Kwabena Adu-Boahene
A High Court in Accra yesterday dismissed an application by lawyers for former Director-General of National Signals Bureau, Kwabena Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei-Boateng, asking it to strike out portions of the Attorney General’s response to a submission of no case to answer.
The lawyers had urged the court to strike out the portions of the submissions complained about for allegedly being “falsified records” which were not part of the record of proceedings, evidence led and exhibits before the court.
The court, presided over by Justice Francis Achibonga, said if counsel makes representations or even misrepresentations of the evidence in his or her written address, same is of no moment in the court deciding the suit one way or the other, as the court would have to rely solely on the evidence adduced before it and exhibit admitted during the trial.
Trial
The couple and Advantage Solutions Limited, are facing a total of 11 counts of conspiracy to commit crime, stealing, using public office for profit, money laundering and causing financial loss to the state.
They have all denied any wrongdoing in the ongoing trial, which has attracted both national and international attention.
The prosecution closed its case on September 9 after calling four witnesses and the court gave both the defence and prosecution counsel to file a submission of no case to answer and a response to same, which have since been filed.
Non-existent Record
However, Samuel Atta-Akyea, counsel for the couple, filed an application asking the court to strike out portions of the Attorney General’s response to the submission for importing non-existent materials not borne out by the record of proceedings.
“He has made attributions to witnesses regarding matters they never said anything about. And there is also the statement of the content of an exhibit which is not permitted by the rules of court, the rules of evidence and even the ethics of the legal profession,” he argued yesterday.
He contended that the risk and danger of not bringing these matters before the court is that they could deceive the court in its judgment and “we might suffer miscarriage of justice.”
“It is your bounden duty to ensure the sanctity of the records of proceeding. Your records must be sacrosanct even as you deny lawyers any attempt to import their material into the records under the guise of written submissions,” Mr. Atta-Akyea added.
Opposition
The application was opposed by Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who argued that the application did not invoke any known jurisdiction of the court, pointing out that a court has no jurisdiction to expunge an argument made by counsel in a written submission.
“What the court has the power to do is to evaluate the argument as against the record before the court and make a decision as to whether to decide the case for or against the submission. Where the court has jurisdiction to strike out or expunge, the law expressly provides,” he argued.
He further suggested that the motion was “carefully designed to delay the trial” and prayed the court to treat it “as what exactly it is.”
Dr. Srem-Sai further argued that the motion was actually prejudicial to the court’s power to determine the submission of no case because it is assuming that the judge has no capacity to decide the merits of this case based on the merits.
“The truth of the matter is that the application is alien to any criminal procedure and practice and must be dismissed accordingly as it is another way of procuring the court to decide the submission of no case even before a decision is made thereof,” the Deputy Attorney General added.
Ruling
Justice Achibonga, in his ruling, held the view that it is not the duty of the court to inquire whether or not the written submission filed by counsel is a true reflection of the evidence led or that counsel relied on non-existent evidence and to strike out same.
He said it is rather the duty of counsel on the other side to draw the attention of the court to such and for the court, whether its attention has been drawn or not to rely solely on the evidence properly led at the trial, thereby constituting the record and exhibits properly admitted in order to arrive at a fair and just conclusion as to the matters in question.
“I am therefore unable to go into the merits of the application. For the above reasons, the application is dismissed,” he held.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak