Judgement in Tsikata trial now Feb. 22

Accra, Dec. 20, GNA - A Fast Track High Court in Accra on Wednesday adjourned to February 22, 2007 the final judgement of the case in which Tsatsu Tsikata, a Former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), is being tried for causing financial loss to the State.

This followed the filing of a Notice of Appeal by Prof. Emmanuel Victor O. Dankwa, Lead Counsel for Tsikata to contest the Court of Appeal's ruling at the Supreme Court on ordering the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to testify in a case in which he is involved. The Court of Appeal on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 unanimously dismissed a substantive appeal filed by Tsikata.


Tsikata, the Appellant-Applicant, sought to challenge the Fast Track Court's decision for not ordering the IFC to testify in the case and subsequently tender documents about the Valley Farms Project in evidence.


The Court of Appeal had earlier dismissed an interlocutory appeal, which Tsikata sought to compel the IFC to be part of the appeal. Tsikata is charged at the Fast High Track Court with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of 2.3 billion cedis to the State through a loan he, on behalf of GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying public property.


Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Fran=E7aise de D=E9v=E9lopp=E9ment in 1991 but defaulted in the payment, compelling GNPC, which acted as the guarantor; to pay it in 1996.


The trial judge, Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban, an Appeal Court Judge with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, has admitted him to a self-recognizance bail after he pleaded not guilty.

The Defence Team includes Major Rowland S. Agbenato (rtd), while Ms Gertrude Aikins, Chief State Attorney and Mr Augustines Obour, Assistant State Attorney, are representing the Republic.


Stating the grounds of the appeal, Prof. Dankwa said the Defence was dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal. Counsel said the statutory provisions in respect of the immunity of the IFC, were misinterpreted by the Court of Appeal.


According to him, the Court of Appeal misconstrued the provision in the Legislative Notification (LN) 9, 1958 Schedule, Article VI, Section 8 of the IFC Articles of Agreement, as providing immunity to the current Country Director of the IFC from being summoned to give evidence. This is despite the fact that the testimony being sought by the Defence did not relate to acts performed by the said Country Director in the official capacity.


He said the Court of Appeal in upholding the Trial Court's failure to compel the attendance of the Country Director of the IFC as a witness for the Defence erred in failing to recognize and enforce the Fundamental Human Rights of his client expressed in clear mandatory language in Article 19(2) (g) of the 1992 Constitution to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on the same conditions as those applicable to witnesses called by the Prosecution.