Skip to main content

COCOBOD case: Opuni’s Fate, Edudzi's D-day



Former Chief Executive of COCOBOD Dr. Stephen Opuni and Managing Director Agricult Ghana Limited Seidu Agongo would be watching proceedings of the case at the Supreme Court for the interpretation of Article 19(2) (e) & (g) with crossed fingers because of the impact it would have on their case.

This is after the Court hearing criminal proceedings against them withheld its decision on an application demanding for documents key to their case until after the Supreme Court makes a decision on the said provision in the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana.

The lawyers for Dr. Opuni led by Samuel Codjoe were demanding for 13 different documentations covering facts that were included in the writ filed by the Attorney General.
The documents ranged from witness statements of the 2nd and 3rd accused persons and that of the prosecution, all fertilizer supply contracts signed between 2008 and 2018, alleged correspondences between Dr. Opuni and officers of the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana directing the shortening of the testing period of lithovit foliar fertilizer supplied by Agricult and that with the Public Procurement misleading the authority to approve the sole sourcing of the supply contract granted Agricult.
Moving the application today, Samuel Codjoe argued that even though some of the documents pertain to alleged acts undertaken by his client, he does not have copies of them because he acted in his official and not privately.

He said the application for the documents is backed by Article 19(2) (e) & (g) of the 1992 constitution.

The said provision of the constitution states

(2) A person charged with a criminal offence shall –
(e) be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of this defence;
(g) be afforded facilities to examine, in person or by his lawyer, the witnesses called by the prosecution before the court, and to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on the same conditions as those applicable to witnesses called by the prosecution;  

Samuel Codjoe argued that the documents form part of the “facilities” the constitution entitles the accused persons to.

He said the refusal to provide the accused persons with these documents would amount to denying them a constitutionally guaranteed right and make it difficult for them to defend themselves.
Samuel Codjoe also sought to use the opposition to the application to urge the court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

Responding to the application, a Deputy Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame was of the opinion that referring the matter to the Supreme Court would be out of place because the application was not backed by any rule of law or procedure.

He described the application as unfounded and hinged on irrelevant considerations.

The deputy AG argued that majority of the documents the Dr. Opuni was asking of were irrelevant to the case.

He however indicated that his outfit is ready to furnish the accused persons with the documents they consider relevant case.

Despite the strong opposition of the AG to the application, the Presiding Judge Justice Clemence Honyenuga was of the opinion that deciding on the application may be a slap in the face of the Supreme Court.

Even though he declined the invitation to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal Judge who was sitting as an additional High Court Judge was of the opinion that the decision of the highest court of the land on Article 19(2) (e) & (g) would be binding on him.

Justice Clemence Honyenuga therefore adjourned his decision on the application to April 30, 2018 to await the decision of the Supreme Court.

It would be recalled that a High Court Judge Justice Eric Kyei Baffour referred Article 19(2) (e) & (g) to the Supreme Court for interpretation after it became a bone of contention in the case against a former Board Chairman of the National Communications Authority and 4 others.

The decision of Justice Honyenuga means the fate of Dr. Opuni’s application is in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the former COCOBOD CEO can find solace in the fact that one of the lawyers who retain an interest in the case, Edudzi Kudzo Tamakloe may be the one to argue for the supply of documents to accused persons whiles his lawyer Samuel Cudjoe would also be arguing for the motion when the Supreme Court hears the matter.       


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sandy and Gibeleen's task; Improving sickle cell care

Two sisters Sandy Ayivor and Gibeleen Amponsah Ninpong are hoping to change the face of sickle cell care in the country within five years. This they hope to do through their GNS (Gibeleen & Sandy) Foundation. Ghana’s foremost sickle cell clinic is a one block facility comparable to the ones used as clinics in villages. The most worrying aspect is that the same facility is supposed to be the Ghana Institute of Clinical Genetics. The Institute is supposed to be the leading center for diagnosis and care for persons suffering from genetic conditions or ones inherited. Even though the Institute has some of the best brains in clinical genetics running and working in the facility, they have been reduced to providing only sickle cell care. A former Director of the Institute Dr. Edeghonghon Olayemi says the GNS Foundation first contacted the clinic and demanded to know the challenges of the company. He revealed that a list of the challenges confronting the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

SC to determine fate of "unexecuted" but "ratified" US-Ghana agreement

Barely three days after its ratification under controversial circumstances, the Defense Cooperation agreement between the Governments of the United States and Ghana is facing its first constitutional test. The agreement is the subject is a suit filed by Ashanti Regional Youth organizer of the National Democratic Congress Yaw Brogya Gyamfi. The government led by the Minister of Defence Dominic Nittiwul successfully pushed the agreement through parliament with the overwhelming support of all New patriotic Party MPs despite concerns over its constitutionality. The Minority led by its leader Haruna Iddrisu had questioned the suitability of the agreement for a parliamentary approval because it has not been duly signed and therefore does not meet the constitutional requirement of execution in order for it to be ratified. Article 75(2) which gives Parliament the authority to ratify agreements entered into by the executive reads; A treaty, agreement or convention executed by...
1 comment
Read more

Anger; new income tax measure takes toll on Judges salary

Anger is brewing in the judiciary over the impact of mid-year tax measures on the salaries of judges. It would be recalled that government announced a 35 percent tax on persons earning over 10,000 cedis as part of measures to rake in more revenue. Even though the move has been hailed as forward looking, Gold News understands it is affecting the living conditions of judges. Article 127(5) of the 1992 Constitution states; “The salary, allowances, privileges and rights in respect of leave of absence, gratuity, pension and other conditions of service of a Justice of the superior court or any judicial officer or other person exercising judicial power, shall not be varied to his disadvantage.” This constitutional provision, I am made to understand imposes an obligation on government to ensure that its policies do not unduly negatively affect the living conditions of judges but that seems not to be the case at this time. Information I have gathered indicates  some judges ar...
Post a Comment
Read more