AG’s Office Accused of Meddling in Trial

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Monday April 18, 2011.
A case in which the Kumasi High Court 7, presided over by Justice R.C. Azumah, was just about to give judgement has been stopped on orders from the office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

The court was accepting addresses from both the prosecution and defense counsel to determine the guilt or otherwise of Kusi Nsiah, a car dealer in Kumasi when Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Ebow Barton-Odro ‘intervened’ by filing a Nolle Prosequi to discontinue the case on February 4, 2011.

The AG’s action has once again raised serious questions about the independence of the judiciary in the administration of justice.

The complainant, Regina Yorke, a business woman domiciled in the United States and her husband, Stephen Kwarteng say they suspect foul play on the part of the AG’s Department.

Narrating her wife’s ordeal to DAILY GUIDE on Friday, Mr. Kwarteng, who was distressed, said, “It has become necessary for me to go public with an issue which has come to symbolize the blatant abuse of power by the Attorney General of the Republic with the potential to corrupt the criminal justice system in the country.”

He said his wife ships cars into the country and in 2008 brought an Acura MDX, which was cleared from the ports but was never delivered to her.

“Following investigations by both the BNI and the police, one Kusi Nsiah, a car dealer with whom she had been in previous business transactions, was charged with the theft of the vehicle and arraigned before High Court 7 in Kumasi.”

The case began on March 10, 2009 and the trial was heading for its conclusion with the final defense witness giving evidence on April 27, 2010 when the trial judge adjourned proceedings to June 2, 2010 for counsel to make their final submissions.

On June 2, 2010, the court was taken by surprise with an announcement by prosecutor that he had received a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions to stop further hearing.

The case from that day was never heard again until February 10, 2011 when a Nolle Prosequi, under the signature of the Deputy Attorney General, Ebow Barton-Odro was delivered to the court, terminating all proceedings.

As a result the accused was set free without the court having the opportunity to pronounce his guilt or otherwise in accordance with the evidence before the court.

Mr. Kwarteng said when the prosecution concluded its case defense counsel filed an application for ‘Submission of no case” which was dismissed by the court and was ordered to open his defense because a prima facie case had been established against him.

He said the defense counsel appealed against the trial court’s decision and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the accused had to open his defense where he brought other defense witnesses.

He said when they sensed that justice was being delayed, he petitioned the Director of Public Prosecutions to enquire the reasons for the Attorney General's office to interfere in a perfectly normal judicial process.

“In spite of my petition and after waiting for nearly a year, the Attorney General decided not to allow the court to judge the case on its merits, but to use political power to curtail a normal judicial process. In my view this raises an alarm flag about the blatant abuse of power and the propensity to subvert the judicial process with the potential to corrupt the system of justice in the country.”

He said “by his unwarranted intervention, the Attorney General was not only launching assault on the judicial system, but he indirectly undermined the integrity of the respected trial judge.

“What interest was the intervention of the Attorney General intended to serve?”

He said the AG’s action showed that he was either expressing a lack of confidence in the capacity of the respected judge to come to a just and fair decision, or that he was simply resolved to save the accused for reasons unrelated to the demands of justice.

He said there is a complainant in this case who has suffered the loss of a valuable car and the car has been in the wrong hands for the past three years therefore one would have thought that if the Attorney General had genuine reason to intervene in the case, the complainant, who is the victim and a witness of the state, would be made aware of it.

He called on the judiciary, the bar association and civil society to take note of “these grave failings and demand accountability from the Attorney-General and his team”.