The Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Justice refuted media reports that attempted to suggest that: The Chief Justice violated the country’s 1992 Constitution when constituting a panel to hear an appeal at the Supreme Court in a case involving Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni, former chief executive of the Ghana Cocoa Board.
According to the AG’s office, persistent attempts by some media outlets aligned with Dr. Opuni to repeatedly distort the effectiveness of court proceedings related to the prosecution of the former CEO of the Ghana Cocoa Board have been linked to the lack of evidence. It is said to be a material misrepresentation. led by court.
“These publications are often gross misrepresentations of the evidence led at trial, ridicule the prosecution’s case and create a false impression about the soundness of the defense given by Dr Opuni at trial. ” said in a statement on Tuesday, May 14, 2024.
The AG’s statement, signed by the Minister of Industry, Godfred Yeboah Dame, said: “The AG states that for the purpose of educating the public, no party to a court proceeding is entitled to insist on a particular forum or panel. ” he said. The court that hears your case.
“In accordance with the Constitution and the Courts Act 1993 (Act No. 459), the Presiding Judge shall determine the composition of each court to hear any matter.”
He added: “The Chief Justice is a member of every court in the country and has the power at any time to request in writing any judge of the High Court of Justice to sit either in the Court of Appeal or the High Court.” . . ”
For him, “According to Article 128(3) of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the trials of the Supreme Court, and in his absence, the most senior of the Supreme Court justices shall preside over the trials.” ”
Below is the AG’s full statement
press release
RE: Republic VRS.Dr. Stephen Oyuni & 2 others
Misrepresentation of Supreme Court proceedings on May 8, 2024
The Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice have drawn attention to deliberate misrepresentations in the media (traditional and social) regarding the composition of the panel hearing the appeal before the Supreme Court in the case entitled “Republic vs. State”. ing. Dr. Stephen Opuni and 2 others.”
Comments in various newspapers, especially the Herald publications, and on social media by some persons, including Professor Kweku Asare, are full of falsehoods and the Committee for the hearing of the appeal on May 8, 2024 This includes the inference that the composition of the system was abnormal. , the Constitution is questionable or in violation.
The Attorney General and Minister of Justice (AG), who is a party to the case in question and has a constitutional duty to protect the administration of justice from abuse, hereby establishes the record.
1. The arguments in the appeal filed by Dr. Stephen Opuny before the Supreme Court against the order of the Court of Appeal dated July 3, 2023 seeking admission of the evidence led in the above-mentioned case were filed by the Supreme Court on May 8, 2023. It was tried in . 2024, not an earlier date.
2. This appeal was originally scheduled to be heard in the Supreme Court on January 17, 2024. By that date, no written submissions had been made on this issue. Only a notice of appeal was filed during the proceedings. The Supreme Court also did not require any party to make oral submissions in support or opposition of any of the grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant.
Therefore, it is undisputed that the Supreme Court did not hear arguments on January 17, 2024.
3. The court rather orders the appellant, Dr. Opuni, to file written submissions within 21 days and orders the respondent, Republic, to file written submissions within 21 days of service. thereby giving directions for future hearings in this matter. Along with the appellant’s submissions. The appellant was given a further opportunity to file a reply within 7 days after the respondent’s submissions were served.
4. Both parties duly complied with the court’s instructions and the appeal was subsequently scheduled for hearing on May 8, 2024. On that day, the Committee for hearing the appeal was reconstituted by the Honorable Chief Justice in the exercise of his powers. Based on the 1992 Constitution.
5. Dr. Opuni, the appellant’s lawyer, raised a grotesque and wild objection to the reconstitution of the panel, citing Article 157(3) of the Constitution, effectively denying that the previous panel had dismissed his appeal. He insisted that the case be tried.
6. The AG prayed for the Court to dismiss the objection as it was misconceived by allusion to the above, and submitted that the operative wording of Article 157(3) of the Constitution is that “…a person sitting in a superior court… “No person shall do the following.” Hear the arguments of the parties to the cause or issue and retire as a member of the court before the judgment is pronounced until the judgment is pronounced. ” Article 157(3) was not invoked as there was no oral or written argument in this matter, which was heard on January 17, 2024.
After considering the submissions of both attorneys, the court rejected the objections.
7. The AG notes the persistent attempts by some media outlets aligned with Dr Opuni to distort the effectiveness of the court proceedings relating to the prosecution of the former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Cocoa Board. These publications are often gross misrepresentations of the evidence led at trial, ridiculing the prosecution’s case and creating a false impression about the soundness of the defense given by Dr Opuni at trial. The purpose is
8. The AG considers that most of the publications on the Opuni case, which were orchestrated by the accused himself, pervert the course of justice or prejudice the fair hearing of the case, and that the limits of permissible speech are observed that it deviates from the . Nevertheless, the Republic remains committed to presenting strong evidence to incriminate all of the accused in the above-mentioned cases, and does not intend to overextend itself in the process.
9. For the purpose of educating the public, the AG states that no party to court proceedings has the right to insist on a particular court or panel of courts to hear his or her case. According to the Constitution and the Courts Act 1993 (Act No. 459), the Chief Justice determines the composition of all courts that hear any matter.
10. The Chief Justice is a member of all courts in the country and has the power at any time to request in writing any judge of the High Court of Justice to sit either in the Court of Appeal or in the High Court. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 128, Section 3 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the trials of the Supreme Court, and in the absence of the Chief Justice, the most senior justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. do.
Willful disregard for these fundamental principles is detrimental to the sound adjudication of cases and can be dangerous to society as a whole. END!!!
Godfred Yeboah Dame
Attorney General and Minister of Justice