Accra, May 26, GNA – An Accra High Court on Tuesday dismissed a motion for stay of proceedings pending an appeal filed by Dr Stephen Opuni, the former CEO of COCOBOD and two others regarding the ruling on a submission of no case.
Justice Clemence Honyenuga, Justice of the Supreme Court, sitting as a High Court Judge, held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance to warrant a stay of proceedings.
Earlier, the Court, presided over by Justice Honyenuga, in his ruling on a submission of no case, said the prosecution had succeeded in proving the essential ingredients in the charges levelled against the accused persons except for three charges on money laundering.
He said the court was convinced that the matter was very sensitive and that the prosecution had been able to make a prima facie case against the accused persons.
It was after that, that the court ordered Dr Opuni, and two others, to open their defence.
He said it was his opinion that the application could not be countenanced due to the amendment to the Court of Appeal Rules, which did not entertain stay of proceedings.
The Judge said it was unfortunate that the two applicants did not state the rule under which they brought the application.
“The authorities are clear on an application for stay of proceedings,” he said, adding that, those exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated for the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants.
The application was, therefore, dismissed and adjourned to Thursday, June 3, 2021 for Dr Opuni to open his defence.
Earlier, Mr Samuel Cudjoe, Counsel for Dr Opuni, moving the motion and its accompanying affidavits in support, said the court erred in its decision to dismiss his client’s submission of no case.
He said the Court, in its ruling on the submission of no case, rejected certain exhibits, which were already tendered in evidence.
The Counsel said it was their submission that the court erred by rejecting the exhibit tendered without objection by the same court.
He said it was a criminal trial and the liberty of an individual was at stake, saying, it was better for 99 accused persons to be free for one innocent person to be wrongfully convicted.
Mr Cudjoe prayed the court to exercise its discretion and grant the motion in favour of the applicant.
Mr Nutifafa Nutsukpui, Counsel for Seidu Agongo, the CEO of Agricult Ghana Limited, said the court’s decision to reject the exhibits on the grounds that it offended the hearsay rule was contrary to a bounding Supreme Court ruling.
“All the exhibits that are being rejected by the court in the ruling of submission of no case were tendered initially without objection,” he said.
Assuming the court was right in classifying those exhibits as hearsay statement for which they were rejected, how about the similar exhibits tendered, how were they preserved, leaving the accused persons out from the benevolence of the court, he said.
Mr Nutsukpui said the rejection of those exhibits had effects on the case and that the Court may want to take a second look at that.
He said the authorities the Court cited said exhibits could be rejected at the judgement stage of the trial, meanwhile, the accused persons had not spoken and the trial had not reached the judgement stage.
The Counsel was of the opinion that the appeal would afford the Court of Appeal the opportunity to examine what had been put before it.
Opposing the motion, Mrs Evelyn Keelson, the Chief State Attorney, said: “We are opposed to both applications.”
She said the prosecution wanted to draw the court’s attention to the fact that currently, there was no law or rule of law permitting the court to grant stay of proceedings.
The Chief State Attorney said the applicants had not established any bases for which their application should be granted, adding that there were no special or exceptional circumstances.
She said the applicants had not raised any issues about the court ruling, which stated that a prima facie case had been made against them for them to open their defence.
“They only raised issues about the rejection of exhibits,” she said, adding that no miscarriage of justice had been made in the trial and those statements rejected were hearsay.
The State Attorney said the exhibits, even if admitted in the trial, did not discredit the prosecution, because it had been successful in establishing a prima facie case against the accused persons.
Dr Opuni and Mr Agongo are facing 27 charges, including defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the State, money laundering, corruption by public officer and contravention of the Public Procurement Act.
They have both pleaded not guilty to the charges and are on a GH₵300,000.00 self-recognizance bail, each.
GNA