By William Yaw Owusu
Tuesday December 4, 2007
The Court of Appeal will on December 5, decide on whether or not to allow fresh evidence in the substantive appeal of Daniel Kwasi Abodakpi, the Member of Parliament for Keta who is challenging his 10-year conviction by an Accra Fast Track High Court.
Abodakpi who is also a former Trade and Industry Minister claims he has evidence that a Court of Appeal judge, Mrs. Henrietta Abban placed a call to the trial judge, Stephen Twerefuor Farkye, also of the Court of Appeal to “deal” with the appellent when judgement in the case was being delivered.
Abodakpi was jailed 10 years on February 5, by an Accra Fast Track High Court presided over by Justice Stephen Twerefuor Farkye, for causing financial loss to the state.
He was said to have illegally authorised the payment of 400,000 dollars to Dr. Frederick Owusu Boadu, a Ghanaian consultant in Texas, United States, from the TIP fund.
The eight-million dollar TIP fund was set up by the NDC administration to promote the non-traditional export sector.
Abodakpi was originally charged together with Victor Selormey, former Deputy Finance Minister, who died in the course of the trial.
Abodakpi, 57, filed an application for bail pending appeal at the trial court but it was dismissed by Justice Farkye.
He then filed a fresh application for bail at the court of appeal which was moved on October 11, by his counsel, Tony Lithur, before Justices B.T. Aryeetey, Samuel Marful-Sau and Mariama Owusu and this was also dismissed on November 2.
In the court yesterday to argue the motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence in the substantive trial were Mr. Lithur for Abodakpi, Ms. Gertrude Aikins, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for the state, Mr. William Addo for Justice Farkye and Mr. Frank Davis who represented the interest of Justice Abban.
They argued before Justices S.E. Kanyoke, presiding; Yaw Apau and Francis Kusi Appiah.
Mr. Lithur said the specific evidence being sought was to prove that Justice Abban directed Justice Farkye whom she caused to be called out during the delivery of the judgement in the case to impose a sentence of 10 years instead of the intended four years that Justice Farkye had planned.
He said if the court allowed the evidence to be adduced before the court it will enhance the applicant’s chances of success in the appeal.
Responding, Ms. Aikins said the incidence of the trial judge leaving the court room in the middle of the judgement was not unusual as judges are human beings and suffer from all human frailties.
She said neither counsel nor his client were in the room where the two judges allegedly held discussions to overhear what transpired between them, adding “it is unclear under what order or authority the applicant is bringing the application”.
She said Abodakpi’s claim were allegations which did not exist during the trial and could not now come to say that he wants to introduce it.
When Mr. Addo took his turn, he said Justice Farkye’s judgement in the trial was not in anyway influenced by the collection of the said acts from Justice Abban and could be attested by the flow of the language in the judgement.
He said the applicant did not raise the issue of bias at any stage of the trial and could not turn around to introduce it now, adding that “the allegation that there is a real likelihood of bias on the part of Justice Farkye which occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the applicant is not true”.
Mr. Davies who did not file any response but observed proceedings said “the piece of allegation that Justice Abban whispered to Justice Farkye to increase the sentence to 10 years instead of four is rather scandalous”, adding “counsel for the applicant is being speculative”.
No comments:
Post a Comment