Lawyers of the former Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) Chief Executive Officer Dr. Stephen Opuni have urged the Supreme Court to continue staying the hands of Justice Clemence Honyenuga from hearing his criminal case.
The lawyers also want the apex Court not to vary its decision preventing the judge who they accuse of bias from getting anywhere near the case of their client.
They said the Judge has made up his mind that Dr Opuni is guilty and is determined to just go through the ritual of trial while waiting to pronounce the sentence.
“He had made his mind and was going through the rituals while waiting to pronounce sentence”, lead Counsel for Dr Opuni, Samuel Codjoe, told the court hearing the reviewing application yesterday.
It may be recalled that in a close call 3-2 decision in July this year, the Supreme Court restrained Justice Clemence Honyenuga from hearing the case.
Justice Honyenuga, a Justice of the Supreme Court, has since 2017 been hearing the case as an additional High Court judge.
In July 2021, Dr Opuni’s lawyers applied to the Supreme Court that it should restrain Justice Honyenuga from hearing the matter.
He alleged that his right to be heard fairly had been breached by the Judge, aside from a demonstration of bias.
The allegations flowed from Justice Honyenuga’s ruling on a submission of no case application. Dr Opuni’s lawyers contended that the judge committed an error of law when he rejected some documents submitted as evidence.
The documents were witness statements said to have been obtained by the state during investigations. One is a statement by the Head of the Cocoa Research Institute, denying that he had been coerced to do his work.
A procurement officer is also said to have given a statement, which Dr Opuni said exonerates him from any breaches of the procurement law.
Another statement is said to have indicated that the fertiliser at the centre of the controversy effectively increased the yield of cocoa farms.
Dr Opuni’s lawyers said these statements were withheld by state prosecutors and only made available when they applied for them but were, however, rejected by Justice Honyenuga
The lawyers contended that this position taken by the judge is contrary to law. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, took the view that these statements were admissible.
The court said these statements were crucial to Dr Opuni, and he should therefore have been given a hearing before the Judge decided to expunge it.
On the allegation of bias against the Judge, the lawyers explained that the Judge made some prejudicial comments in his submission of no case ruling.
“All these were perpetuated to facilitate the 2nd and 3rd accused’s business and defraud COCOBOD. Indeed these acts were all perpetuated to facilitate and intentionally, voluntarily to aid the 2nd and 3rd accused to perpetuate fraud on COCOBOD by supplying a different product from what was tested and approved.”
“…However, the 1st accused, although he knew the correct state of affairs and knowingly facilitated and aided the 2nd and 3rd accused to defraud COCOBOD.”
The case was heard by Justices Jones Dotse, A.M Dordzie, Amadu Tanko, and Lovelace Johnson and Gabriel Pwamang.
Justice Gabriel Pwamang, who wrote the lead judgment, concluded as follows
“The test is an objective one based on the principle that not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done. As the authorities say, bias is so insidious that the judge himself may not even be aware that he has a bias in the matter under consideration.
“It is for the reasons explained above that I hereby grant the prayer for prohibition in order that justice will be seen to be done in this case. Therefore, in conclusion, the application succeeds on both counts and is accordingly granted as prayed.”
He was backed by his colleagues, Justices A.M Dordzie and Tanko Amadu. Justices Jones Dotse and Lovelace Johnson disagreed.
The review application is being heard by Justices Gertrude Torkonoo and Prof Ashie Kotey, who have joined the original panel.
The Attorney General , Godfred Dame, argued that the decision of the ordinary Bench contained multiple fundamental flaws which occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.
He said the ruling would cause irreparable damage to the republic in the substantive trial if the errors committed by the ordinary Bench were not corrected.
The court has set October 26 to deliver its ruling.
Source: Mypublisher24.com
