Former NSA Official Fails to Halt Trial in Financial Loss Case
A bid by Gifty Oware-Mensah, former Executive Deputy Director of the National Service Authority (NSA), to temporarily halt her ongoing trial has been unsuccessful. She sought to pause proceedings to pursue an appeal against a High Court order compelling her to submit a list of potential witnesses and their addresses.
The High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, dismissed the application, marking the second instance where a request for a stay of proceedings has been rejected in this case. This latest setback means the trial will continue as scheduled, with Oware-Mensah facing allegations of stealing and causing significant financial loss to the state.
Oware-Mensah is accused of misappropriating GH¢38.4 million. The prosecution has been actively building its case, with the witness statement of the first prosecution witness, Gilbert Sebe-Yeboah, a staff member of the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB), already adopted by the court. Exhibits attached to the statement have also begun to be admitted as evidence.
Legal Arguments and Constitutional Concerns
The core of Oware-Mensah’s defence strategy has revolved around challenging the court’s order for a witness list. Her legal team, led by Gary Nimako Marfo, argued that this requirement infringes upon the fundamental constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence.
- Presumption of Innocence: Mr. Marfo contended that Article 19 (2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, which enshrines the presumption of innocence, is a sacrosanct right that cannot be disregarded. He argued that compelling an accused person to disclose their defence witnesses before the prosecution has fully established its case amounts to an attempt to undermine this crucial constitutional safeguard.
- Burden of Proof: Furthermore, the defence highlighted that the Evidence Act places the entire burden of proof in criminal proceedings squarely on the prosecution. The accused, they maintained, bears no such burden throughout the trial.
- Risk of Miscarriage of Justice: The defence expressed concerns that if the issues raised in their appeal regarding the witness disclosure order are not addressed by the Court of Appeal, a grave miscarriage of justice could occur for the accused.
Prosecution’s Rebuttal and Court’s Rationale
The prosecution, represented by Principal State Attorney Dufie Prempeh, countered the application for a stay of proceedings. Ms. Prempeh argued that the court’s directive for witness disclosure is rooted in established practice directions designed to ensure trials are conducted in an orderly and efficient manner.
- Purpose of Practice Directions: She emphasized that these directions are intended to streamline the judicial process and prevent undue delays.
- Grounds for Stay of Proceedings: Ms. Prempeh asserted that a stay of proceedings is an exceptional measure, typically granted only in circumstances demonstrating special conditions, rather than simply due to a party’s disagreement with a procedural ruling.
- Precedent: She cited various Supreme Court rulings, underscoring that the mere filing of an appeal does not automatically warrant a stay of proceedings. The unique circumstances of each case, she argued, must be meticulously considered.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
Despite the dismissal of the application to halt the trial for the appeal against the witness list order, Oware-Mensah’s legal team has a further application pending. This third application also seeks a stay of proceedings. It is contingent on the hearing and determination of an appeal against the court’s earlier refusal to refer the interpretation of Article 12(2)(c) of the Constitution, in relation to the practice direction, to the Supreme Court.
This latest pending application is scheduled for hearing on April 15. Prosecutors indicated that while they have received the substantive application and have filed an opposition, they have not yet been served with a supplementary affidavit in support of the application. The ongoing legal manoeuvres underscore the complex procedural challenges that continue to mark this high-profile financial loss trial.
