The High Court in Accra has fixed Thursday, November 12, 2026, to consider an application for stay of proceedings filed by former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Solomon Asamoah, in the ongoing SkyTrain trial.
Asamoah is standing trial with former Board Chairman of GIIF, Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi over an alleged misused of state funds to the tune of $2M over the Sky Train Project.
When the case was called on Tuesday, November 10, on the first day upon the resumption of the JUSAG indefinite strike, lead counsel for Asamoah, Victorian Barth, told the court presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay that he had filed an application for stay of proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal on October 30, 2026, with today as the return date.
She sought to find out from the court whether the process had been received and whether the prosecution had been served.
Justice Kocuvie-Tay responded that the court had not received any such process and could also not confirm whether the respondent had been served.
Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, for the prosecution, also told the court that the State had not received the application.
He said the business for the day was for the first accused person to enter the witness box to testify, adding that the law is clear that the mere filing of an application for stay does not operate as a stay unless it is heard and determined.
He therefore prayed the court to allow proceedings to continue as scheduled.
Violation of fair trial
In response, Victoria Barth said the very order directing the first accused to testify first, and the second accused to testify after him before being given dates to examine his subpoenaed witnesses, is what they have appealed against.
She said but for the recent strike by judicial service staff and the apparent non-service on the respondent (AG), the application would have been ripe for hearing.
She argued that although the mere filing of a stay application does not constitute a stay, the court must not sacrifice justice on the altar of expedience, especially when the first accused has a constitutional right to choose to remain silent despite having filed a witness statement.
According to her, the accused has not refused to open his defence, but has filed a list of witnesses, including subpoenaed witnesses, and only needs the court’s support to invite them to testify.
She said none of the witnesses has been served and refused to appear, and prayed the court to “hasten slowly” by allowing the application and accompanying notice of appeal, which she was holding in court, to be received.
She warned that compelling the accused to enter the box now would amount to a serious violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial and an usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
She therefore prayed for a short adjournment for all parties to be served so the application could be determined on its merits.
Counsel for the second accused, Yaw Acheampong Boafo, also told the court that Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi had not been served with the application.
Election to testify
In further submissions, Dr. Srem-Sai said the applicant was relying on Article 19 of the Constitution to argue he is entitled to remain silent throughout the trial.
He said the issue is whether the accused wants to remain silent or not, and that if it is his wish to remain silent, it is not too late to state that unequivocally before the court at this stage.
He maintained that the first accused has filed a witness statement and has been directed to testify and open his defence, and that the position of the law remains that a mere application for stay does not operate as a stay of proceedings.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Kocuvie-Tay ruled that even though the court had not received the said application, based on counsel’s submissions, counsel for the accused should ensure service on the respondent by close of day on Tuesday to enable the prosecution to respond by Wednesday, November 11.
Both Solomon Asamoah and Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi were both present.
The court adjourned the case to Thursday, November 12, 2026, to consider the application
