A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed a repeat application from Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party Bernard Antwi Boasiako popularly known as Chairman Wontumi’s to halt his ongoing trial at the High Court.
The panel chaired by Justice Georgina Mensah-Datse with Justice George Buadi and Justice Aryitey Armah as other panel members held that the Applicants have not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance to warrant the grant of the application.
Chairman Wontumi and his company Akonta Mining had asked the High Court trying him to halt the trial for them to challenge the trial Court’s order to open their Defence and answer to the charges, but it was dismissed.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, they then filed a repeat application for a Stay of Proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
Moving the repeat application to halt the trial at the Court of Court, Counsel for the accused persons Andy Appiah-Kubi argued that an irreversible harm would be caused his clients if the application is not granted.
Advancing what in his view constituted an “exceptional circumstances” to grant the application, he said pages 30 and 31 of the ruling of the Court pronounced his client guilty contrary to the constitutional provision of presumption of innocence.
He argued that the ruling (of the High Court) does appear to come to “the conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offences as charged” and that prosecution has provided evidence to support their charges.
“We consider this ruling (of the High Court) as prejudicial and may affect the issue of fair trial
Counsel further argued that if the trial is not stayed, his client stands the risk of unfair trial and risk of injustice to the accused.
He also argued that, “We are at risk of irreversible prejudice.”
In conclusion, he prayed that the application is premised on constitutional issues on our rights to fair trial and that “Justice is not only about speed but about fairness.”
AG opposition
Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai opposed the motion for a stay of proceedings and argued that it is an established principle that to be able to secure a stay pending appeal, the applicant ought to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances.
While pointing to some case law principles including the Republic vs Stephen Opuni, he said the Court laid down what constituted an exceptional circumstance.
In the Opuni case, he submitted that, per the case, exceptional circumstances should be one that provokes constitutional violations or raises matters of jurisdiction of the court or touches on the propriety of the charge sheet.
However, though Counsel for the Accused has stated five grounds, none of the grounds questions the jurisdiction of the court as per the principles.
He also intimated that none of these grounds challenges the propriety of the charge sheet and, admittedly, however, alleged some constitutional human rights violations.
The Deputy AG said the Applicant made a submission of no case, which was dismissed, and dissatisfied, filed an appeal in this court.
He argued that there is no evidence that the accused has not been presumed innocent unless he is saying the ruling is presuming him not to be innocent and the fact of a rebuttal conclusion does not mean he was not presumed innocent…
“We pray and submit that no exceptional circumstances have been advanced or proven before your lordship,” and “We pray the repeat application be dismissed.”
Source :www.kumasimail.com
