James Gyakye Quayson
The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed an attempt by the embattled Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, to put his perjury and other charges trial on hold until the determination of an appeal filed against the decision of the trial court
A three-member panel of the court presided over by Justice Henry Anthony Kwofie and assisted by Justices Richard Adjei-Frimpong and Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, dismissed the application seeking a stay of proceeding on ground that no exceptional circumstance had been demonstrated to warrant a grant of it.
The court was also of the view that the repeat application for stay of the trial did not demonstrate that the ruling complained of was arbitrary, capricious or biased.
Mr. Quayson is facing five counts of deceit of public officer, forgery of passport or travel certificate, knowingly making a false statutory statement, perjury and false declaration of office. He pleaded not guilty to all five counts.
The trial court on June 16, 2023, ruled that it would from June 20, 2023, hear the case on daily basis.
But lawyers for Mr. Quayson filed a review motion asking the court to reconsider the decision, particularly urging the court to adjourn the case to days that do not include June 22 and 23 to allow him adequate time to prepare for the Assin North by-election, which he won.
The court, in its ruling, turned down the motion indicating that adjournments are at the discretion of the court and not the convenience of parties, and that its decision was clearly within the law and no case had been made to show that the order was contrary to law.
The court, however, adjourned the case beyond the dates requested by the lawyers and Mr. Quayson went on to win the Assin North by-election.
His lawyers later filed an application for stay urging the trial court to stay proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.
That application was opposed by the prosecution and the court in its ruling dismissed it, with Justice Yanzuh holding that she was unable to agree with the submission that the appeal would be rendered negatory if the proceedings are not stayed, an argument canvassed by counsel for the accused.
His lawyers then filed a repeat application at the Court of Appeal urging it to stay proceedings at the High Court until the appeal is determined.
Moving the motion yesterday, lead counsel for the accused, Tsatsu Tsikata told the court that a violation of a constitutional right to a fair trial such as is taking place in the High Court constitutes an exceptional circumstance.
He said it goes without saying that Article 19 of the Constitution provides that a person challenged with a criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court.
Mr. Tsikata said the situation in the case, is that the right to fair trial is being rendered negatory by a decision of the trial court to continue the trial even though disclosure requirements have not been fully satisfied.
He also averred that the process that is going on before the trial court is already tainted as a result of the failure to ensure full disclosures.
Again, counsel argued that where discretionary power is exercised by the trial court based on prejudicial statements including those of the Attorney General and the President of the Republic, it cannot be the case that prejudicial comments, even insulting comments is irrelevant.
The application was opposed by Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who argued that the application was unmeritorious and the only matter opposing counsel should be concerned about is whether the trial court erred in ordering for the trial to be continued on day-to-day basis.
He said all the other allegations about prejudice, statements that were even made after this ruling are utterly irrelevant, indicating that in any case those alleged statements were made long after the court made its decision to hear the case on daily basis.
Mr. Dame added that there has not been any ruling that affects the liberty of the accused as the prosecution has not even closed its case, hence the accused person’s claims were premature and without basis.
“The trial court was entirely within its rights to order for a day-to-day hearing. The Supreme Court has in the Baffoe-Bonnie case emphasised the need for a reasonable trial process. The practice direction enjoins a day-to-day trial,” the Attorney General added.
The court, in its ruling, held that the main issue is whether the decision in any way offends the right to fair trial and having averted their mind to provisions of the constitution, the Baffoe-Bonnie case and case management strategy, the trial judge acted within the remits of the law when she made the decision on a day-to-day trial.
The panel added that it had paid attention to alleged prejudicial comments by the President, AG and other ministers, and those comments are extra judicial and the trial judge did not make any decision based on those comments. The court therefore, refused the application for stay of proceedings.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak