William Matthew Tetteh Tevie and Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie
The Supreme Court has ruled that some former top officials of the National Communications Authority (NCA) who are being accused of willfully causing $4 million financial loss to the state have the right to disclosure of prosecution documents.
According to the apex court, accused persons in a summary trial are entitled to documents which the prosecution intends to rely on for the trial to allow them put up a proper defence.
The court, however, held that disclosure is not absolute and it is at the discretion of the prosecution to determine which documents it deems as relevant for the trial.
The discretion, the court noted, must regard issues concerning national security, safety of witnesses and matters of public interest.
That notwithstanding, the prosecution’s discretion is subject to the review of the trial judge who can determine whether or not a document is relevant to the trial upon request by an accused person.
In a ruling read by Justice Sophia Adinyira, the seven-member panel unanimously held that it will not be fair, just and balanced if the prosecution is allowed to keep documents to its chest in order to achieve a conviction at the end of the trial.
Other members of the panel were Justices Julius Ansah, Jones Dotse, Gabriel Pwamang, Sule Gbadegbe and Yaw Apau.
The apex court’s ruling comes three months after lawyers for the accused persons prayed an Accra High Court hearing the matter to stay its proceedings and refer Article 19 Clauses 2 E and G to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
Trial
The immediate-past board members of the NCA including the Chairman Eugene Baffoe-Bonnie, William Mathew Tetteh Tevie, former Director General of the NCA; Dr. Nana Owusu Ensaw, a former chairman of finance sub-committee of the NCA board; Alhaji Salifu Mimina Osman, a former National Security deputy Coordinator on the NCA Board as well as a private businessman, George Derek Oppong, Director of Infraloks Development Limited (IDL) have been put before an Accra High Court for willfully causing financial loss to the state and stealing.
A first prosecution witness, Abena Asafu-Adjei was discharged after she had concluded her testimony to the court and the defence lawyers ended their cross examinations.
But somewhere in the course of the trial, defence lawyers asked the court to compel the prosecution to furnish them with prosecution documents three clear days before the trial.
They were calling for documents including witness statements and all other documents including those the prosecution did not intend to rely on for the trial
They prayed the court to declare as inadmissible documents which were not given to them three days before the trial, as well as nullify the trial for failure to give them documents.
The state however, strongly opposed the motion, with Evelyn Keelson, a Chief State Attorney stating that the Article was being wrongly quoted and it is only the Supreme Court that has the power to interpret the Articles in the Constitution if the need arises.
She said there are no rules in the country that compel the state to supply accused persons with list of witnesses and witness statements three days before they are tendered in evidence.
The High Court presided over by Justice Eric Kyei Barfour was thus compelled to refer the Article to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
Interpretation.
A panel of seven justices presided over by Justice William Atuguba, in their interpretation yesterday, ruled that the accused persons have a right to be furnished with the prosecution documents.
The court held that it is the duty of the prosecution to furnish an accused person with relevant documents so that the innocent is not convicted.
The court, however, did not place any timeline of when the document should be given saying disclosure is continuous and begins when a person is charged for court.
It held that failure by the prosecution to disclose documents before the trial does not render the document inadmissible, but rather an adjournment of the trial to enable the accused access the document.
Opuni Trial
The apex court’s interpretation paves the way for the trial of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni who has been accused of causing financial loss to the state to the tune of GH?217,370,289.22 to continue.
The trial was stayed by an Accra High Court as a result of a similar issue of interpretation raised by his lawyer.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak