[ad_1]
Dr. Stephen Opuni and another face 27 charges including fraud under false pretenses, deliberate financial loss to the state, money laundering, bribery of public servants and violation of the law. public markets.
A high court in Accra hearing the lawsuit involving Dr. Stephen Opuni and another Wednesday rejected a motion to stay the proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The Court presided over by Judge Clemence Honyenugah, a Judge of the Court of Appeal sitting as a Judge of the High Supplementary Court, stated in a reading of the documents filed "that the Court considers that the granting of the request will further delay the trial ".
Judge Honyenugah said that the suspension of the proceedings would only delay the trial because the third Prosecution witness has been in the box for a few months.
The Court stated that the application for a stay of proceedings was a discretionary power and that a notice of appeal was not sufficient ground to stay the proceedings.
"This discretionary power must be exercised wisely and capriciously," he added.
He added that the proceedings should also be suspended in certain special circumstances, which were not included in the lawyer's arguments.
He added that the mere fact that an interlocutory injunction is pending does not require the trial judge to grant the application.
"I do not see any special circumstances justifying the acceptance of the request," he said.
The judge also said that the matter before the court was not just about the form of Lithovit fertilizer, but that several charges had been laid against the accused.
He stated that the court had properly exercised its fair trial powers, in accordance with the Constitution, that it had prevented any of the defendants at the trial from baderting its point of view and that it had not been possible. he saw no irreparable harm that the motion was denied.
The motion was filed by Mr. Samuel Cudjoe, a lawyer for Dr. Opuni, former chief executive officer of COCOBOD, the first accused, after the court rejected the handing over of a document through the prosecution witness.
Mr. Cudjoe stated that his client had filed a motion to stay and wished to rely on all the paragraphs of the application.
He said that the document was a piece of evidence, which came from legal custody and whose relevance was not in doubt.
He stated that the court itself felt that the document was genuine and that the question of authenticity was not in doubt.
He added that, in a criminal trial, the penalty could include imprisonment as the ultimate deprivation of the right and freedom.
"We affirm that the court suspends the proceedings and allows the Court of Appeal to rule on our appeal, so that in the event that the appeal is in our favor, the court will then proceed with the trial," he added.
It is at this point that the prosecution has risen to oppose the motion that Mr. Cudjoe interrupted on the point of law, that is Ms. Stella Ohene Appiah who swore the affidavit and could not be the same lawyer. speak for the prosecution.
In response, Ms. Appiah stated that she was sworn in to sworn affidavits and that she had declared to be a senior prosecutor at the A-G office.
According to her, she did not hide her identity as a lawyer in the A's office and "if she is called at any time, she can answer anything in the affidavits because she was capable.
"This process does not violate the Constitution and does not affect the trial," she added.
In his decision, the trial judge stated that the affidavits filed by the Attorney General were made in the name of the A-G and not as witnesses in the case.
"She made it clear in the affidavits that she was acting under the authority of the A-G representative," he said.
Appiah testified that the prosecution objected to the motion as filed in their affidavits and duly invoked them.
She said that the lawyer did not demonstrate any special circumstances that would warrant a stay of proceedings pending the decision of the appeal.
The Attorney General stated that a document had to be submitted through the appropriate witness.
She added that simply waiting for an interlocutory injunction would not give rise to the granting of the stay.
On Wednesday, July 10, the court upheld the prosecution's objection in the case involving Dr. Stephen Opuni, former Executive Director of COCOBOD, and Seidu Agongo, President and Chief Executive Officer of COCOBOD. Agricult Ghana Limited, seeking to have a document delivered through the intermediary of its witness.
The documents that the prosecution witness requested to present were a letter signed by Dr. Opoku-Ameyaw.
Dr. Opuni and Mr. Agongo face 27 charges, including fraud under false pretenses, willfully causing financial losses to the state, money laundering, bribery and corruption. An official and violation of the law on public procurement.
They both pleaded not guilty and are released on bail of 300,000 GHAC.
The court adjourned the trial to Monday, October 7, for continuation.
[ad_2]
Source link
