Appeal Court dismisses one of
Tsikata's two appeals before it
Accra, Nov. 29, GNA - A Court of Appeal presided
over by Mr Justice S. E. Kanyoke on Wednesday
unanimously dismissed an appeal brought before
it by Tsatsu Tsikata, Former Chief Executive of
the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC).
The other panel members were Mr Justice F.
Kusi-Appiah and Mr Justice Annin Yeboah.
Tsikata, the Appellant-Applicant, had filed the
motion at the Court to ask it to order the
International Finance Corporation (IFC) to be
part of a substantive appeal, also before the
same Court.
Grounds of the appeal were that the appeal was
in the interest of justice.
It was also based on rule 10 sub-rules 2 of the
Court of Appeal rules CI 19 which requests that:
"The Court of Appeal should direct service of
appeal to all parties and non-parties."
Mr Justice Kanyoke stated that the Court would
begin hearing the substantive appeal on Monday,
December 4 to determine whether or not IFC
should be ordered to testify and to tender the
necessary documents at the Fast Track Court.
Mr Justice Kanyoke gave the reasons for
dismissing the application as: "CI 19 deals with
Criminal Appeals and that there was no provision
under CI 19, which the Appellant-Applicant could
rely on and to urge the Court to order that IFC
should be made a party to this appeal."
The Presiding Judge noted that CI 19 as amended
by CI 25, 1999 was substituted for rule 10 of CI
19.
The Fast Track Court
was expected to deliver its final judgement on
Tsikata's trial on December 7, 2006. The trial
started in 2002.
Tsikata is charged with three counts of wilfully
causing financial loss of 2.3 billion cedis to
the State through a loan he, on behalf of GNPC,
guaranteed for Valley Farms, a farming venture,
and another count of misapplying public
property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse
Francaise de Development in 1991, but defaulted
in the payment, compelling GNPC, which acted as
the guarantor, to pay up in 1996.
Earlier, Professor Emmanuel Victor Dankwa,
Leading Attorney for the Appellant-Applicant, in
his submissions, said even if IFC were not a
party they, like other non-parties could be
heard in an appeal where justice demanded it.
Prof Dankwa stated: "IFC immunities, where they
exist, can be waived by IFC just as IFC Counsel
came to the High Court to say they had the
immunity and were not waiving it".
Counsel said they needed to be heard on appeal
to put across their claim, "as well as their not
waiving the immunity".
He said it would be unfair to both IFC and the
accused person if IFC were not served with the
appeal, which was specifically on a legal issue
that they had raised.
Responding to the applicant's submissions, Mrs
Gertrude Aikins, State Attorney of the Attorney
General's Department, stated: "Our reply to this
issue is that a criminal case is between the
Republic and the accused person, so then what
was the position of IFC?"
She pointed out: "IFC was neither an accused
person nor a complainant."
According to her, IFC was just a potential
witness for the defence, but said: "They are not
prepared to waive their statutory immunity under
LN 9 of 1958.
"Counsel also decided to hide under 'interest of
justice' by submitting that justice demands that
IFC should be joined in this appeal," she said.
She submitted that the Appellant's application
was unmeritorious and that, there was no legal
basis for such submission.
"IFC has told the whole world that it has
immunity from court process and it is not
prepared to waive it and their immunity is
statutorily provided and protected by the 1992
Constitution", she stated.
Mrs Aikins, therefore, urged the Court to
dismiss the application.
GNA
