Sky Train Case Solomon Asamoah Seeks To Halt Trial Again

Solomon Asamoah 

The former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Solomon Asamoah, has made another attempt to halt his trial while he challenges the decision of the trial court ordering him to mount a defence ahead of his subpoenaed witnesses.

Mr. Asamoah, together with former Board Chairman of the Fund, Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, are on trial for allegedly causing $2 million financial loss to the state by investing it in the Sky Train project.

The court, on October 29, during case management for the defence, had directed the accused persons to open their defence and testify in the absence of witnesses who had been subpoenaed to testify for them.

But his lawyers have appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal, indicating it infringes on his right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution.

They subsequently followed it with an application for stay of the proceeding, pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal.

Mr. Asamoah, in an affidavit in support of the motion for stay of proceedings, avers that the interlocutory appeal raises substantial and arguable questions of law concerning the scope of the trial court’s case management powers in relation to his constitutional rights to a fair hearing.

“That my appeal is not frivolous but raises serious questions regarding the fairness of the trial process including my constitutional right to remain silent, to present and organise my defence under Article 19(2)(e), (f) and (g) of the Constitution and to equality of arms with the prosecution,” he contends.

He further points out that the appeal challenges the trial court’s power to lawfully dictate that he testifies before other defence witnesses in the absence of any apparent statutory authority under Act 30 and despite his right to elect not to testify at any stage of the trial.

“Compelling me to testify first will alter my defence strategy irreversibly, force me to disclose my evidence earlier than intended, affect the examination of subsequent witnesses and impair my constitutional right to make full answer and defence. Such prejudice cannot be remedied after the event,” he stated.

Mr. Asamoah also contends that he will suffer irreparable prejudice if the trial proceeds because the infringement he is protesting will already have occurred and the Court of Appeal will be unable to give him an effective remedy. “My appeal will merely become an academic exercise,” he stressed.

He said the temporary delay occasioned by granting this application is outweighed by the need to protect his constitutional rights and to preserve the effectiveness of appellate review.

“The Republic suffers no material prejudice if proceedings are held in abeyance pending the determination of my appeal,” he indicated.

Again, Mr. Asamoah is of the view that compiling the record of appeal should be swift since it will comprise primarily of the proceedings of October 29, 2026.

“I have been diligent in attending court throughout these proceedings and undertake to pursue the appeal expeditiously. That the interests of justice favour the grant of a stay of proceedings and the suspension of the Court’s directions pending the determination of my appeal,” he added.

BY Gibril Abdul Razak