Gifty Oware-Mensah
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday refused an application filed by former Deputy Executive Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), Gifty Oware-Mensah, seeking to halt her trial at the High Court for allegedly stealing money from the Authority and causing financial loss to the state.
The accused has filed an appeal against the decision of a High Court which ordered her to file a list of names and addresses of witnesses she will call when the need arises for her to mount a defence.
She later filed a writ at the Supreme Court seeking the constitution’s interpretation of Article 19(2)(c) and 10 vis-à-vis the practice direction on disclosures in criminal trial pursuant to which the High Court made its order.
She then followed it up with an application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the writ.
That notwithstanding, the trial court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, has declined to pause the trial pending the determination of the application by the apex court.
Mrs. Oware-Mensah has been dragged to court for allegedly causing financial loss of GH¢6,956,157.47 by causing the state to pay the said amount as interest to the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) on a GH¢31,502,091.40 loan inappropriately authorised for Blocks of Life Consult, which she benefitted from.
She has also been accused of stealing and laundering GH¢31,502,091.40 by transferring it from the NSA higher-purchase escrow account with ADB to Blocks of Life Consult “for the purpose of disguising the illicit origin of the money, knowing it to be proceeds of crime.”
She pleaded not guilty to all the five charges read out by the court clerk, and was granted a bail of GH¢10 million with three sureties, two of whom must be justified with landed property within Accra.
Moving the application yesterday, her lawyer, Gary Nimako Marfo said the heart of the said application was that Article 19(2)(c) of the Constitution provides that persons charged in criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
He said Article 10 also indicates that no person shall be compelled to give evidence, yet the practice direction orders the accused to file a list of witnesses and names at case management stage.
“It’s our submission that Article 19 and 10 is the heart of criminal jurisprudence of our country. It is therefore, for no reason that an accused person shall not be compelled to even give evidence at all. The order is an attempt to give evidence,” he stated.
But the five-member panel of the court, presided over by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, was of the opinion that the accused person was under no obligation to file the list of witnesses, as she may decide not to call any witnesses at all.
The Bench further held that the accused person loses nothing whether or not she files the said list of witnesses as directed by the court, adding that the court cannot penalise her for not complying.
“Assuming you want to test the constitutionality, this matter can go on at the High Court without having to stay proceedings,” Justice Baffoe-Bonnie pointed.
The court added that there was not enough reason to stop the trial and, therefore, dismissed it.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak