Court of Appeal to hear Dr Opuni’s motion November 11

Hearing of the case, in which Dr Stephen Opuni, the former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and one other at the Accra High Court has been put on hold.

This is because Mr Samuel Codjoe, counsel for Dr Opuni has filed a motion at the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings at the high court.

At proceedings yesterday, counsel told the court that the Court of Appeal would hear the motion on November 11.

Consequently, the court presided over by Justice Clement Honyenugah, a Court of Appeal judge, sitting with additional responsibility as a high court judge adjourned the case to November 13.

Dr Opuni and his alleged accomplice, Seidu Agongo, the Managing Director of Agricult Ghana Limited are facing 27 charges including procurement breaches.

The two have each been granted GH¢300, 000 self recognisance bail.

In August this year, the High Court dismissed an application by Mr Codjoe seeking to put the trial on hold.

In dismissing the case, Justice Honyenuga noted that staying proceedings would further delay the trial.

He said Dr Opuni’s counsel could not provide a single good reason for which the application for stay of proceedings should be granted.

The application emanated from the ruling of the judge who rejected attempts by Mr Codjoe to tender a letter signed by one Dr Opoku-Ameyaw through a prosecution witness.

Stella Ohene Appiah, a Senior State Attorney, then prosecuting, objected the stay of proceedings and argued it was an abuse of the court process.

Displeased with the ruling of the high court, Mr Codjoe, appealed the ruling at the Court of Appeal and subsequently filed an application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.

In moving the motion, Mr Codjoe argued that the document was a piece of evidence that emanated from ‘lawful custody’ and its relevance was not in doubt.

He said the court itself held that the document was ‘authentic’ and added that rejecting it would deprive the accused person’s right and liberty and, therefore, urged the court to stay its proceedings for a higher court to determine the matter.

Mrs Appiah, opposed the application contending that the defence lawyer had not shown any special circumstances that should warrant a stay of proceedings.

She said the document must be tendered through the appropriate witness, adding that the mere expectation that an interlocutory injunction would succeed, was no grounds for the grant of a stay of proceedings.

In his ruling, Justice Honyenuga stated: “This court has been fair and has not prevented any of the accused from putting across their case. I do not see any irreversible hardship that will be occasioned by the refusal. I will dismiss the application.”

The case has been adjourned to November 13.

BY MALIK SULLEMANA