchant Bank was being compelled to pay the money to Citibank as Citibank had credited the Merchant Bank accounts.
When the case was reported to the police Bempah admitted the offence in his caution statement and stated that the cheque was brought by his two accomplices.
The cheque was originally issued in the name of Northrop Grumman Company but Bempah and his accomplices managed to lay hands on it and altered the same to read their company’s name.
THOMAS OSEI TESTED POSTIVE FOR COCAINE
A MEDICAL officer with the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI), Dr Nana Okae Brako, yesterday affirmed that Thomas Osei, the man who ran his car into the President's car last year, tested positive for cocaine because traces of the substance were found in his urine sample.
According to him, Osei was tested for the abuse of 11 substances but the Medlab Laboratories, which conducted the examination, had the facility to test for nine of the substances, including cocaine, the quantity of which could not be determined.
He said when he diagnosed Osei, he did not think that Osei would test positive for cocaine or end up being prosecuted and that he did his job as a medical officer.
Dr Brako said Osei was not handed to him for any drug test but that on examining him, he realised the need to do a test for substance abuse because of the manifestation of tremors in Osei’s demeanour.
Testifying under cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for Osei, Dr Brako said when Osei was handed over to him, he (Osei) did not pose any danger to people.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who, was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Dr Brako said after Osei had been treated at the 37 Military Hospital, he was discharged because he was fit but he (Dr Brako) requested to do a test to confirm his suspicion because of Osei’s manifestation of withdrawal syndrome.
He explained that tremors could be caused by problems relating to the central nervous system, anxiety, anxiety and other manifestations and that a man who had been involved in an accident was likely to suffer those manifestations.
Asked why he did not take Osei to the premises of Medlab to take his urine sample, the witness replied that that was not possible because Osei’s condition at the time was not the best, while he was also taken home.
Dr Brako said when he submitted the urine sample to Medlab, he labelled it, although Osei did not acknowledge in writing that it was his urine sample.
He agreed with counsel that if care was not taken, a sample could be adulterated, but disagreed that it would be difficult to connect the sample with its result if it was improperly labelled.
He said the choice of Medlab Laboratories over the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) was influenced by the proximity of the place and stated that in terms of experience, he graded both facilities equally.
According to him, Osei was tested for the abuse of 11 substances but the Medlab Laboratories, which conducted the examination, had the facility to test for nine of the substances, including cocaine, the quantity of which could not be determined.
He said when he diagnosed Osei, he did not think that Osei would test positive for cocaine or end up being prosecuted and that he did his job as a medical officer.
Dr Brako said Osei was not handed to him for any drug test but that on examining him, he realised the need to do a test for substance abuse because of the manifestation of tremors in Osei’s demeanour.
Testifying under cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for Osei, Dr Brako said when Osei was handed over to him, he (Osei) did not pose any danger to people.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who, was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Dr Brako said after Osei had been treated at the 37 Military Hospital, he was discharged because he was fit but he (Dr Brako) requested to do a test to confirm his suspicion because of Osei’s manifestation of withdrawal syndrome.
He explained that tremors could be caused by problems relating to the central nervous system, anxiety, anxiety and other manifestations and that a man who had been involved in an accident was likely to suffer those manifestations.
Asked why he did not take Osei to the premises of Medlab to take his urine sample, the witness replied that that was not possible because Osei’s condition at the time was not the best, while he was also taken home.
Dr Brako said when he submitted the urine sample to Medlab, he labelled it, although Osei did not acknowledge in writing that it was his urine sample.
He agreed with counsel that if care was not taken, a sample could be adulterated, but disagreed that it would be difficult to connect the sample with its result if it was improperly labelled.
He said the choice of Medlab Laboratories over the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) was influenced by the proximity of the place and stated that in terms of experience, he graded both facilities equally.
SUPREME COURT ADJOURNS ELECTORAL COMMISSION CASE
THE Supreme Court has adjourned sine die the case in which three persons are challenging the duties of the Electoral Commission (EC) with respect to the manner in which the 2004 presidential elections were gazetted.
According to the court, there was no proof that the EC had been served with the necessary documents to enable it to react appropriately to the issues raised.
The case was referred to the Supreme Court for judicial interpretation by the Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Justice Victor Ofoe, after it had granted a motion filed by counsel for the EC following a request made by the Supreme Court in its ruling of May 24, 2007.
The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, held that the issues raised in the writ clearly required judicial interpretation and thereby urged the trial court to stay proceedings for immediate referral of the case for consideration.
The writ was issued against the EC by the three persons who are activists of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to challenge the way the 2004 general election and the presidential results were gazetted.
The plaintiffs, namely, Rojo Mettle Nunoo, Squadron Leader Clend Sowu and Kofi Portuphy, are seeking an order of the court to restrain the EC and its agents from destroying the said documents and materials, pending the final determination of the suit.
The plaintiffs contended that at the time the Chairman of the EC declared the incumbent President winner of the presidential poll, it did not base its declaration on the total results from 230 constituencies of the country, since those from 225 constituencies were used.
According to them, the EC held a press conference and, basing its declarations on total results from 225 out of the 230 constituencies, declared the incumbent President winner of the poll.
Plaintiffs maintained that the results at the time should have been declared as provisional until all results from the 230 constituencies had been collated, stating, “Up to the date of instituting the present suit, the defendant has not declared the full and complete results of the presidential election of December 7, 2004.”
Plaintiffs said the collation and declaration of election results in a transparent manner and on time formed an integral part of the constitutional duty of the defendant, which was mandated under the laws of the country to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda in Ghana.
Counsel for the EC, Mr Osei Aduama, had argued that the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutional interpretation would prevail on whatever interpretation was given in the past.
According to him, the publication of constituency-to-constituency declaration of results in the gazette in respect of the presidential election, as requested by the plaintiffs, was irrelevant.
The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 64 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, the EC fully discharged its constitutional duty with the publication of the Declaration of Presidential Election Instrument 2004.
The trial court, on February 14, 2006, ruled against the EC, indicating that it would deal with the case on its own merit before transferring any issue that required interpretation to the Supreme Court, after counsel for the EC had requested that the issue be transferred for interpretation.
That followed a motion filed by the EC seeking the postponement of proceedings at the FTC to enable the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutional provision on the issue of gazetting general elections in the country that had been the subject of contention but it was refused by the trial High Court.
According to the court, there was no proof that the EC had been served with the necessary documents to enable it to react appropriately to the issues raised.
The case was referred to the Supreme Court for judicial interpretation by the Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Justice Victor Ofoe, after it had granted a motion filed by counsel for the EC following a request made by the Supreme Court in its ruling of May 24, 2007.
The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, held that the issues raised in the writ clearly required judicial interpretation and thereby urged the trial court to stay proceedings for immediate referral of the case for consideration.
The writ was issued against the EC by the three persons who are activists of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to challenge the way the 2004 general election and the presidential results were gazetted.
The plaintiffs, namely, Rojo Mettle Nunoo, Squadron Leader Clend Sowu and Kofi Portuphy, are seeking an order of the court to restrain the EC and its agents from destroying the said documents and materials, pending the final determination of the suit.
The plaintiffs contended that at the time the Chairman of the EC declared the incumbent President winner of the presidential poll, it did not base its declaration on the total results from 230 constituencies of the country, since those from 225 constituencies were used.
According to them, the EC held a press conference and, basing its declarations on total results from 225 out of the 230 constituencies, declared the incumbent President winner of the poll.
Plaintiffs maintained that the results at the time should have been declared as provisional until all results from the 230 constituencies had been collated, stating, “Up to the date of instituting the present suit, the defendant has not declared the full and complete results of the presidential election of December 7, 2004.”
Plaintiffs said the collation and declaration of election results in a transparent manner and on time formed an integral part of the constitutional duty of the defendant, which was mandated under the laws of the country to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda in Ghana.
Counsel for the EC, Mr Osei Aduama, had argued that the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutional interpretation would prevail on whatever interpretation was given in the past.
According to him, the publication of constituency-to-constituency declaration of results in the gazette in respect of the presidential election, as requested by the plaintiffs, was irrelevant.
The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 64 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, the EC fully discharged its constitutional duty with the publication of the Declaration of Presidential Election Instrument 2004.
The trial court, on February 14, 2006, ruled against the EC, indicating that it would deal with the case on its own merit before transferring any issue that required interpretation to the Supreme Court, after counsel for the EC had requested that the issue be transferred for interpretation.
That followed a motion filed by the EC seeking the postponement of proceedings at the FTC to enable the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutional provision on the issue of gazetting general elections in the country that had been the subject of contention but it was refused by the trial High Court.
CJA THROWN OUT OF COURT AGAIN
FOR the second time in a week, the Accra Fast-Track High Court has thrown out the Committee for Joint Action’s (CJA) motion on notice for interim injunction seeking to restrain the government and three television stations from the use of video footage of the committee’s demonstrations.
According to the court, since the substantive issue had been struck out, there was no basis upon which the CJA could come before it to move for the interim injunction motion, moreso, when the instant motion was not before it.
There was no order as to costs, but Mr Justice K.A. Ofori-Atta implored the CJA to do the right thing in having the case re-listed if it intended to have it heard.
He expressed the hope that by the time the case was re-listed, the initial costs of GH ¢150 which were awarded in favour of each of the respondents should be paid by the organisation.
The judge, after explaining the circumstances that led to the case to be struck out of the court, expressed concern about issues raised by counsel on radio, saying the case was as important as any other case, and he was not happy about the comments.
Mr Ayariga apologised and said he would advise the CJA members to be guarded in their utterances on the matter.
Mr Ayariga noted that it was not a true reflection of the records that the motion was not before the court since it was filed before the date was given for the hearing in the substantive matter.
Last Monday, the court, for want of prosecution, struck out the CJA’s motion that sought, among others, an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from the further use of the images of its demonstration to protest against certain government policies in advertisements.
On that day, the Attorney-General, the solicitor of the government, was represented by Ms Ama Jantuah Bamful, while TV3 and Metro TV were respectively represented by Mr Eugene Glover Tay and Daniyal Abdul-Karim. GBC was also represented by Mr Anthony Matthews.
Counsel for GBC, Mr Matthews, on behalf of the other counsel, prayed the court to strike out the matter, in view of the fact that the CJA was not represented.
The matter was stood down for sometime to enable counsel for the CJA to be present, but after some time, there was still no representation for the CJA, and the judge had no option but to grant the application.
However, immediately after that counsel for the organisation filed another motion to seek an order to restrain the respondents from the continued use of its video footage.
When the matter came before the court, Mr Mahama Ayariga, counsel for the CJA, apologised to the court for his inability to appear before it on February 18, 2008, for the hearing of the substantive application.
According to the CJA, the use of the video footage to advocate for a fiscal policy that it was against, violated its rights, since the organisation disagreed with the policy.
An affidavit in support of the motion deposed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Dansoman in Accra said he was the spokesperson for the organisation and had its authority to depose to the affidavit.
It said the group had organised a series of demonstrations in various regional capitals in protest against certain government policies and hardships occasioned to the majority of Ghanaians due to taxes imposed by the government.
The respondents, it noted, were using the video footage of the demonstrations organised by the group to advertise for the imposition of a talk tax on mobile phones, a policy that the applicants were against.
It said that on the said advertisements, certain false and misleading statements regarding the employment status of the demonstrators had been made by the respondents.
The organisation said it had the right to ask that the images of the demonstrators should not be associated with messages that were false and misleading, and which it did not either believe in or actually openly disagreed with.
According to the court, since the substantive issue had been struck out, there was no basis upon which the CJA could come before it to move for the interim injunction motion, moreso, when the instant motion was not before it.
There was no order as to costs, but Mr Justice K.A. Ofori-Atta implored the CJA to do the right thing in having the case re-listed if it intended to have it heard.
He expressed the hope that by the time the case was re-listed, the initial costs of GH ¢150 which were awarded in favour of each of the respondents should be paid by the organisation.
The judge, after explaining the circumstances that led to the case to be struck out of the court, expressed concern about issues raised by counsel on radio, saying the case was as important as any other case, and he was not happy about the comments.
Mr Ayariga apologised and said he would advise the CJA members to be guarded in their utterances on the matter.
Mr Ayariga noted that it was not a true reflection of the records that the motion was not before the court since it was filed before the date was given for the hearing in the substantive matter.
Last Monday, the court, for want of prosecution, struck out the CJA’s motion that sought, among others, an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from the further use of the images of its demonstration to protest against certain government policies in advertisements.
On that day, the Attorney-General, the solicitor of the government, was represented by Ms Ama Jantuah Bamful, while TV3 and Metro TV were respectively represented by Mr Eugene Glover Tay and Daniyal Abdul-Karim. GBC was also represented by Mr Anthony Matthews.
Counsel for GBC, Mr Matthews, on behalf of the other counsel, prayed the court to strike out the matter, in view of the fact that the CJA was not represented.
The matter was stood down for sometime to enable counsel for the CJA to be present, but after some time, there was still no representation for the CJA, and the judge had no option but to grant the application.
However, immediately after that counsel for the organisation filed another motion to seek an order to restrain the respondents from the continued use of its video footage.
When the matter came before the court, Mr Mahama Ayariga, counsel for the CJA, apologised to the court for his inability to appear before it on February 18, 2008, for the hearing of the substantive application.
According to the CJA, the use of the video footage to advocate for a fiscal policy that it was against, violated its rights, since the organisation disagreed with the policy.
An affidavit in support of the motion deposed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Dansoman in Accra said he was the spokesperson for the organisation and had its authority to depose to the affidavit.
It said the group had organised a series of demonstrations in various regional capitals in protest against certain government policies and hardships occasioned to the majority of Ghanaians due to taxes imposed by the government.
The respondents, it noted, were using the video footage of the demonstrations organised by the group to advertise for the imposition of a talk tax on mobile phones, a policy that the applicants were against.
It said that on the said advertisements, certain false and misleading statements regarding the employment status of the demonstrators had been made by the respondents.
The organisation said it had the right to ask that the images of the demonstrators should not be associated with messages that were false and misleading, and which it did not either believe in or actually openly disagreed with.
OSEI WAS TESTED FOR COCAINE BECAUSE OF HIS DEMEANOUR--DR TELLS COURT
A MEDICAL officer with the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) stated that Thomas Osei, the man who ran his car into the President's car last year, was tested for substance abuse because of his demeanour after the incident.
According to Dr Nana Okae Brako, Osei was at the time very confused, nervous and talking to himself, saying “why me, why me”, and for that reason he was tested to either confirm that suspicion or otherwise.
Dr Brako said that Osei’s demeanour after the accident made him (Dr Brako) to become suspicious, since Osei had a little tremor (showing signs of trembling ) and not of himself.
He was testifying as a prosecution witness.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who, was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Dr Brako told the court that on the day of the accident, he was called by the director of BNI to assist in a bleeding case and when he got there he saw Osei seated and bleeding from the left side of his eye and smelling of alcohol.
He said Osei was taken to the 37 Military Hospital where a certain Dr Gyan who was on duty at the time treated Osei after thoroughly examining him.
Dr Brako said because Osei was smelling of alcohol, he was voluntarily tested and 0.41 per cent of alcohol was found in Osei’s breath.
“Medically, around that time he was very confused and talking to himself saying ‘why me, why me’,” he said, and stated that the next day he followed up to see whether Osei was still in that state and realised that the condition of Osei was that of a withdrawal syndrome.
According to the witness, that could be the result of either the alcohol that Osei took or any substance abuse, therefore, he informed the BNI director that he wanted to test Osei for abusive substances because of his behaviour.
He said he asked for introductory letters which were taken to the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) and Medlab laboratories after he had taken blood samples from Osei for toxicology.
However, Dr Brako said when he got to Medlab, he was informed that the test he had required needed urine sample and not a blood sample, which made him to call back the BNI director for approval.
He said he also enquired where he could locate Osei and he was taken to the house of Osei from where the urine sample was taken and sent to the Medlab laboratory where it was confirmed Osei tested positive for cocaine.
During cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for Osei, the witness said Osei told him that the cut he sustained above his left eye was as a result of assault by some officials after the accident.
Asked whether he took the temperature of the urine sample, Dr Brako replied in the negative and stated that he was aware that the urine temperature determined whether it was old or new urine.
He disagreed that in the absence of a temperature it would be difficult to say whether the urine sample belonged to Osei or not.
Dr Brako reiterated that the substance abuse test was done to confirm the suspicion that Osei was either nervous or had abused some substances.
According to him, after taking the urine sample, he put it in his own car and drove to the Medlab laboratory while Osei sat in another car but he (the doctor) did not tamper with it in anyway.
He said the content of cocaine found in the urine sample could not be quantified because the test was qualitative and agreed with counsel that there had been occasions that people had laced Akpeteshie with some substances such as Indian Hemp to sell as bitters.
The witness, however, said he was unaware that when cocaine was taken and a test was conducted on the user the result would be anything else but same cocaine.
According to Dr Nana Okae Brako, Osei was at the time very confused, nervous and talking to himself, saying “why me, why me”, and for that reason he was tested to either confirm that suspicion or otherwise.
Dr Brako said that Osei’s demeanour after the accident made him (Dr Brako) to become suspicious, since Osei had a little tremor (showing signs of trembling ) and not of himself.
He was testifying as a prosecution witness.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who, was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Dr Brako told the court that on the day of the accident, he was called by the director of BNI to assist in a bleeding case and when he got there he saw Osei seated and bleeding from the left side of his eye and smelling of alcohol.
He said Osei was taken to the 37 Military Hospital where a certain Dr Gyan who was on duty at the time treated Osei after thoroughly examining him.
Dr Brako said because Osei was smelling of alcohol, he was voluntarily tested and 0.41 per cent of alcohol was found in Osei’s breath.
“Medically, around that time he was very confused and talking to himself saying ‘why me, why me’,” he said, and stated that the next day he followed up to see whether Osei was still in that state and realised that the condition of Osei was that of a withdrawal syndrome.
According to the witness, that could be the result of either the alcohol that Osei took or any substance abuse, therefore, he informed the BNI director that he wanted to test Osei for abusive substances because of his behaviour.
He said he asked for introductory letters which were taken to the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) and Medlab laboratories after he had taken blood samples from Osei for toxicology.
However, Dr Brako said when he got to Medlab, he was informed that the test he had required needed urine sample and not a blood sample, which made him to call back the BNI director for approval.
He said he also enquired where he could locate Osei and he was taken to the house of Osei from where the urine sample was taken and sent to the Medlab laboratory where it was confirmed Osei tested positive for cocaine.
During cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for Osei, the witness said Osei told him that the cut he sustained above his left eye was as a result of assault by some officials after the accident.
Asked whether he took the temperature of the urine sample, Dr Brako replied in the negative and stated that he was aware that the urine temperature determined whether it was old or new urine.
He disagreed that in the absence of a temperature it would be difficult to say whether the urine sample belonged to Osei or not.
Dr Brako reiterated that the substance abuse test was done to confirm the suspicion that Osei was either nervous or had abused some substances.
According to him, after taking the urine sample, he put it in his own car and drove to the Medlab laboratory while Osei sat in another car but he (the doctor) did not tamper with it in anyway.
He said the content of cocaine found in the urine sample could not be quantified because the test was qualitative and agreed with counsel that there had been occasions that people had laced Akpeteshie with some substances such as Indian Hemp to sell as bitters.
The witness, however, said he was unaware that when cocaine was taken and a test was conducted on the user the result would be anything else but same cocaine.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
FOUR SAILORS FACE OIL STEALING CHARGES
FOUR Filipino sailors have been arrested for allegedly stealing 73,900 barrels of crude oil valued at $7 million and belonging to the Saltpond Offshore Producing Company Ltd.
A fifth suspect, Elpifanio M. Moran Jnr, is said to be at large in connection with the same offence.
Those arrested are Ileofonso Pagay Pama, engineer; Felix Borre Climaco, seaman; Leonardo Planes Abrenica and Damilo Bagasot Bueno, both captains.
They were arrested in Nigeria through the assistance of Interpol Nigeria and brought to Ghana to face trial and they were sent to the Regional Tribunal last week to be remanded but their counsel raised an objection that he had filed a habeas corpus writ for the suspects to be produced before the Fast Track High Court.
Following that, the suspects were discharged and taken away into custody by the police and the case handed over to the Attorney General’s (AG) Office.
A state attorney from the AG’s office today went to the Fast Track High Court to take a date until February 26, 2008, on the grounds that the habeas corpus writ was received at short notice.
Counsel for the suspects, Alhaji Musah Ahmed, was not in court yesterday but when he was reached for his reaction to the new development, he declined to elaborate and said what had been done to his clients amounted to hostage taking and kidnap.
According to the facts of the case, in November last year, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Saltpond Offshore Company, Mr Quincy Sintim-Aboagye, contracted a vessel, the MT Emerald , through its agents, NEPS, in Nigeria to cart crude oil from Saltpond to the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR).
The vessel was said to have set sail under the command of Moran Jr, with the other suspects as the crew.
According to the prosecution, on December 9, 2007 the crew sailed the vessel out of Ghana’s territorial waters and went away with the crude oil. A report was made to Interpol Ghana, which, with assistance from its Nigerian counterparts, arrested the suspects in Nigeria and brought them to Ghana.
The crude oil is yet to be retrieved.
However, the version of the story as stated by counsel for the suspects earlier at the Regional Tribunal is different.
According to him, the suspects were the wrong persons who had been arrested and that they were the crew for two different vessels, namely, the MT Stream and the MT Silver, which were sister vessels of the MT Emerald, of which Moran Jnr was the captain.
Investigations by the Daily Graphic indicated that sister vessels could be arrested for offences committed by a vessel but not its crew, who had not committed any offence.
A fifth suspect, Elpifanio M. Moran Jnr, is said to be at large in connection with the same offence.
Those arrested are Ileofonso Pagay Pama, engineer; Felix Borre Climaco, seaman; Leonardo Planes Abrenica and Damilo Bagasot Bueno, both captains.
They were arrested in Nigeria through the assistance of Interpol Nigeria and brought to Ghana to face trial and they were sent to the Regional Tribunal last week to be remanded but their counsel raised an objection that he had filed a habeas corpus writ for the suspects to be produced before the Fast Track High Court.
Following that, the suspects were discharged and taken away into custody by the police and the case handed over to the Attorney General’s (AG) Office.
A state attorney from the AG’s office today went to the Fast Track High Court to take a date until February 26, 2008, on the grounds that the habeas corpus writ was received at short notice.
Counsel for the suspects, Alhaji Musah Ahmed, was not in court yesterday but when he was reached for his reaction to the new development, he declined to elaborate and said what had been done to his clients amounted to hostage taking and kidnap.
According to the facts of the case, in November last year, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Saltpond Offshore Company, Mr Quincy Sintim-Aboagye, contracted a vessel, the MT Emerald , through its agents, NEPS, in Nigeria to cart crude oil from Saltpond to the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR).
The vessel was said to have set sail under the command of Moran Jr, with the other suspects as the crew.
According to the prosecution, on December 9, 2007 the crew sailed the vessel out of Ghana’s territorial waters and went away with the crude oil. A report was made to Interpol Ghana, which, with assistance from its Nigerian counterparts, arrested the suspects in Nigeria and brought them to Ghana.
The crude oil is yet to be retrieved.
However, the version of the story as stated by counsel for the suspects earlier at the Regional Tribunal is different.
According to him, the suspects were the wrong persons who had been arrested and that they were the crew for two different vessels, namely, the MT Stream and the MT Silver, which were sister vessels of the MT Emerald, of which Moran Jnr was the captain.
Investigations by the Daily Graphic indicated that sister vessels could be arrested for offences committed by a vessel but not its crew, who had not committed any offence.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
FORMER EMPLOYEES OF BANK FOR HOUSING AND CONSTRCUTION IN COURT
ONE HUNDRED and seventy four former employees of the Bank for Housing and Construction (BHC) have sued Kwame Pianim, a management and investment consultant, New World Investment Ltd, United Bank for Africa Ghana Ltd (UBA) and four others at the Commercial division of the High Court seeking damages for the breach of their statutory rights.
The rest of the defendants are Ben Amagatse, Kofi Amo-Addai and Hilda Malm, all members or trustees of the Consortium Investment Trust (CIT) under a trust deed dated April 5, 2000, and put together to receive funds belonging to the members, and Unique Access Properties Limited as a co-defendant.
The plaintiffs accused the defendants of breach of their duties as trustees and using the trust reposed in them to acquire personal shares and profits to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
But the defendants have denied the averments and stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any claims.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order to strip the defendants of the positions they occupy and recover all monies and assets accruing to them at their expense because the purported dilution of shares held by the plaintiffs was wrongful.
They are further seeking for an order to the defendants to account for accruing income from the use of the assets purchased in the name of the CIT, to which the plaintiffs belong, among other reliefs.
After going through a mini trial, the court is expected to today (Thursday) begin the hearing into the issues raised by the parties.
The plaintiffs in an amended statement of claim said they were all former employees of the liquidated BHC and members of the CIT, which was set up in 2000 to take-over parts of assets of BHC while Mr Pianim was a management and investment consultant as well as CEO of New World Investments and Board Chairman of UBA.
According to them, the co-defendant had been purportedly promoted and registered by Mr Pianim to receive or hold assets originally acquired with the support and contributions of the plaintiffs.
They said that prior to the liquidation of the BHC, Mr Pianim was introduced to the representatives of the unionised staff BHC of which the plaintiffs were part and tasked him with the duty of securing a worker/management buy-out deal with the government in order to save the jobs of as many of their members.
They said that when that arrangement failed, the workers with assurances of support from the government decided to pool their end of service benefits under the management of New World Investment to buy some assets of BHC for onward transfer to a new bank to be launched through the promotional efforts of CIT members and Mr Pianim and New World Investment.
The plaintiffs said that under the trust deed New World Investment was appointed as fund manager with the responsibility for managing the resources pooled by CIT pending the incorporation and licensing of the proposed bank.
According to plaintiffs, funds amounting to ¢1,098,035,000.00 being their end of service benefits were entrusted to New World Investment Mr Amagatse, Mr Amo-Addai and Ms Malm first for investment in money market instruments and then later equity investment in UBA (formerly standard trust bank ltd).
They said that by Mr Pianim’s representation to the CIT, an amount of ¢600,000,000.00 was transferred to the UBA in return for shares.
Mr Pianim, they said, in a letter dated June 23, 2000 introduced himself to Price Waterhouse Coopers as the investment advisors of the CIT and promoters of UBA and further disclosed the formation and incorporation of the proposed bank, which required that the allocated assets be put in the name of the bank.
The plaintiffs said they were unaware of any meeting to admit the Nigerian entity in UBA and the allotment of its shares and that the terms and conditions under which the Nigerian entity was admitted into the bank was never disclosed to members of CIT although a letter dated December 21, 2002, from STB Capital Markets Ltd referred to an agreement to be entered into with New World Investment.
They said that aside the board of directors of the bank was constituted without any representation for members of the CIT.
According to them, Mr Pianim breached his obligations as a trustee by using it as a means to derive personal benefits by accepting and taking a post of Chairman in the bank and also holding shares in his own name.
The defendants responded that save that Mr Pianim was selected as the Chairman of the Board of UBA by its strategic investors on the basis of his professional expertise, experience, personal integrity and credentials, there was no obligation or understanding that precluded him from investing alongside CIT or accepting a seat on the Board.
They said that save that the worker-management buy out failed, the plaintiffs initially pooled their end-of-service benefits for the purpose of that deal as stated in the trust deed of the CIT and that sections of the rules of the CIT incorporated inn the trust deed, membership and participation in the trust was no guarantee of employment, immediate or otherwise in the proposed bank.
The defendants said that the CIT was established only as an investment vehicle for the ex-workers of the liquidated BHC and by the objects of the trust deed, the trustees were to invest the contributions of members of the CIT towards the worker-management buy out arrangement in prudent investment and money market instruments.
The rest of the defendants are Ben Amagatse, Kofi Amo-Addai and Hilda Malm, all members or trustees of the Consortium Investment Trust (CIT) under a trust deed dated April 5, 2000, and put together to receive funds belonging to the members, and Unique Access Properties Limited as a co-defendant.
The plaintiffs accused the defendants of breach of their duties as trustees and using the trust reposed in them to acquire personal shares and profits to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
But the defendants have denied the averments and stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any claims.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order to strip the defendants of the positions they occupy and recover all monies and assets accruing to them at their expense because the purported dilution of shares held by the plaintiffs was wrongful.
They are further seeking for an order to the defendants to account for accruing income from the use of the assets purchased in the name of the CIT, to which the plaintiffs belong, among other reliefs.
After going through a mini trial, the court is expected to today (Thursday) begin the hearing into the issues raised by the parties.
The plaintiffs in an amended statement of claim said they were all former employees of the liquidated BHC and members of the CIT, which was set up in 2000 to take-over parts of assets of BHC while Mr Pianim was a management and investment consultant as well as CEO of New World Investments and Board Chairman of UBA.
According to them, the co-defendant had been purportedly promoted and registered by Mr Pianim to receive or hold assets originally acquired with the support and contributions of the plaintiffs.
They said that prior to the liquidation of the BHC, Mr Pianim was introduced to the representatives of the unionised staff BHC of which the plaintiffs were part and tasked him with the duty of securing a worker/management buy-out deal with the government in order to save the jobs of as many of their members.
They said that when that arrangement failed, the workers with assurances of support from the government decided to pool their end of service benefits under the management of New World Investment to buy some assets of BHC for onward transfer to a new bank to be launched through the promotional efforts of CIT members and Mr Pianim and New World Investment.
The plaintiffs said that under the trust deed New World Investment was appointed as fund manager with the responsibility for managing the resources pooled by CIT pending the incorporation and licensing of the proposed bank.
According to plaintiffs, funds amounting to ¢1,098,035,000.00 being their end of service benefits were entrusted to New World Investment Mr Amagatse, Mr Amo-Addai and Ms Malm first for investment in money market instruments and then later equity investment in UBA (formerly standard trust bank ltd).
They said that by Mr Pianim’s representation to the CIT, an amount of ¢600,000,000.00 was transferred to the UBA in return for shares.
Mr Pianim, they said, in a letter dated June 23, 2000 introduced himself to Price Waterhouse Coopers as the investment advisors of the CIT and promoters of UBA and further disclosed the formation and incorporation of the proposed bank, which required that the allocated assets be put in the name of the bank.
The plaintiffs said they were unaware of any meeting to admit the Nigerian entity in UBA and the allotment of its shares and that the terms and conditions under which the Nigerian entity was admitted into the bank was never disclosed to members of CIT although a letter dated December 21, 2002, from STB Capital Markets Ltd referred to an agreement to be entered into with New World Investment.
They said that aside the board of directors of the bank was constituted without any representation for members of the CIT.
According to them, Mr Pianim breached his obligations as a trustee by using it as a means to derive personal benefits by accepting and taking a post of Chairman in the bank and also holding shares in his own name.
The defendants responded that save that Mr Pianim was selected as the Chairman of the Board of UBA by its strategic investors on the basis of his professional expertise, experience, personal integrity and credentials, there was no obligation or understanding that precluded him from investing alongside CIT or accepting a seat on the Board.
They said that save that the worker-management buy out failed, the plaintiffs initially pooled their end-of-service benefits for the purpose of that deal as stated in the trust deed of the CIT and that sections of the rules of the CIT incorporated inn the trust deed, membership and participation in the trust was no guarantee of employment, immediate or otherwise in the proposed bank.
The defendants said that the CIT was established only as an investment vehicle for the ex-workers of the liquidated BHC and by the objects of the trust deed, the trustees were to invest the contributions of members of the CIT towards the worker-management buy out arrangement in prudent investment and money market instruments.
FORMER FIRST LADY'S CASE ADJOURNED UNTIL APRIL 2008
THE Accra Fast Track High Court today adjourned to April 16, 2008, the case in which Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and four others are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
Lawyers for the parties met in the judge’s chambers to take the date but no official reason was assigned.
However, the former first lady as well as the other defendants were in court, and as usual, they were accompanied by a large crowd.
Nana Konadu, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of CDCL, and Caridem as an entity filed the application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of the GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Also standing trial alongside the applicants are Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses to public property in 1995 running into billions of cedis following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery, acquired by CDCL, which is owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
On December 18, last year, the court dismissed an application for stay of proceedings filed by the defendants to enable them to pursue the civil aspect of the matter but according to the court, where there were both a civil and criminal proceedings pending over an issue, the criminal action outweighed the civil one and, therefore, refused the application.
Counsel for Nana Konadu, Mr Tony Lithur, prayed the court on November 15, 2007 to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit between Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL) and the Attorney-General (A-G) over the ownership of the company, which is pending at the High Court, or in the interim, dismiss the case and stated that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
The court ruled that the civil suit and the instant case were not related, neither did they merge, because the latter involved a declaration of ownership and abrogation of contract, while the ingredients required to prove them were different.
It said although it was not for counsel to speculate the probable findings, the court was bound to protect itself from abuse.
Regarding an assertion by counsel that the Attorney-General, as a public officer and member of the executive, was exercising arbitrary power to abuse the court process, the court ruled that the Constitution mandated the A-G, as a duty, to initiate and conduct all criminal proceedings in the country.
The court admitted that while the A-G was bound to do that, he must not be arbitrary or capricious and stated that the trial in both cases had not commenced.
It said although the arguments put up by the counsel was ingenuous, they did not impress the court because once and until it was progressing, the A-G was entitled to substitute the charges and those rights of the A-G could not be taken away from him.
Counsel had argued that the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason, if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.
Lawyers for the parties met in the judge’s chambers to take the date but no official reason was assigned.
However, the former first lady as well as the other defendants were in court, and as usual, they were accompanied by a large crowd.
Nana Konadu, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of CDCL, and Caridem as an entity filed the application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of the GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Also standing trial alongside the applicants are Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses to public property in 1995 running into billions of cedis following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery, acquired by CDCL, which is owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
On December 18, last year, the court dismissed an application for stay of proceedings filed by the defendants to enable them to pursue the civil aspect of the matter but according to the court, where there were both a civil and criminal proceedings pending over an issue, the criminal action outweighed the civil one and, therefore, refused the application.
Counsel for Nana Konadu, Mr Tony Lithur, prayed the court on November 15, 2007 to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit between Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL) and the Attorney-General (A-G) over the ownership of the company, which is pending at the High Court, or in the interim, dismiss the case and stated that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
The court ruled that the civil suit and the instant case were not related, neither did they merge, because the latter involved a declaration of ownership and abrogation of contract, while the ingredients required to prove them were different.
It said although it was not for counsel to speculate the probable findings, the court was bound to protect itself from abuse.
Regarding an assertion by counsel that the Attorney-General, as a public officer and member of the executive, was exercising arbitrary power to abuse the court process, the court ruled that the Constitution mandated the A-G, as a duty, to initiate and conduct all criminal proceedings in the country.
The court admitted that while the A-G was bound to do that, he must not be arbitrary or capricious and stated that the trial in both cases had not commenced.
It said although the arguments put up by the counsel was ingenuous, they did not impress the court because once and until it was progressing, the A-G was entitled to substitute the charges and those rights of the A-G could not be taken away from him.
Counsel had argued that the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason, if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)