The first accused person in the GH¢271.3 million cocoa trial, Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni, has accused the prosecution of predicting the outcome of a case at the Supreme Court.
This was when the prosecution, led by the Principal State Attorney (PSA), Stella Ohene Appiah, told the trial court whilst arguing an application for certiorari, filed by Dr Opuni that: “There’s no new ground that this applicant can canvas to change the decision of the Supreme Court.”
The statement pushed Dr Opuni’s Counsel, Samuel Cudjoe, to rise from his seat to protest, but was quickly asked by the prosecutor to sit down, because she was on her feet.
Mr Cudjoe told the court that the prosecutor had made reference to an application that she has not had the opportunity to appreciate its content.
Mrs Ohene Appiah told Mr Cudjoe to stop interjecting her, as he is a senior lawyer and that when he was on his feet arguing the application, she did not say anything.
After the heated exchanges between the legal practitioners, the Criminal Division ‘1’ of the Accra High Court, presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, Clemence Honyenuga, adjourned the ruling of the application to today, December 7, 2022.
The applicationÂ
Mr Codjoe told the court that they have filed an application for certiorari or a perpetual injunction to restrain the judge from going on with the trial.
Arguing the application, he made reference to the case of the Republic vs the Land Court, Accra, suit no J5/62/2020 exparte Kennedy Agyapong, which the Supreme Court in an unanimous decision held that the trial High Court judge was wrong when he refused to adjourn a matter after his attention had been drown to the fact that there was a pending application for certiorari and prohibition against him in the Supreme Court.
He said, On page 29 of this unreported judgement, the Supreme Court, speaking through Kulendi JSC held as follows: “…I have referred extensively to this portion of the ruling, which ruling is binding on his Lordship and which is to the effect that when application of certiorari and prohibition is filed, the court has to stay proceedings until that application is held.
“Indeed, this decision is a departure from the earlier decisions, including Exparte Daniel, which is to the effect that the mere filing of an application for prohibition or certiorari does not stay proceedings. Exparte Daniel was reported in 2003/2004 in the Supreme Court Ghana Report (p364).
The position of law is that if a decision from the Supreme Court departs from an earlier decision, the inference is that the previous decision is not a good law. Under Article 129(3) of the constitution, the Supreme Court is not bound by its previous decision and would depart from it, if it considers it fit and proper. And as soon as it changes its position, all other courts, including the high court, is bound by it.
It is based on this principle that …When application of this nature is filed, you adjourn it to await the decision of the Supreme Court. My lord, nothing has changed and as you held yesterday, this court is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Exparte Kennedy Agyapong case, where the Supreme Court held that in stances where application of this nature are filed, it’s unlawful and erroneous for a judge to proceed with a case.
My lord, based on this fact, we submit that your lordship should adjourn this matter to 20th December and anything apart from that would be wrongful.
Meanwhile this is what transpired after the submission;
Stella: this court is free …
Court: Are you prepared to answer him?
Prosecution: Yes. There’s nothing before my lord by way of application by the same. In the Exparte Kennedy Agyapong case that counsel partially cited. My lord, in that case there was an application for stay pending and that was brought to the court attention but…
Counsel:Â That is not true. You must tell the truth.
Prosecution: Sit down…There is no application for stay. An application for judicial review by itself does not stay the hand of the court by itself. We are prepared to go on with the case and we leave it to the court whether to decide in favour of this obviously desperate applicant who has resulted to filing all manner of frivolous applications before this very court and the supreme court, in a desperate attempt to suffice the trial, all these without success on each occasion.
My lord, this is the third time or so, if my memory serves me right, that this court have had to come up against applications of certiorari and prohibitions against the court. And in each case, the Supreme Court had dismissed the applicant’s application. There’s no new ground that this applicant can canvas to change the decision of the Supreme Court.
Counsel: You are predicting the Supreme Court
Prosecution: Stop this, you are a senior lawyer. Even if the applicant seeks to bring the issue of my lord’s to conclude this case which was granted by the honourable Chief Justice, which is the reason for this new application and because the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to thoroughly consider and decide on the issue of Article 139 and 145 of the 1992 Constitution. We are saying that we are ready to continue with the case and we leave it for your discretion.
Nutififa Nutsukpi, Counsel for A2 & 3: Respectfully, my lord, we are limited to the extent that we have not seen the process that is in issue.
However, learning from the court rulings with similar applications, the court stayed its hands on those occasions, no matter how inconvenient it must have.
As the good book says all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. So while the honourable court may have the power regardless of the tendency…what would be the optics, considering the court’s similar ruling on similar applications as the court has said justice must not only be done but must be seen manifestly being done.
The court is guided by its rules in similar applications so that sanctity and justice would be served.
Court: The case is adjourned to 7/12/22 for ruling.
