Court Decides On Konadu's Motion, July 13

By William Yaw Owusu

Saturday, 17 June 2006
The Fast Track High Court trying Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, former First Lady and eight others for their involvement in the divestiture of the Nsawam Cannery Company, will on July 13 rule on whether or not to stay proceedings in the matter.

The date was announced by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, presiding after an argument by both the defence and the prosecution on Wednesday in the stay of proceedings motion filed by Carridem Development Company Limited asking that a civil suit between them and the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney General in another court should be determined before “this criminal action can go on”.

Nana Konadu is standing trial together with Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, former Executive Secretary of the DIC, Thomas Benson Owusu, former DIC Accountant, Kwame Peprah, former Finance Minister and DIC chairman.

The rest are Hanny Sherry Ayittey, Director, Georgina Okaitey, Director and Larry Adjetey, Director/Secretary, all of Carridem Development Company limited (CDCL).

They have been charged with 30 counts of conspiracy, causing financial loss to a public body, intentionally causing loss to a public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement and obtaining public property by false statement.

Moving the motion at the packed court, Mr. Tony Lithur, counsel for Nana Konadu, Ayittey and CDCL told the court that “the institution of criminal proceedings against the accused in a matter which is being determined through a civil suit constitutes an abuse of the court process.”

He said the Attorney General’s powers rested in Article 88 of the constitution, saying that his power to initiate an action against a citizen “is not absolute but it is subject to judicial review”.

Counsel argued that the court had the power of discretion not to grant the Attorney General’s action if it was in bad faith saying “in this matter the AG is a defendant in the civil suit and has decided to initiate the criminal action but the reliefs being sought for in their counter claim clearly undermines his action in this criminal suit”.

He asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the political interest in the case could not be overlooked.

“There is a real and genuine fear that the processes are being abused and the court must not allow this to go on” Mr. Lithur further stated.

Replying for the prosecution, Mr. Joe Ghartey, the Attorney General argued that “it has not been suggested by the applicant in their application that what we are doing contravenes Article 19 of the Constitution”.

“What is being suggested is that there is a civil and criminal case on the same subject matter and we must choose one”, he argued.

He said the prosecution had not abused the court proceedings and that “if civil and criminal actions are going on simultaneously it is the civil one that has to be stayed”.

Mr Ghartey said that the Criminal Procedure Code Act 30 made no provision for a court to stay proceedings because a civil suit on the same matter was pending and added “the applicant has not shown any special circumstances to warrant a stay of proceedings’.

“Too much is being made of the AG’s powers. It is even being made that he has the power to convict but the reality is that he can only initiate criminal or civil action against individuals or a group”.