Lawyers in the ongoing trial of former COCOBOD boss and two others have expressed shock at the decision of the new trial judge to adopt proceedings as recorded by various courts without the parties being privy to what is actually being adopted.
The concern of the counsel for the accused persons emanates from what was detected at the Court of Appeal that there were omissions in the proceedings as it was being moved from one court to another.
The former COCOBOD Chief Executive, Dr. Stephen Opuni and businessman Seidu Agongo as well as Agricult Ghana Limited, are facing 27 charges, including willfully causing financial loss to the state and contravention of the Public Procurement Act in the purchase of Lithovit liquid fertiliser between 2014 and 2016.
Justice Aboagye Tandoh who took over from Justice Kwasi A. Gyimah, who was transferred to Kumasi, appeared to have taken lawyers of the accused persons by surprise when he announced the adoption of proceedings on Tuesday, July 25, and followed it with directives to the first accused person to call his seventh witness for cross-examination to continue.
“I have examined and satisfied myself with the records and proceedings of the case of the Republic vrs Stephen kwabena Opuni and two others. I will therefore go ahead and adopt the proceedings as recorded by the other court. That is my ruling,” Justice Tandoh declared.
“My lord, what you have just done is alien to the practice. What are you adopting now?” Lawyer Samuel Codjoe, counsel for Dr. Opuni, enquired.
After a brief exchanges with counsel the judge insisted: “That is my ruling. I said I have satisfied myself with the proceedings and adopted same.”
But Samuel Codjoe stressed, “we don’t have any records and we don’t know what you have adopted; since it’s your ruling, we will do what is right”.
Justice Aboagye Tandoh then decided to adjourn sitting to Wednesday, July 26, 2023, but he was informed that the seventh defence witness is out of jurisdiction. The last time he mounted the box was in February 23, 2023 when the Attorney-General asked the trial judge, Justice Clemence Honyenuga who had retired, to handover the case to the Chief Justice for a new judge to preside.
Lawyer Codjoe said, “My lord DW7 informed us that he had to go outside the country for his son’s graduation and, my Lord we have not made contact with him ever since. But he informed us that he will return in the first week in August 2023.
“And we were not aware that this court would give a ruling on the adoption of proceedings, and this is because we were of the opinion that we all have to agree on what proceedings was being adopted and more so, when at the Court of Appeal hearing, the court was expressed that the complaint of the proceedings being not complete which we raised before the court would be rectified when we appear before the High Court for adoption, it was on this basis that we did not inform the court that our witness had had discussions with us with respect to his non-availability.”
He also cited instances where prosecution asked for six weeks adjournment, on two occasions, and they were obliged.
The lead counsel for Seidu Agongo, lawyer Benson Nutsukpui informed the court that though he is expected to cross examine the witness in the next adjourned date, he doesn’t even have copies of proceedings as adopted by the court.
Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, involving Justices Pwamang and Anin Yeboah, he pointed out that adopted proceedings should involve all actions and acts from the beginning of the case.
“So the practice is that the proceedings are typed out and served on all parties and this becomes the reference point in the case to efficiently cross examine on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd accused persons.
“…asking us to tomorrow is unfair to us and we appear to be ambushed by prosecution,” he said.
But prosecution represented by Principal State Attorney Stella Ohene Appiah insisted that what was adopted is what the Appeal’s Court directed.
Though she agreed that notice to get the witness to mount the box for cross examination to continue “is rather on a short notice”, the court cannot wait for the witness to return and therefore suggested that the first accused person should call his next witness or mount the box himself.
The judge therefore asked lawyers for the first accused person to produce evidence to show that the witness is out of the jurisdiction would return soon.
The court adjourned the case to Thursday, July 27 for continuation.
