In a surprising turn of events during the trial of former COCOBOD boss, Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni, and two others, Principal State Attorney Stella Ohene Appiah faced accusations of attempting to mislead the High Court with false information.
The defence lawyers raised objections, asserting that she misrepresented facts while discrediting their concerns about the court registrar’s failure to provide the record of proceedings related to Justice Clemence Honyenuga.
Dr. Opuni, businessman Seidu Agongo, and Agricult Ghana Limited are facing a total of 27 charges, including defrauding by false pretence, causing financial loss to the state, corruption by public officers, and contravention of the Public Procurement Act in the purchase of Lithovit liquid fertiliser between 2014 and 2016.
Despite pleading not guilty, they are each on GH¢300,000.00 self-recognizance bail.
During the court session on Wednesday, November 22, the Principal State Attorney claimed that the parties had been provided with the record of proceedings.
“The last sitting of every week, which happens to be on a Thursday, parties were served records on either the following Monday or Tuesday,” she said, pointing to the era of the previous judge, Justice Clemence Honyenuga.
However, both defense counsels, fully attentive, were determined not to let any ‘falsehood’ become part of the court records. Swiftly, they rose to their feet to ensure that the facts were presented accurately.
Samuel Codjoe, counsel for the first accused, had previously informed the court multiple times that their hands were metaphorically tied behind them. He accused the registrar of intentionally withholding the proceedings, emphasizing the challenges they faced in obtaining necessary documentation which he said “has made it impossible to conduct our defence because we require the records to enable us to complete our examination.”
However, he pointed out that, despite a repeated order on November 21, the registrar provided him with about 3,000 pages of documents in a disorderly manner around 4 pm on November 22. This was despite the fact that the order was initially given on July 12.
Benson Nutsukpui, counsel for the second and third accused persons, further emphasized that as of November 22, he had not yet received the record of proceedings.
“There is no chronology in this bundle of paper. It has nothing to do with we counsel not performing our duty at all. We send letters, and we don’t get the copies. The bundle of papers does not qualify to be record of proceedings. It’s unfortunate that, the impression seems to be created in this particular matter is that the registry does not obey rules of practice,” Mr. Benson said as he pointed to the proceedings beside his learned colleague Samuel Codjoe.
Stella Ohene Appiah, however, persisted in asserting that the parties to the case had access to the proceedings. She even went so far as to say that the defense had attached proceedings in the appeal against the rejection of the submission of no case, which she said was heard by the higher court.
“We are saying that we have always had proceedings from the court until the court was differently constituted,” she asserted but Mr. Codjoe interjected, “Counsel is misleading the court. Because, the appeal on the submission of no case has not been determined.”
The Principal State Attorney decided to reframe his submission.
“My Lord, submission of no case filed by counsel went all the way to the Supreme Court, and there was a review. After the decision of the trial court, calling upon the accused persons to open their defense, they filed an application invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the high court, and to prohibit the trial judge from further hearing the case.
“This application went all the way to the review bench of the Supreme Court. As I said earlier, proceedings were attached to this application. This is what I meant when I said the submission of no case went to the Supreme Court.”
But Samuel Codjoe still rebutted: “When the prosecution says that, when we applied for certiorari (judicial review) to quash the decision of the high court at the Supreme Court, we attached the records of proceedings, that is false.
“One, the application is on the docket for everybody to see. When you apply for a judicial review, you don’t attach the record of proceedings; we attach the ruling. And if there are one or two proceedings, you attach. It’s very easy for my learned friend to verify from the case docket.”
Nevertheless, Stella Ohene Appiah insisted on promoting the narrative that all parties received weekly proceedings. The defense counsels for the accused individuals refuted her claims, advising her to speak solely for the prosecution.
Lawyer Codjoe emphasized that they only obtained specific proceedings when applying to support certain motions. He asserted that his side had never received the record of proceedings without applying for it, unlike how the court treated the prosecution.
Upon this clarification, the Principal State Attorney backtracked, acknowledging that the prosecution made just one application for the proceedings. She stated that since then, they had been given copies of the records of proceedings without reapplying under Justice Honyenuga.
Both Samuel Codjoe and Benson Nutsukpui challenged Stella Ohene Appiah to provide proof that they had been served with records of proceedings in the past, as the court would always have evidence of that. Stella Ohene Appiah appeared taken aback by this challenge.
While murmuring, the trial judge, Justice Aboagye Tandoh, sensed that the principal state attorney had been found wanting.
The judge intervened, asking the defense counsel to abandon their demand for evidence to allow the court to make progress.
The judge also acknowledged the necessity for the court record to be kept in an orderly and paginated manner, as argued by Lawyer Codjoe.
“Every document is supposed to be paged. Anything short of this cannot be the record of proceedings,” Justice Tandoh noted.