Appeal Court to rule on Caseley-Hayford's appeal on June1

By William Yaw Owusu.

Thursday, 25 May 2006
THE Court of Appeal will on June 1, give judgement in the appeal filed by Ralph Caseley-Hayford currently serving a three year sentence at the Nsawam Maximum Security Prisons.

Casely-Hayford was jailed on April 21, 2005 by an Accra Fast Truck High Court for accepting a bribe to influence a public officer in the divestiture of the Ghana Rubber Estate Limited (GREL).

Two others, Hanny Sherry Ayittey, treasurer of the 31st December Women’s Movement and Emmanuel Agbodo, former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) who were also tried in the case were freed by the court for lack of evidence.

The three member panel presided over by Mr Justice P.K. Owusu Ansah said that “due to unforeseen circumstances the judgement is not ready. Come back on June 1.”

The notice of appeal filed by Mr Rodney Heward-Mills, counsel for Caseley-Hayford said that “the trial judge erred in law, and on the facts in failing to conclude that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the funds from which the third accused was allegedly paid ў70 million were available in 1996 in which year the offence for which he is charged is alleged to have taken place.”

He said the trial judge erred in law and on the facts in failing to find material evidence being cheques, stubs,. copies of vouchers and accounting records in the custody of GREL.

“The learned judge erred in law in failing to resolve doubts and contradictions in the prosecution’s case in favour of Caseley-Hayford,” the appeal read.

He said the judge again erred by relying on tainted evidence of the prosecution witnesses to conclude that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, a case against his client.

Counsel further claimed that the conviction was unreasonable with regard to the evidence adduced at the trial saying “in all the circumstances the sentence is manifestly harsh and excessive.”

In an additional grounds of appeal, Caseley-Hayford’s counsel contended that the judge erred in finding that the prosecution had proven all the ingredients of the offence when there was no evidence of prior agreement to or pretence of being able to influence a public officer namely Dan Abodakpi.

The grounds further claimed that the judge erred in considering that whilst some principal witnesses were accomplices to the alleged offence the evidence of each of them amounted to corroboration.