Ernest Thompson
The Supreme Court yesterday asked the Office of the Attorney-General to amend the Charges preferred against the former Director-General of Social Security and National Trust Fund (SSNIT), Ernest Thompson. The latter was being arraigned in Court over the part he played in the Operational Business Suite (OBS) Contract saga of the Trust, during his tenure of office.
Ernest Thompson had in 2019 or thereabouts, been charged among other things, with “causing financial loss to the State”.Mr. Thompson had, however, insisted that the Attorney-General’s Department had not included the particulars he would need to defend himself and had in consequence, challenged the action at the Appellate Court.
A 5-member Panel of the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision had upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal which had struck out the charges of “causing financial loss to the State” preferred against Mr. Thompson. This was for not disclosing enough particulars. The AG had subsequently been ordered to include those particulars, so as to enable the ex-SSNIT Boss to adequately prepare his defence.
The Panel presided over by Justice Yaw Appau and assisted by Justices Agnes Dordzie, Lovelace Johnson, Gertrude Torkornoo and Umoro Tanko Amadu had held that the charges leveled against Mr. Thompson did not meet the requirements of Article 19 Clause 2(d) of the 1992 Constitution.
This decision by the highest Court, emanates froman appeal filed by the AG’s Department last year, challenging the decision of the Court Appeal, which had struck out the charge of “causing financial loss to the State”, on the grounds that Mr. Thompson did not disclose any particulars.
Main Trial
Mr. Thompson and three former Management members of SSNIT and a private Businesswoman, were being accused of “causing financial loss to the State” in the award of a controversial and failed $72 million IT Project, dubbed the Operational Business Suite (OBS).
Caleb KwakuAfaglo, then-General Manager of Management Information Systems at the SSNIT and Peter Hayibor, then-General Counsel of SSNIT, as well as the Business woman, one Juliet HassanaKrama, CEO of Perfect Business Solutions (PBS) Limited were the other accused persons.
They had been accused of inflating the contract sum of the OBS from $34,011,914.21 to $66,783,148.08, through what were termed variously as ‘change orders’ and ‘variations’. They had all pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Charge Particulars
The case is currently at the pre-trial stage. Ahead of the full trial Mr. Thompson, Mr. Hayibor and Ms. Krama have filed separate applications before the trial High Court, to strike out charges leveled against them; or in default, to make an order directing the Attorney General’s Department to provide them with details of the charges preferred against them.
The Applications were opposed by the Prosecution who had argued that their Lawyers were rearguing issues that had already been determined by the Supreme Court in respect of other cases.
The Trial Court, presided over by Justice Henry Kwofie, a Judge of the High Court of Appeal, sitting with additional responsibilities as a High Court Judge, had dismissed the Applications, holding that the charges leveled against the accused persons did contain particulars necessary to give the applicants reasonable information as to the nature of the charges preferred against them.
The Court had also ruled that acceding to the request of the Lawyers would be tantamount to compelling the Prosecution to provide evidence in the Charge Sheet.
Main Appeal
Not satisfied with the decision, Lawyers for Mr. Thompson had filed an Appeal against the decision of the High Court, at the Court of Appeal.
Mr. Hayibor and Ms. Krama did not challenge the Trial Court’s decision.
Mr. Thompson’s Lawyers based their Appeal on the grounds that the High Court Judge had committed an “error of Law” and had also erred in dismissing his Application.
The Court of Appeal on April 3, 2020, in a 2-1 majority decision granted the Appeal, holding that the particulars of offences on the Charge Sheet were not sufficient.
The Court has therefore, directed the Prosecution to “provide reasonable information to enable the appellant (Mr. Thompson) prepare adequately for his defence.”
Supreme Court
The Attorne- General’s Department then filed an Appeal at the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal, asking that Mr. Thompson be given more disclosures.
Yesterday, March 18, 2021, the Panel led by Justice Appau, after hearing the Appeal, held that it was in agreement with the decision of the Court of Appeal stating thatCharges leveled against the accused person did not meet the requirements of Article 19 Clause 2 (d) of the 1992 Constitution, and Section112(1) of the Criminal and other Offences Act (Act 30).
He said the Court found no merit in the AG’s appeal and subsequently dismissed it.
Justice Appau after reading the decision of the Court, told the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Yvonne AtakoraObuobisa,who was in court herself, to “take another look at the Charges and ensure that they provide enough information so that the accused persons would know how to defend themselves”.
The main trial at the High Court continues on March 25, 2021.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak