Oliver Barker-Vormawor
A High Court in Accra has discharged Oliver Barker-Vormawor, who was standing trial for treason felony.
His trial was a result of a social media post on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook that he will undertake a coup, calling Ghana’s Military “useless” in the process.
The discharge follows a decision by the Attorney General to file a nolle prosequi to discontinue the trial which had been before the court since 2022.
This adds to the list of the many cases that were initiated by the previous Attorney General but have been discontinued by the current one since assuming office.
Barker-Vormawor was arrested on February 11, 2022, after he allegedly threatened to stage a coup if government went ahead to pass the Electronic Transaction Levy, commonly known as E-Levy.
He was facing two counts of treason felony and he chose not to plead to the charges, invoking Section 238 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, (Act 29) which allows him to do so.
Section 238 of Act 29 states that “Where an accused who is arraigned on, or charged with, an indictment, stands mute of malice, or neither will, nor by reason of infirmity can answer directly to the indictment, the Court may cause a plea of “not guilty” to be entered on behalf of the accused.”
Esi Dentaa Yankah, a Principal State Attorney, told the court yesterday that the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi and intended to withdraw the case.
Justice Mary Yanzuh, the trial judge, struck the case out as withdrawn and discharged the accused person, who was not in court.
His post was in reaction to an E-Levy Cake allegedly made to celebrate the birthday of then Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu.
Barker-Vormawor made his first appearance before the High Court on October 13, 2022, after he was committed by the Ashaiman District Court to stand trial for the post.
He wascharged with two counts of treason felony andwas granted a bail of GH¢2 million by a Tema High Court.
His lawyer,Dr. Justice Srem Sai, who is now the Deputy Attorney General, during the committal urged the court to strike out the charges, arguing that the nature of the charges preferred against the accused offend the rules of ‘Duplicity and Multiplicity’ and do not support the brief facts of the case. He was unsuccessful.
He once again filed an application seeking the High Court to strike out the Bill of Indictment – a summary of evidence presented by the Attorney General at the committal proceedings. He was unsuccessful on that front too.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak