Court upholds Tsikata's motion

A Fast Track Court in Accra on Wednesday granted a motion for a stay of proceedings tabled by counsel for Tsatsu Tsikata, a former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), charged with willfully causing financial loss of 2.3 billion cedis to the State.

Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, an Appeal Court Judge sitting as a High Court Judge, said "pending the interlocutory appeal which was filed on 28 March this year by counsel, Professor E.V.O. Dankwa, the application for a stay of proceedings is granted".

She said: "It is granted till the determination of the appeal pending before the Court of Appeal." Mrs Justice Abban, therefore, adjourned proceedings to Wednesday, 30 April. Tsikata filed the appeal challenging the Fast Track Court's ruling asking him to open his defence in the case.

He is seeking a relief from the Court of Appeal to quash that decision and order and uphold his submission of "no case." On 28 March the FTC presided over by Mrs Justice Abban overruled the submission of "no case" by the appellant and asked him to open his defence.

Arguing the motion for stay of proceedings at the FTC on Wednesday, Prof. Dankwa drew the attention of the court to portions of the supporting affidavit, saying important matters had been raised in it.

Counsel argued that it was proper if proceedings could be stayed awaiting the Appeal Court's determination. Professor Dankwa said this would enable the trial court to decide what course of action to take in the circumstance.

The Prosecution team did not oppose the motion. The team comprises Ms Gloria Akuffo, Deputy Attorney - General and Minister of Justice; Osafo Sampong, Director of Public Prosecution and Augustines rpt Augustines Obuor, Assistant State Attorney.

Tsikata, who is also charged with another count of intentionally misapplying public property, contrary to Section 1(2) of the Public Property Protection Decree 1977 (SMCD140), has denied the charges. The court has admitted him to a 700 million-cedi self-recognisance bail.

When the case was called for hearing on Wednesday, counsel for Tsikata told the court that he had filed a motion for stay of proceedings. He said this was because the pending appeal at the Court of Appeal could have an impact on the case.

Counsel asked that his client should be discharged, because he had not committed any offence. He said he was being tried for acts, which did not constitute an offence at the time that they were done.

Prof. Dankwa said the appellant was of the view that the trial Judge erred in law by overruling the submission of the "no case" without providing reasons. He said the trial Judge erred in disregarding pertinent legal and constitutional issues raised before her and coming to her conclusion without a judicial consideration of those issues.

Furthermore, he said, the Judge erred in disregarding both binding and persuasive precedents on the responsibility of the Judge upon submission of "no case." He said the Judge erred in respect of the first three counts in not realising that on the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, the payment alleged to have been authorised and caused to be made by appellant were not made on his authority or instruction.

"The trial Judge erred in failing to appreciate the jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce the fundamental human rights and freedom guaranteed by Article 140(2) of the 1992 Constitution."

Prof. Dankwa argued that the Judge erred by failing to take due account of the High Court's decision on the same facts as cited to her in the submission of "no case" in which Tsikata won.

In respect of the fourth count, the Judge erred in failing to realise that there was no evidence from the Prosecution Witness about a payment alleged in the particulars of offence to have taken place in March 1991. He said the Judge in calling on him to enter a defence erred because it was clear from the evidence the Prosecution adduced that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences had been established.