Supreme Court rejects Tsikata's application

By William Yaw Owusu

Thursday, July20,2006
The Supreme Court in Accra yesterday, in a unanimous decision, dismissed a stay of proceedings application filed by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, who is standing trial at a High Court for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.

The Fast Track High Court where Mr. Tsikata is standing trial had ruled that the International Finance Corporation IFC, “has immunity” from the country’s court processes after he had decided to call them to testify in the case.

Mr. Tsikata then filed an appeal for stay of proceeding pending the determination of the IFC’s immunity issue, which the Court of Appeal dismissed saying it was without merit.

Not satisfied, he filed for a judicial review at the highest court of the land and sought a “certiorari” order to quash the Court of Appeal’s decision not to order stay proceedings at the trial court.

In dismissing the application, Mrs. Justice Georgina Wood, who presided over the five-member panel, said, “In the opinion of the court we find no merit in this application since the appellant did not come through the proper avenue”.

The court said that Mr. Tsikata should have resorted to an appeal process because the grounds on which he based his application were not available in a judicial review and added that although there might be errors in the decisions of the lower courts “the avenue opened to the appellant is by way of an appeal an application for review”

The court said an appeal and judicial review were two distinct processes which the appellant failed to consider adding that the argument by Mr. Tsikata that there is an error on the face of the law was untenable.

Mr. Tsikata’s grounds of appeal are that “The Court of Appeal, having duly recognized that the right of the accused person to have a witness called was embodied in Article 19(2) (g) of the Constitution, was wrong to decide that the right of the applicant under that provision was ‘subject to equal right of immunity of IFC not to be ordered to appear in court to testify”.

He argued that the Court of Appeal overstepped its jurisdiction in deciding on matters which were to be decided in the appeal itself, rather than in the application for stay of proceedings that was before the court.

Mr. Tsikata contended that the court disregarded the Evidence Decree 1975 NRCD325, the statute which regulates how a court determines matters relating to a claim of immunity in a court.

He said the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to refuse the application on the basis of a

possibility of ‘chaos’ and the ‘fate of the trial’ are rendered ‘indefinitely uncertain’ when no evidence had been put before the court.

The appellant said the Court of Appeal embarked on speculation, instead of deciding on the facts presented in the application.

He also said the Attorney General did not file any affidavit in opposition to contest the matter adding that it was an error on the face of the record for the Court of Appeal to decide that the trial court did nothing wrong in asking IFC to testify.

Other justices on the panel are S.A Brobbey, Julius Ansah, R.T. Aninakwah and Mrs. S.O Adinyirah.