The new trial judge hearing the case involving former COCOBOD Chief Executive and two others, Justice Aboagye Tandoh has been accused of passing a ruling which has no basis in law.
The former COCOBOD boss, 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 took over the case from Justice Kwasi A. Gyimah who was transferred to Kumasi weeks after hearing the controversial case handed over to him following the retirement of Supreme Court judge, Justice Clemence Honyenuga.
Justice Tandoh 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 on July 25.
But counsel for Dr. Opuni, lawyer Samuel Codjoe expressed surprise at the judge’s decision, saying it was “alien to the practice”.
In moving a motion on October 12, 2023 to stay proceedings and set aside the ruling to adopt the proceedings, lawyer Codjoe maintained, “My Lord, it is our submission that this ruling [on July 25] has no basis in law, and that this court erred in coming to the conclusion to adopt the proceedings in the way in which it did, that is, by not going through the proceedings with the representatives of the parties to agree what constitutes the record.”
According to him, “the parties have the legal and constitutional rights to correct any error in the record and in fact the court itself is required to ensure that the records are correct.
“Indeed at the Court of Appeal when the records of appeal were compiled, the record of appeal contains the entire proceedings of the case, [but] we drew the attention of the court to numerous errors, mistakes in the transcript. This record [with the errors], we submit is what this court has adopted.”
Citing several authorities, lawyer Codjoe drew the court’s attention to three areas where the court’s inherent jurisdiction can be invoked which include where it is necessary to prevent wrong or injury being inflicted by the court’s own judgment or on doing what it had no authority to do originally.
“My Lord what is not in doubt is that adoption of proceedings required that all parties should agree what the proceedings are and what constitutes the proceedings. With proceedings we also submit it also consists not only the testimony of the parties but also the exhibits, rulings and orders, and a court is required and has no option but to follow this approach,” he asserted.
“What is clear is that the parties have to go through the records and ensure that the record is an accurate reflection of what took place in court and if there are any errors same should be corrected.
“In this particular case, the court did not abide by this binding position.”
But his position was contested by Principal State Attorney, Stella Ohene Appiah who represented the state.
Relying on the affidavit she personally sworn to on 8th September 2023, she said, “my Lord we wish to add that this court rightly ruled in law when it made the ruling that it has adopted proceedings of the court differently constituted.”
She stated that “parties are not the one to decide on what the proceedings should be.
“The adoption of the proceedings without consulting the parties who do not have the power in anyway, is the right thing the court did,” she insisted, “I therefore asked that the application should be refused for this case to continue.”
The trial judge after hearing the arguments for and against the motion ruled that the “motion is devoid of merit and same is dismissed.”
Court Stood Down
Early on, before lawyer Codjoe could move the motion, counsel for Seidu Agongo, Benson Nutsukpui informed the court that prosecution failed to serve him with the affidavits in opposition.
Justice Aboagye Tandoh therefore instructed prosecution to ensure that counsel was properly served. He therefore stood down the case for 45 minutes to enable the processes served on counsel for the second accused person.
After waiting for about 43 minutes, lawyer Benson Nutsukpui was served with a copy of the affidavit in opposition.
Daily Trial
Meanwhile, Justice Aboagye Tandoh has indicated that the case would now be heard on daily basis starting from Friday, October 13, 2023 until December 7, 2023 where new set of dates to be taken.