Opuni, Agongo fail to halt trial

An Accra High Court has dismissed an application by former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni, and businessman Seidu Agongo, seeking to halt their trial.

The two, who are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss of more than GH¢271.3 million to the state in a series of fertiliser deals, filed an application for stay of proceedings to put their trial on hold until the final determination of an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Opuni and Agongo went to the Court of Appeal to challenge the trial High Court’s ruling which dismissed their submissions of no case.

Ruling

In a ruling dismissing the application for stay of proceedings yesterday, the trial judge, Justice Clemence Honyenuga, a Justice of the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court judge, held that the applicants failed to meet the threshold required by law.

He held that the applicants could not demonstrate any exceptional circumstance to warrant the court exercising its discretion in their favour.

The presiding judge was of the considered view that the applicants’ reliance on the rejection of some exhibits in the ruling of submissions of no case was not a ground that met the exceptional circumstance rule.

Read also: Opuni, Agongo appeal ‘submission of no case’ ruling

“In the circumstance, the application for stay of proceedings is dismissed,” Justice Honyenuga ruled.

Justice Honyenuga adjourned the trial to June 3, this year, for the accused persons to open their defence.

Applications 

Counsel for Dr Opuni, Mr Samuel Cudjoe, in making a case for stay of proceedings, argued that the trial ought to be put on ice because the court erred in its ruling on the submission of no case.

The said error, in the view of counsel, was when the court rejected some exhibits from the defence which were tendered through a prosecution witness.

He said the court had accepted similar exhibits, which were tendered by the prosecution through the same witness.

“This constitutes an exceptional circumstance. If these exhibits were not wrongly rejected, this court would have come to a different conclusion,” Mr Cudjoe argued.

Read also: Agongo bribed Opuni with GH¢25,000 - Investigator

For his part, counsel for Agongo, Mr Nutifafa Nutsupkui, argued that the court’s rejection of the said exhibits was contrary to the Evidence Decree, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Edward Nasser versus McVroom in 1996.

It was his submission that so far as the said exhibits were not objected by the prosecution, the court, in rejecting them, violated Section 117 of the Evidence Decree and the Supreme Court’s decision.

Response

The prosecutor, Mrs Evelyn Keelson, a Chief State Attorney, opposed the two applications and urged the court to dismiss them.

She argued that the reliance on the rejection of the exhibits could not be an exceptional circumstance because those exhibits were hearsay evidence which failed to meet the hearsay rules as stipulated by the Evidence Decree.

Those exhibits, she argued, could not be classified as legal evidence, and, therefore, even if the prosecution did not object to them, the court had a duty to reject them.

“Even if those exhibits were admitted as part of the evidence, they do not in any way discredit any part of the prosecution’s case,” Mrs Keelson submitted.

Writer’s email: emma.hawkson@graphic.com.gh