Tarzan moves to halt trial

By William Yaw Owusu

Monday June 28, 2010
Dr. Charles Yves Wereko-Brobby aka Tarzan, a former Chief Executive Officer of the defunct Ghana @50 Secretariat on Friday moved a motion on notice to strike out charges preferred against him for the role he played in the celebration of Ghana’s 50th Independence Anniversary celebration and the 2007 African Union Summit hosted by Ghana.

Also in the dock is Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani, former Chief of Staff in the erstwhile New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration who together with Dr Wereko-Brobby, are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.

The two NPP stalwarts are saying that the charges preferred against them by the state “is a violation of their constitutional right under Articles 278 (1) (a) and 280 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) of the 1992 Constitution,” but the state insists the two men have a case to answer in the Ghana @ 50 celebrations.

At their first appearance, the two accused persons pleaded not guilty to four counts of willfully causing financial loss to the state and were granted GH¢ 35 million self-recognizance bail.

In the first count, the prosecution maintained that the two former NPP officials between May 2006 and December 2007 willfully caused financial loss of GH¢ 499, 995.63 by spending in excess of the amount of $31.8 million approved by Parliament.

The second charge says that the accused between February 2007 and January 2009 willfully caused a financial loss of GH¢ 2 .116, 906.91in the form of interest paid as a loan from the Prudential Bank Limited without authority.

In the third count, the two men stand accused for causing financ
ial loss of GH¢ 966, 048.52 being bank overdraft from the Prudential Bank Limited without authority in or about September 2006.

The fourth count says the two men between May 2006 and December 2008 willfully caused financial loss by expending GH¢ 935, 249.8 being the income of the Ghana @ 50 Secretariat without authority.

The application to strike out the charges should have been moved on June 14, 2010 but the court could not do so because the prosecution on that day had just filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion and that Dr. Wereko-Brobby and Mr. Mpiani were yet to be served with the processes compelling the court presided over by Justice Samuel Marful-Sau of the Court of Appeal to adjourn the proceedings.

Moving the motion, Mr. Alex Quainoo who stood in for Mr. Akoto Ampaw as counsel for Dr. Wereko-Brobby said Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution provided that where a commission of enquiry makes adverse finding against any person, the report of the commission of enquiry shall, for the purposes of this constitution, be deemed to be the judgment of the High Court, and accordingly shall lie as of right from the finding of the Commission to the Court of Appeal.

He argued that Article 280 (6) clearly defines the time frame within which persons affected by a commission’s report could act but in this case the state is trying to ‘ambush’ Dr. Wereko-Brobby and Mr. Mpiani, saying “they are trying to use the backdoor to take away the accused’s right of appeal.”

“Let due process prevail then the prosecution could go ahead to prosecute. If we do not follow due process we will be extinguishing the accused’s constitutional rights to appeal.”

“There should be fairness to anybody who has been adversely affected by the findings of the Douse Commission. We are asking this court to strike out this case or stay the proceedings because those affected have the constitutional right to contest the commission’s report.”

When counsel finished his submission, Mr. Yonnie Kulendi, counsel for Mr. Mpiani told the court that he expected Mr. Anthony Gyambiby, Chief State Attorney leading the prosecution to respond to Dr. Wereko-Brobby’s motion before he moved Mr. Mpiani’s application.

He had explained that Mr. Mpiani’s application was entirely different from the motion filed by Dr. Wereko-Brobby and must be responded to by the prosecution separately.

Mr. Gyambiby disagreed saying “not until they finished I cannot respond.”
The judge upheld the prosecutor’s position and adjourned the case to July 16, 2010, for Mr. Mpiani to also move his motion after which the prosecution would respond to both applications.

Also see: www.dailyguideghana.com