Trial judge relied on circumstantial evidence - Counsel

Accra, Oct 11, GNA - Mr Tony Lithur, Counsel for Dan Abodakpi, Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta who is currently serving a 10-year-jail term at the Nsawam Prisons for causing financial loss to the State, on Thursday told the Court of Appeal that the trial judge relied solely on circumstantial evidence to convict and sentence his client.

The Court of Appeal is hearing an application for bail for Abodakpi, pending an appeal against his conviction and sentence, which has been brought before it by Mr Lithur.


On February 5 this year, an Accra Fast Track Court found the MP guilty on seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences, and wilfully causing financial loss of 400,000 dollars to the State, and accordingly sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment. The following day, counsel filed a motion for bail at the same court for the convict, pending an appeal application against his conviction and sentence.


In April this year, the trial court presided over by Mr Justice Steve Farkye (retired), struck out the application.


Not satisfied with the lower court's ruling, Mr Lithur took the matter up at the Court of Appeal, whose three-member panel chaired by Mr Justice B T Aryeetey, with Mr Justice Marful Sau and Mrs Justice Mariama Owusu as members, is currently hearing the application.


Continuing with his submissions, Mr Lithur told the court that a trial court was duty bound to consider adequately the case of an opposing side, and give reasons for preferring one side to the other. In the case of his client, counsel submitted that since the trial judge failed to give due consideration to his side of the story, it indicated a clear error on the face of the evidence adduced before the court, thus making the judgment bad in law.

"It does not only cast doubt on the efficacy of the judgment, it also undermines it", Mr Lithur submitted.


Counsel stated that throughout the trial which lasted for 29 months, merely contentious issues were raised by the prosecution. Mr Lithur submitted that the learned trial judge shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the convict, and this in his view, was tantamount to miscarriage of justice.


Counsel submitted further that the judge merely misbelieved his client's case, and that formed the basis of his conviction. Counsel contended that there were substantial gaps in the judgment, and for that matter, it was no judgment.


For instance, he said, prosecution's charge of defrauding by false pretences was not committed by his client because he did not write any letter to ECOBANK as was alleged by the prosecution.


In counsel's view, if the 400,000 dollars remained lodged at ECOBANK, then wherein lay prosecution's claim that his client had caused financial loss of the money to the State?

Mr Lithur submitted that there was no evidence that his client, Mr Victor Selormey, deceased and Dr Albert Boadu, the consultant of the Science and Technology Park Project, met somewhere and discussed any plan to siphon money from state coffers.


Counsel submitted, however, that the three gentlemen discussed the project proposals which they initiated with the donors.


Winding up, counsel stated that during the course of the trial, his client at all material times appeared to stand trial while on bail. In his view, therefore, the court should allow his client to go back to his family, by admitting him to bail, pending the hearing of the substantive application against his conviction and sentence. Mrs. Gladys Gertrude Aikins, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, prayed the court to give her enough time to study application and respond to the submissions.


The court obliged and accordingly adjourned proceedings to Thursday, October 18.


Earlier, it granted an application for amendment of grounds of appeal moved by Mr Lithur