Recuse yourself from Opuni's case - Lawyers to Justice Honyenuga

Lawyers for former COCOBOD Boss, Dr Stephen Opuni are seeking to kick out the judge sitting on the ongoing trial of Dr Opuni and businessman, Seidu Agongo.

The lawyers led by Samuel Codjoe have filed a motion for the judge, Justice Honyenuga, to recuse himself from the ongoing trial.

This came to light on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, as the court reconvened to continue cross-examination of the state’s 3rd prosecution witness, Dr Yaw Adu Ampomah.

Mr Codjoe after representation alerted the High court that he had filed a motion on the 28th of February, 2020 seeking for Justice Honyenuga to recuse himself.

Although details of the motion were not made readily available, it is widely speculated that the motion follows a recent viral video of the judge, when he seemingly endorsed another four-year term for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo during the latter’s tour of the Oti and Volta Regions.

The judge in his capacity as the Paramount Chief of the Nyagbo Traditional Area known as Torgbui Ashui Nyagasi V, welcomed Nana Akufo-Addo to Golokwati, Afadzato South and lauded the government’s flagship free senior high school policy.

Without going into the merits of the motion, Mr Codjoe prayed the court to stay proceedings until the determination of the motion on March 16, 2020.

According to him, the effect of continuing the case without hearing the motion will be tantamount to predetermining the application.

But Justice Honyenuga questioned why Mr Codjoe would choose to bring his concerns through a motion instead of petitioning the Chief Justice directly.

The prosecution led by Principal State Attorney Stella Ohene Appiah in response to the motion said “My Lord like you rightly hinted, we are also of the view that counsel should have petitioned the Chief Justice rather than coming with a motion. My lord, the motion on its own does not warrant a stay of proceedings and so doesn't prohibit you from doing your work”.

She added “So my lord, the mere fact of an application pending on the 16th of March does not in any way prevent you from continuing with the case unless it is determined and an express ruling or decision is taken on it to prevent you from sitting on the case. Besides we have three accused persons before this court. The applicant did his cross-examination over six months and after he has had his turn, and A2 and A3 are now cross-examining almost at the tail end of their cross-examination and the applicant is seeking to remove the sitting judge. My lord, it is so unfair to A2 and A3 and very unfair to the prosecution”.

But Mr Codjoe said the prosecution’s stance was ill-informed as they “have not read the motion paper and affidavit”.

According to him, once an objection has been raised, it needs to be heard before the case continues and it doesn't lie in the prosecution’s domain to state that the court should still go ahead with the hearing when “this very important issue has been raised”.

For his part, counsel for the second and third accused persons, Nutifafa Nutsukpui who was holding brief for Benson Nutsukpui said “we have been served with a copy of the application and we would add on that we deem it fit and proper that the court does consider the application before proceeding any further only because the guiding principle of the delivery of justice in our jurisdiction is that not only must the court do justice, but the appearance of it and how that is seen is principal and it is often said that it must be manifestly seen to be that”.

Justice Honyenuga in his ruling said upon hearing the parties involved, since an objection had been raised against him, “it is in the interest of justice that the objection whether rightly or wrongly be heard before the case proceeds. I am not oblivious of the delay in the trial of this case. Consequently, I would adjourn this case to the 16th of March 2020, when the motion will be heard”.