Trial of Ex-SSNIT boss: State pleads with court for more time to amend charges

Ernest Thompson 696x522 1 696x375 1 Ernest Thompson,former Director-General of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust

Thu, 25 Mar 2021 Source: 3news.com

The State has asked permission from an Accra High Court presided over by Justice Anthony Kwofie to be given additional time to enable them amend the charge of wilfully causing financial loss against former management members of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT).

The Director of Public Prosecution, Yvonne Atakorah Obuobisa told the court that the State had just received a copy of the Supreme Court ruling on was in the process of amending the charges.

“We obtained the judgment of the Supreme Court just yesterday in the afternoon, and we’re now amending the charge of causing financial loss”.

The Court accordingly adjourned to Thursday, April 22, 2021.

On March 17 2021, the Supreme Court has by a unanimous decision said on Wednesday, March 17 that the charges against a former Director-General of the SSNIT Mr Ernest Thompson are inappropriate.

The five-member panel, presided over by Justice Yaw Appau said the charges preferred against the accused persons do not meet the constitutional requirements.

The State had gone to the highest court of the land to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the particulars of offence levelled against Thompson were scanty.

Mr Ernest Thompson, and four others who have been accused of causing financial loss of more than $14.8 million in the SSNIT Operational Business Suite (OBS) project.

The four other accused are Mr John Hagan Mensah, a former Information Technology (IT) Manager at SSNIT; Ms Juliet Hassana Kramer, the Chief Executive Officer of Perfect Business Systems (PBS); Mr Caleb Kwaku Afaglo, a former Head of Management Information Systems (MIS) at SSNIT; and Mr Peter Hayibor, the lawyer for SSNIT.

They pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.

Mr Thompson that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient particulars on the offences levelled against him as required under Article 19 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 122 of the Criminal Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).

His lawyers argue that the particulars are so scanty that they do not afford their client any concrete information to enable him to mount his defence.

Source: 3news.com
Related Articles: