Solomon Asamoah
A High Court in Accra last Thursday admitted the certificate of incorporation of Ghana Sky Train Limited and email correspondence between the former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Solomon Asamoah and members of the Audit Committee of GIIF in January 2019.
The defence also tendered through the prosecution’s first witness, Yaw Odame-Darkwa, Statutory Form 3 from the Registrar General’s Department on Ghana Sky Train Limited, dated February 15, 2019.
The documents and the email correspondences were tendered and admitted without any objections from the prosecution, led by the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai.
However, the ensuing questions and responses between the defence lawyer and witness presented the platform for multiple objections from the prosecution.
The witness, right after agreeing with Victoria Barth, counsel for Mr. Asamoah, that all the shares of Ghana Sky Train Limited are indicated to have been allotted to AI Sky Train Consortium Holding, sharply added that “I want it to be on record that the board did not sanction the registration of this company.”
He said for all the companies that were sanctioned by the board, decisions were taken on who would be the Director of those companies and approved by the board.
This assertion was sharply rebutted by the defence lawyer, who held that it is not correct that the GIIF board did not sanction the incorporation of Ghana Sky Train Limited as the witness claimed.
Mr. Yaw Odame-Darkwa maintained his position, insisting that the board did not sanction the project, adding that “unless of course counsel has a document that I don’t know of.”
“It is also not correct that the decision as to who would be the director of all the companies that the GIIF board dealt with was discussed and approved by the board as you have said,” the defence lawyer pushed back. But the witness simply answered: “Counsel, you are wrong.”
Mrs. Barth then pushed the witness to provide evidence for his assertion that “for all the companies that the GIIF board dealt with, they discussed who would be appointed as directors of those companies and approved of their decision as a board.”
This question drew a strong opposition from the Deputy Attorney General, who argued that the defence lawyer was “fishing” for information and also questioned the relevance of the question.
Midway through his objection which drew rebuttals from the other side, the trial judge, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, summoned the prosecution and the defence to approach the Bench.
For about ten minutes, the lawyers could not settle their disagreement about the propriety or otherwise of the question.
The lawyers returned to the Bar and the Deputy Attorney General was allowed to complete his objection after which he urged the court to disallow the question, arguing that asking the witness to provide documentary evidence for every response he gives to the court would make the trial impossible.
The objection was opposed by Mrs. Barth who argued, among other things that, it is trite that a court did not rely on bare assertions and that it was very appropriate for her to ask the witness to substantiate his assertion with evidence.
“If he can, so be it. If he cannot, that ends it. Wherein lies the fishing when the assertion was made by the witness himself? This is a criminal matter and every doubt that the defence is able to establish inures to its benefit, and it is my duty to ensure that I leave no issue unaddressed,” she added.
The court overruled the Deputy Attorney General’s objection, and the witness in his response said he had evidence and used his and others’ inclusion on the board of Maaha Beach Resort as an example, indicating that “these were things that were done properly that I could not just join the board of Maaha. I had the approval of the board.”
The lawyer then asked: “You will agree with me that the board approval on your appointment and that of Madam Cecilia Dambra onto Maaha is not captured in the minutes before this court.”
The witness said: “I have no way of verifying your assertion. If the board didn’t regulate things, it had the potential of creating chaos.”
The case was adjourned to February 2, for continuation.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak