SC to hear writ on Quality Grain charges

The Fast Track Court in Accra has suspended proceedings in the Quality Grain case to allow the Supreme Court to determine a writ filed by one Mr. Frank Bo Amissah against the Attorney-General.

The Supreme Court would hear the writ, which challenges the constitutionality of the charges, on Tuesday, March 4.

According to the plaintiff, the legality of the Quality Grains charges was unconstitutional and should, therefore, not be entertained by the FTC trying five former public officials, including two Ministers in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Administration.

The accused persons have been charged with conspiracy and causing financial loss of 20 million dollars to the state in a rice project at Aveyime in the Volta Region. They have denied the charges.

The accused persons are Ibrahim Adam, former Minister of Food and Agriculture; Samuel Dapaah, former Chief Director of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, and Kwame Peprah, former Minister of Finance. The rest are George Yankey, a former Director of Legal Sector, Private and Financial Institutions of the Ministry of Finance and Ato Dadzie, former Chief of Staff.

The writ, among other things, is a determining factor in the Quality Grain trial at the Fast Track Court presided over by Mr. Justice Dixon Kwame Afreh, a Supreme Court Judge, sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge.

This is because the Supreme Court's decision would determine whether the trial should be continued of otherwise. The punishment for "wilfully causing financial loss to the state" is enshrined in Section 179(D) of Act 29 of the Criminal Code.

When found guilty and convicted, one is fined an amount not less than five million cedis or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both. "Conspiracy" under Section 24 of Act 29 of the Criminal Code explains that where two or more persons are found guilty of conspiracy, they are punished as having committed the substantive crime and, therefore, punished by the same fine or imprisonment or both.

However, the Double Jeopardy Rule states that more than one offence could not be included in one charge. The cognate question is, therefore, whether more than one offence might be charged as a result of one act.

By Section nine (One) of the Criminal Code, 1960, where an act constitutes an offence under two or more enactment the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactment, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

This is a statutory expression of the rule of natural justice that a person should not be punished twice for the same offence or that he should not be put in double jeopardy for the same offence.

The Prosecution team, which comprised Ms. Gloria Akuffo, Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice (Leading), Mr. Osafo Sampong, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and Mr. Augustine Obuor, Assistant State Attorney, was to react to some contentious issues that were addressed by the Defence on February 21 and were likely to cause disagreement.

The Prosecution was also expected on Friday, to give further evidence of "crime of conspiracy" and evidence in support of each charge against the accused persons.

The Defence earlier argued that the Prosecution failed to establish the date of the commission of the offence alleged and the substance of the offence committed.

On "wilfully causing financial loss to the state," the Defence said it was enshrined in Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution that no person should be arrested and prosecuted, until the offence was defined.

The team submitted that "wilful" was an innocent word and that it was difficult to lay down its general definition, adding that "wilfully causing financial loss" meant nothing.

The Defence team, which included Mr. Samuel Cudjoe, Nene Amegatse, Mr. Kwaku Baah, Mr. David O. Lamptey and Nana Ampofo Adjei, said the offences under which their clients had been charged were unconstitutional and, therefore, they were entitled to acquittal.