LAWYER FOR Jailed Minister MOVES COURT FOR BAIL

COUNSEL for Dan Kwasi Abodakpi has movbed moved the Accra Fast Track High Court to admit his client to bail because his appeal pending at the Court of Appeal had a great chance of success.
Moreover, he said, Abodakpi was law abiding and did not flout the bail condition which was granted him during his trial, while he was a first offender and needed to be treated leniently.
Mr Charles Hayibor made the plea when he presented an application for bail pending an appeal against the court’s 10- year sentence of the man who is the sitting Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta.
The prosecution will respond to the application on March 29, 2007 and if it is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interest of his constituents and the Minority in Parliament.
The former Trade and Industries Minister was on February 5, 2007 sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by the court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
The amount was in respect of a feasibility study for the establishment of a Science and Technology Community Park/Valley Project which was meant to enhance the export of non-traditional products.
They were charged with causing the transfer of the cedi equivalent of $400,000 during their tenure of office in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration when they co-chaired the TIP.
The former ministers were accused of causing the transfer from the TIP interest account lodged with ECOBANK Ghana Limited into the personal account of the project consultant, Dr Boadu.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
Mr Hayibor said his application was based on the provisions of Section 33 (1) of the Courts Act and Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act 30, both of which related to the granting of bail to an accused person pending an appeal.
He said the defence was dissatisfied with the court’s judgement and it was its humble view that there were exceptional grounds which justified the application.
For instance, counsel said, the applicant had been a sitting MP since 1993 and during his trial he never flouted the bail conditions, while he had no means to leave the country if granted bail.
“There were certain aspects of the judgement which we disagree with and has occasioned the appeal, with the hope that the Court of Appeal will look at what we call error of law.
“It is quite possible that when the chips are down our appeal has a great chance of success because this court did not consider the defence in deciding the matter,” he said.
Mr Hayibor said the contention of the defence was that the court did not consider the burden of proof on the prosecution and for that matter there were merits that the Court of Appeal had to consider.
According to him, there had been material conflict in the evidence which was not captured in the judgement because a prosecution witness had told the court that proposals were not paid.
That, he stated, was in conflict with what another witness said, that proposals were paid.
He said the court ought to have taken into account all the evidence before it but that was not done, since it only looked at that of the prosecution.
Counsel still maintained that his client never authored any payment for a feasibility study and that a letter which Abodakpi wrote and which could have aided the court to ascertain whether or not he applied for payment for a feasibility study was not made available to the court.
“A prosecution witness told the court that that letter was with the police and at the end of the trial that letter was not provided,” counsel stated, adding that “that issue remains unresolved because of the failure of the prosecution to produce that letter”.
He said it behoved the court to have indicated how the ingredients of conspiracy were established by the prosecution because at no material time did Abodakpi write to Selormey to pay for a feasibility study.
“Selormey acted on his own. That answer will continue to be in limbo, once he is dead,” counsel said, and indicated that the court, in its judgement, even stated that it was Selormey who made a representation to the bank for payment.
As to whether a study proposal was paid for or not, counsel said another prosecution witness told the court in the affirmative and even stated the minimum payment of $150,000.
Similarly, he said, the judge did not consider evidence adduced by all the witnesses who were called by Abodakpi.
When counsel said the conviction was not necessary because the money for which the case was prosecuted had been frozen, the judge took offence and intervened.
“Go and read what PW (prosecution witness) 1 said. What you are saying is not the truth. Dr Boadu authorised the disbursement of the money to various companies and people.
“Don’t let people disturb me because they go and say on radio that the money is at the bank but the judge sentenced him when a witness told the court that the money had been disbursed,” he said.
Tempers, however, settled when counsel explained that a statement of account which was tendered by the witness indicated that the account was frozen.
Mr Hayibor said the 10-year sentence was an excessive exercise of discretion because if all the factors raised by the defence had been considered, the judge would not have imposed that sentence.