Kwabena Adu-Boahene
There was drama in court yesterday as Samuel Atta Akyea, counsel for embattled former Chief Executive Officer of National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene walked out of court mid-proceeding.
The decision was informed by the court’s refusal to adjourn the case for him to pursue at the Supreme Court, an application seeking to prohibit Justice Eugene Nyate Nyadu from further presiding over the trial in which Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng have been accused of stealing GH¢49.1 million from the state.
The application is accusing the judge of being bias towards the accused persons.
The proceeding prior to the judge’s ruling got a bit heated to the extent that Esi Dentaa Yankah had to remind Mr. Atta Akyea that she is not just some junior lawyer but a Principal State Attorney.
Mr. Adu-Boahene, his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited are standing trial for allegedly stealing GH¢49.1 million from the state in a purported deal to procure a cybersecurity system for the country.
They are facing 11 counts of conspiracy to commit crime, stealing, using public office for profit, money laundering and causing financial loss to the state.
According to the prosecution’s brief fact before the court, Mr. Adu-Boahene had transferred state funds into a private bank account which he used to purchase various landed properties.
Prohibition
The prosecution was expected to continue the examination-in-chief of its second witness when Mr. Atta Akyea drew the court’s attention to an application for prohibition for alleged bias he had filed at the Supreme Court.
“In the circumstances, I pray that proceedings be adjourned to abide the outcome of the Supreme Court case,” he urged the court, relying on a Supreme Court case which said a judge should have adjourned a case when a similar situation arose in 2022.
The prayer was opposed by Esi Dentaa Yankah, who argued that the mere filing of a case at the Supreme Court does not operate as a stay of proceedings, citing several cases which supported that position.
“It seems as if a trend is developing that at every step in this case one motion or another would be filed and the request for stay subsequently made,” she observed.
She added that the case cited by Mr. Atta Akyea is not a criminal case and the circumstances of stay of proceedings in criminal cases have been made intentionally distinct from that of other cases.
She, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the oral application so that the trial could proceed with the second prosecution witness further testifying.
Ruling
Justice Eugene Nyante Nyadu, prior to his ruling, said he was just doing his work diligently and that he does not have any interest in any of the cases that come to his court.
“I’ll deliver my ruling and proceed. If it goes up there [Supreme Court] and they decide to take the case from me, that is fine. It takes pressure off my head.”
He then referred to two separate Supreme Court cases, one saying the case should proceed while the other suggests that the case should be adjourned.
He decided to stick with the one that indicated that the filing of the application for prohibition does not stop the judge from proceeding with the trial.
He said adjournments are at the discretion of the trial court and in the instant case, no miscarriage of justice would occasion to the accused persons if proceedings continued yesterday, since “no finding has yet been made by the Supreme Court on the pending motion.”
He added that “should the applicant be successful with their pending application and the Supreme Court makes an observation of any impropriety on the part of this court, consequential orders would accordingly be made by the Supreme Court to correct all wrongs and no miscarriage of justice would be occasioned.”
He, therefore, dismissed the oral application and asked the witness to step into the box for the continuation of the trial.
Walk Out
It was at this point that Mr. Atta Akyea decided to walk out of the proceeding, arguing that he could not take part in the same “forum of bias,” as it “could be a technical knockout for me at the Supreme Court.”
The judge eventually adjourned the case to October 30 after the lawyer and his juniors walked out and Adu-Boahene indicated that he was incapable of raising objections which his counsel would have raised during the rest of the proceedings.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak