A senior official of the Attorney General's Department has been transferred to the Upper West regional capital, Wa for allegedly jubilating over Tsatsu Tsikata's legal victory against the Attorney General at the Supreme Court.

James Abeaduka, a State Attorney and President of the Association of State Attorneys was allegedly transferred on the orders of the Attorney General, Nana Akuffo Addo.

Abeaduka told The Heritage newspaper in an interview that, his troubles began when he offered a legal opinion on Mr. Tsikata’s motion, challenging the constitutionality of the Fast Track High Courts.

He said, he was informed by the Chief Director of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice on March 5, 2002, that the Minister has ordered his transfer to Wa, because he had reportedly jubilated over the Supreme Court judgment. The letter, which did not assign any reasons, asked him to report at his new station on March 8, 2002.

According to The Heritage, Mr. Abeaduka wrote to the Chief Director that he was unable to comply, because he needed time to prepare reports on the over 50 cases he was handling. Abeaduka who is also the co-ordinator of the Legal Sector reforms Programme, said he also has a number of reports to prepare on the reform programme and do a proper hand over.
But more drama was to unfold, when on March 7, 2002, the Special Assistant to the Minister, reportedly invited Abeaduka to her office, and informed him of the Minister's instructions that he hands over the legal sector reform programme to her -the special adviser. A letter was also written to the Ministry of Finance without his knowledge withdrawing him (Abeaduka) from a course he was due to attend in London. Again, no reason was assigned.
He is now expected to report to his new station on March 28, 2002. Giving insight into the whole situation, Abeaduka said he informed the Chief State Attorney after Tsikata filed his writ, that "the best thing to do was to go to the Supreme Court to point out our mistake on the charge sheet and summons." This was based on the fact that, the charge and summons sheet was titled “In the Superior Court of Judicature, In the Fast Track High Court of Justice,” meaning that the Fast Track High Court was a different court altogether.
Abeaduka noted that the Chief State Attorney accepted his legal opinion, but the Attorney General rejected it, arguing that the fast track high court is a division based on the document on the matter from the Chief Justice.
He said the judgement of the Supreme Court was not on the mechanization of the Fast Track Court but on the title of the charge and summons sheet that gave the court a different status. "This is what we said, but nobody listened to us. Somebody lost his guard and writs from the high court suddenly began to change," he added.