Tsikata appeals

KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
For the second time, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tsatsu Tsikata, had to adjourn judgement in the case.
The court clerk informed parties in the case that the court had fixed the judgemnt for February 22, 2007 because of a notice of appeal it had received from the accused.
On December 7, 2006, judgement in the case was similarily deferred by the trial court because the Court of Appeal had on the previous day fixed December 19, 2006 to give its ruling in the appeal filed by the former GNPC boss to compel the IFC to testify in the case.
Tsikata lost his appeal to compel the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to testify in the case in which he has been charged with causing financial loss to the state but immediately after the Court of Appeal’s unanimous verdict, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
By the rules of the court the accused after the Supreme Court decision has another option of a review should the verdict not go his way. This is likely to extend the judgement.
According to Tsikata, the statutory provisions in respect of the immunity of the IFC, among other reasons, were misrepresented by the Court of Appeal.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a panel member, read the verdict but the court was presided over by Mr Justice S. E. Kanyoke, with Mr Justice F. Kusi Appiah as the other member.
The court had earlier on, on November 29, 2006, dismissed an application filed by the appellant praying the court to make the IFC party to his appeal.
The case had suffered various fates following a resort to the law by the defence and Tuesday’s was no exception, since the outcome of the Supreme Court decision could affect the judgement in the high-profile case which has been pending since 2002.
The Fast Track Court, on January 24, 2006, ruled that the IFC, its employees and assets were immune from judicial processes and, therefore, it could not be called to testify in the matter which Tsikata believed was crucial to his defence.
The court held that if the IFC was not prepared to waive its immunity, the court could not compel it to do so.
Tsikata requested the Court of Appeal to set aside decisions of the trial court and order the IFC to appear, testify and produce documents in its custody in respect of the funding of studies conducted on the Valley Farms project.
The former chief executive of the GNPC had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in her duty, since the position taken by the IFC was in support of Legislative Notification (L.N.) 9 which granted the IFC immunity, and said if the IFC and its directors were unwilling to waive that immunity, the court could not do otherwise.
According to the court, its refusal to grant the appeal would not endanger the case of the appellant to warrant the occasion of injustice and fair trial because the rights of the appellant were subject to those of others.