The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, indicated that it would be expensive to retrial former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni.
According to him, such a move would put the prosecutors through inconvenience and hardship.
He said the removal of Justice Clemence Honyenuga by the Supreme Court from the trial was a miscarriage if justice
The Supreme Court in a 3-2 Majority decision on July 28, 2021, removed the trial judge, Justice Clemence Honyenuga, from the case.
However, the Attorney-General in filing his review of the decision stated that the constitutional requirements of a fair and expeditious trial will be violated if the case is reassigned to a new judge.
“That if a trial de novo of the respondent herein results from the decision of this Court dated 28th July 2021, same will occasion substantial miscarriage of justice as the constitutional requirements of fair and expeditious trial will not only be violated but also, the prosecution will be put to enormous expense, inconvenience and hardship in commencing a new trial.”
He also posited that a decision to prohibit a trial judge who has conducted a criminal trial for almost four years, at which the prosecution has called all of its witnesses, from further hearing of the matter, must be on basis of only compelling circumstances which show indisputable bias on the part of that judge and not on account of matters as complained about the respondent herein.
The Supreme Court in July 2021 in a 3-2 majority decision presided over by Justice Jones Dotse ruled that Justice Clemence Honyenuga should step aside from the case.
He was removed from the case after lawyers for the former CEO filed a suit at the Supreme Court, having been dissatisfied with Justice Honyenuga presiding over the case because according to them, he had prejudged and determined the guilt of Dr. Opuni.
A new was to be assigned to preside over the matter but Godfred Dame says he wants Justice Honyenuga to return as the trial Judge.
He argued that in the ruling of the apex court, the ordinary bench committed a fundamental error in prohibiting the trial judge, who only performed his duty as required by law, to evaluate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to determine whether a prima facie case had been made against the respondent.
He premised his argument on what he described as erroneous construction of sections 116, 117, 118, and 126 of the Evidence Act without compelling reasons to change the law in hearsay,
“That the gross and fundamental errors contained in the decision of the ordinary bench have resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice and render the fit and proper case for the invocation of this Honourable Court’s review jurisdiction to rectify the errors contained in the decision of the ordinary bench”, he said.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com
