Court dismisses Ex-PPA boss' request for passport for Summer Camp trip to USA

The Criminal Division of the High Court in Accra has dismissed an application from former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Public Procurement Authority (PPA), Adjenim Boateng Adjei for the release of his passport to enable him to take his six-year-old daughter to the United States of America (USA) for Summer Camp.

The Court presided over by Justice (Mrs) Marie-Louise Simmons said, “no exceptional or serious grounds” have been advanced for the court to exercise discretion in his favour.

Adjenim Boateng Adjei, the former CEO of PPA has been charged by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) on four counts each of “using public office for profit” and “indirectly influencing the Procurement process to obtain an unfair advantage in the award of Procurement contracts.”

He pleaded not guilty to the charges contained on the Charge Sheet filed on April 17, 2024, and granted bail five days later on April 22, 2024, when his plea was taken.

As part of his bail conditions, he was to deposit his passport with the Registrar of the Court until otherwise determined by the Court.

On July 8, 2024 lawyers of the accused filed an application at the Court for his passport to be released to enable him to take his six-year-old child who is a citizen of the USA for a two-week Summer Camp.

Argument

Deric Owusu-Boateng who was holding a brief for substantive counsel, Kwame Acheampong Boateng, for Applicant (Adjenim Boateng Adjei) explained the need for their request to be granted.

Counsel for the Applicant argued that it has become necessary for him (A. B. Adjei) to travel to the USA with his six-year-old girl child who is also a citizen of the USA to participate in a two-week Summer Camp.

It was the case of counsel that, the said Summer Camp is organized for children between the ages of three to six years and it is being organized this year from July 1 to August 9, 2024, with a minimum participation period of two weeks.

The Applicant stated that he had chosen to register for his child to participate in this year’s Summer Camp from July 29, 2024, to August 9, 2024.

The Applicant also argued that the purpose of this trip for the child is to afford the

child an opportunity to “familiarize and gradually integrate her into the educational and cultural system of the United States of America, and thus prepare her for the education in the USA upon completing her present level of education in Ghana.”

An applicant has also deposed that the application is in the interest of the child and important for her psychological preparation and development.

The application further stated that the Applicant has no intention of absconding from the jurisdiction as he has strong social and economic ties and interests in Ghana.

OSP opposition

Ms. Adelaide Kobiri-Woode, a Principal Prosecutor of the OSP (Respondent) vehemently opposed the request on the basis that it discloses no exceptional circumstances to warrant its grant in order to vary the orders of the Court as per the bail conditions.

The OSP argued that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate what accounts for the necessity to send the six-year-old child to the United States of America.

The Prosecution said the Applicant again failed to demonstrate that the mother of the six-year-old is not available, nor resident in the jurisdiction, or possesses an American visa which will enable her to travel with the child instead of the Applicant who is facing a trial.

The prosecution also contended that the application is not in a medical or life-threatening emergency situation or something urgent in nature which needs the Court’s attention.

Principal Prosecutor, Ms. Kobiri-Woode proposed that since the Summer Camp is not a one-off event but yearly, the child can participate in it next year or another year.

She submitted that the Applicant may not appear to stand trial if granted the opportunity to leave the jurisdiction and is indeed a flight risk.

No more opportunity

The Applicant in a supplementary affidavit in response to the Prosecution’s opposition reaffirmed he would appear to stand trial and not a flight risk.

He contended that the purpose of the trip is essentially the overall academic, sociocultural, and formative development of the Applicant’s child.

The Applicant explained that the Summer Camp is for children between three to six years and since the child is already 6 years, there will be no opportunity for her for next year or any subsequent years if she does not attend this year.

By Court

Justice (Mrs) Marie-Louise Simmons, the presiding judge said “I have read the application and its supplementary as well as the affidavit in opposition.”

She said, the nature of the application sought required the use of the Court’s discretion for it to be determined and the exercise of such discretion “must be used according to the dictates of the Constitution as required under Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.”

Justice Mrs. Simmons explained further that, “a requirement is to exercise discretion candidly, fairly, not bias or being capricious.”

“In exercising my discretion, I have taken into consideration the fact that the Applicant is presumed innocent until proven or approved guilty.

“I have also considered that the Applicant has been accused of crimes and is facing eight (8) counts involving offenses bothering Public funds and the Interest of the State.

“These are charges which must be considered seriously. Situating the seriousness of the trial to the prayer of the Applicant and the reason he has preferred as to why his passport must be released, it is my opinion that his reasons are not weighty enough,” the Court explained.

“The participation of his 6 (six) year old child in a two (2) weeks summer camp may be important for the further intellectual or perhaps psychological development of the child.

“However, whatever development including sociocultural (which the Applicant himself refers to) are all merely supplementary to her basic requirement for education which she is already receiving.

“The Application does not bother on the necessaries of life for a child which a parent is required to provide for a child as under Section 79 of the Criminal Offences Act, Act 29 or Under the Children’s Act such AA basic education, need for shelter, health care or any of such requirements that needs urgent attention,” the Court said.

Any responsible adult can assist

It is the reasoning of the Court in agreement with the Prosecution that, “any other responsible adult can take the child for that summer trip instead of the Applicant who though presumed innocent still has his liberties curtailed by way of bail conditions which have been imposed on him to ensure that he comes back to stand trial.”

“Indeed the constitution prescribes exemptions for the enjoyment of personal liberties as under Article 14, and precisely under Article 14 (6) including situations when a person is reasonably suspected of having committed or about to commit a crime.

“If the Applicant is the only adult taking the child for this trip and the child is an American citizen, it would mean that (at least from the information provided) the applicant will be solely responsible for the child in the USA.

“That raises an alarm that if any situation occurs where there will be a need for him to stay over to take care of the child in one way or the other, it will be an excuse for him not to appear before the Court for trial.

“I have no doubt that the best interest of the child is paramount but not when the interest to be considered is not one that is basic, but merely opulent,” Justice (Mrs) Simmons explained.

“It is my responsibility that the Accused/Applicant appears to stand trial and that the Public interest is also protected.

The Court ruled that, “No exceptional or serious grounds has been canvassed before me to warrant the grant of this application that seeks to vary the bail conditions granted.”

Justice Mrs. Simmons consequently refused the application and accordingly dismissed it.