ADU-BOAHENE TRIAL: ATTA AKYEA CRITICISES HIGH COURT’S REFUSAL TO HALT PROCEEDINGS
By Boakye Stephen,Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News Canada
Lead counsel for former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwadwo Adu-Boahene, Samuel Atta Akyea, has described as unfortunate the Accra High Court’s decision to continue with his client’s trial despite a fresh application before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the proceedings.
The comments follow the High Court’s dismissal of an application by Mr Adu-Boahene seeking an adjournment until September 2, when a three-member panel of the Supreme Court is expected to hear a review application filed by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah.
The review application concerns the continuation of selected criminal cases during the legal vacation, which has become a major point of contention in the Adu-Boahene trial.
Mr Atta Akyea argued that the outcome of the Supreme Court application could affect the ongoing proceedings and that the High Court should therefore have waited for the apex court to determine the matter.
However, Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Justice Srem-Sai opposed the request, arguing that the prosecution had only one more day to close its case.
He maintained that the Supreme Court had already determined the substantive interlocutory application concerning the legal vacation and that the mere filing of a review application did not automatically suspend the proceedings.
Justice Francis Apanga Achibonga subsequently dismissed the defence’s request for an adjournment, saying he had not identified any rule requiring the trial to be suspended under the circumstances.
The judge further noted that although the earlier Supreme Court decision had been delivered by a single judge, it remained binding unless set aside or reversed by a subsequent decision.
The trial consequently proceeded despite the defence’s concerns.
Speaking after the hearing, Mr Atta Akyea said he was surprised that the court had continued with the case after being informed that a fresh application was before a three-member Supreme Court panel.
He argued that the circumstances created difficulties for the defence, particularly because his client was expected to cross-examine a prosecution witness despite not being trained to perform that legal function.
Mr Atta Akyea maintained that although an earlier injunction application had been dismissed, the renewed application before the Supreme Court should have been taken into consideration by the trial court.
He said his return to court was informed by the Supreme Court’s earlier decision and the subsequent application filed by Mr Oppong Nkrumah.
The defence therefore remains concerned that the High Court’s decision to proceed could potentially place Mr Adu-Boahene in a difficult position as the trial continues.
COMMENTARY:
The Adu-Boahene trial therefore continues amid an unresolved legal dispute over proceedings during the judicial legal vacation, with the defence maintaining that the Supreme Court’s pending review application could have implications for the ongoing case.
