Opuni trial: the Court rejects the request for suspension of the proceedings of Agongo



[ad_1]

General News of Monday, March 18, 2019

Source: clbadfmonline.com

2019-03-18

Stephene Opuni Vv Stephen Kwabena Opuni, Former President and CEO of COCOBOD

A High Court of Accra presided over by Judge C.Y. On Monday, March 18, 2019, Hornyenuga rejected a request for stay of proceedings filed by businessman 's lawyer Seidu Agongo, the second defendant prosecuted by the state, along with 39, a former Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) executive director, Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni, in the ongoing fertilizer case in which they face some 27 counts.

Mr. Agongo's counsel, Mr. Benson Nutsukpui, explained the crucial point of his appeal for the annulment of the proceedings. His role was to determine whether the testing authority at COCOBOD, the Ghana Cocoa Research Institute (CRIG), was aware of the fertilizer at the heart of the case (Lithovit Liquid Fertilizer ).

He presented four exceptional circumstances or reasons why, in his opinion, the court should grant his request for a stay of proceedings, asks that he had filed on March 1, 2019, on behalf of his client, in the case of Waiting for an appeal from the court decision of February 25, 2019, which blocked Mr. Nutsukpui's attempt to file a report of the CRIG inquiry committee through the intermediary of the second prosecution witness, Dr. Alfred Arthur.

First, Mr. Nutsukpui argued that the decision, by its nature, deprived its clients of the constitutional right to a fair trial, citing article 19 of the 1992 Constitution. He added that if the decision was upheld , his clients would be denied the right to a fair trial and would be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. In his view, it would be a flagrant miscarriage of justice, a reason powerful enough to warrant a stay of proceedings in order to test the decision.

The second reason was that the court did not follow the binding decision of Yeboah / Amofa, as reported in 1997-1998. 1 Ghana Law Report (1GLR, page 674). Mr. Nutsukpui explained that, in the Yeboah case against Amofa, the authority does not include paternity, which is one of the reasons given by Judge CY Hornyenuga in his decision.

The third exceptional circumstance of Mr. Nutsukpui is that the decision deprived his clients of the right to present no grievance. He reiterated that the violation of this right would automatically be a serious denial of justice. He cited the Zotorvie case against the Republic, 1984-1986, 1 GLR, page 1, to support his argument.

His last exceptional circumstance was that the court, in its decision, explained that it had not formed the CRIG Committee to investigate the missing files. In his brief, Mr. Nutsukpui noted that the fact that the committee was not constituted influenced the court, adding that this would not deprive the character of the document as an official document.

The lawyer for the first accused (Mr Stephen Kwabena Opuni), Mr Sam Cudjoe, is in agreement with the arguments put forward by Mr Nutsukpui.

However, a senior prosecutor, Stella Ohene Appiah, who represented the state in the case on Monday, March 18, 2019, objected to the application being accepted. She mentioned that the court's decision of February 25, 2019 was appropriate and based on the law. She described Mr. Agongo's motion for a stay of proceedings as a calculated attempt to delay the proceedings and cause the court to waste time.

After listening to the arguments of both parties and reading the documents before him, Justice Hornyenuga stated that he saw no exceptional reason for granting the application.

As a result, he denied the application and postponed the hearing until March 27, 2019.

In his ruling, the president of the court also stated that he had never thought that his decision of February 25 was to deny the accused the right not to be heard.

Judge Hornyenuga added that the approval of the stay application was left to the discretion of the court and that a notice of appeal was not sufficient reason to stay the proceedings. He added that the suspension of the proceedings would only delay the trial because the second Prosecution witness has been in the box for nearly five months.

[ad_2]
Source link