Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the proceedings in the trial of former Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) CEO, Dr. Stephen Opuni and businessman, Seidu Agongo, formerly conducted by retired Justice Clemence Honyenuga, be adopted by an Accra High Court.
A three-judge panel of the court, presided over by Justice Philip Bright Mensah, yesterday upheld the Attorney General’s appeal against the trial court’s decision to begin the case.
The other two judges are and assisted by Justices Jennifer Dadzie and Ernest Owusu-Dapaa.
The court in a unanimous decision said having regard for the peculiar situation of the case and regard to constitutional provisions, the High Court misdirected itself and thereby came to a wrong conclusion to start the case afresh.
Case Restart
Dr. Opuni and Seidu Agongo, are accused of causing over GH¢217 million financial loss to the state and have been on trial before an Accra High Court since March 2018, charged with 27 offences.
The prosecution, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa, called seven witnesses to prove the charges against the accused persons who were extensively cross-examined by defence lawyers, some lasting about six months.
The prosecution closed its case on March 30, 2021 and Dr. Opuni has since opened his defence and called seven out of the eleven witnesses he intends to rely on to counter the prosecution’s case.
But the case had to be reassigned to another judge following the retirement of Justice Honyenuga (rtd) and the expiration of the six months’ extension granted him by the Chief Justice in accordance with the 1992 Constitution.
Justice Gyimah, in a ruling on whether to adopt the old proceedings or start the trial afresh, had held that it would be unfair for the court to ignore the allegations made against the previous judge and adopt the previous proceedings as they were.
He said the law requires fairness towards an accused person and the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty should not be overlooked by the court.
The judge also pointed out that in order for the court to have first-hand information in the trial and pay attention to the demeanour of witnesses, the court will start the trial from scratch.
Appeal
The Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed an appeal and averred that the trial judge exercised his discretion wrongly in arriving at a conclusion that he “will be saddled with the same suspicions and allegations of unfairness levelled against the current state of proceedings”, which have already been dealt with by the Supreme Court.
The AG argued that the judge ignored the point that the only motion pending before the trial court was an application for the previous judge to recuse himself, which had been rendered moot by the judge’s retirement and subsequent placement of the case before the new judge.
Again, the notice of appeal averred that the new judge “in relying on irrelevant factors already disposed of by Superior Courts, unfairly gave the accused persons a second bite at the cherry.”
“The decision of the court to start the trial de novo (afresh) has occasioned a miscarriage of justice as it will hinder an efficient trial of the accused persons in the instant case,” the AG avers.
Again, the notice of appeal also argued that the ruling of the court was contrary to the principles of fair trial contained in Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution and as decided by the Supreme Court in the Republic vs Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie case in 2020.
“The learned Judge erred, in the circumstances of the instant case, in placing undue premium on the need to assess the demeanour of the witnesses called at the trial,” he pointed out.
The notice of appeal therefore, sought an order setting aside the ruling directing that the trial be started afresh as well an order that the evidence led at the trial so far be adopted by the trial judge.
Ruling
The Court of Appeal in its concluding part of the judgement on the appeal said the High Court misdirected itself and subsequently granted the Attorney General’s appeal in its entirety.
The court, therefore, ordered the trial court to adopt the proceedings previously presided over by Justice (rtd.) Honyenuga instead of restarting the case.
Godfred Yeboah Dame after the proceedings told journalists he believes the Court of Appeal’s decision will ensure fairness to both the prosecution and defence in the case.
He disclosed that his Office has drafted a Bill that is aimed at improving the country’s criminal Justice system and one of the provisions in the new Bill addresses the issue of courts adopting proceedings in criminal trials by other courts in the event that another trial court or judge is unable to conclude a matter before them.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak