The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned till further notice (sine die) the case in which Mr Ken Ofori Atta, Minister of Finance has been sued over his role in the $2.25 billion bond issuance due to an alleged procedural error and conflict of interest.

The Dynamic Youth Movement of Ghana (DYMOG) was informed by the apex court of the land that it failed to comply with the rules of court in relation to the filing of agreed memorandum of issues

The seven member panel, presided over by Mr Justice Julius Ansah at the last court sitting ordered parties to file a joint memorandum of issues but the youth group did so without the respondents.

The court also noted that the writ and the memorandum of issues had been signed by Mr Edward Tutor; the Youth Group’s President instead of their lawyer, Mr Osman Alhassan.

“Which of the rules of the court allows that after issuing a writ you sign for yourself and another after filing a memorandum of issues? the court quizzed.

The court therefore directed Mr Alhassan to go and read Rule (82) of the court rules and ascertain the definition of parties in a matter.

Consequently, Mr Alhassan withdrew the memorandum of issues.

DYMOG in January this year sued the Finance Minister, the Attorney General and the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice [CHRAJ] over the $2.25 billion bond issuance.

The group in its suit is invoking the proper jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret Article 284 of the 1992 constitution which states: “A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office.”

The applicants contend that the Finance Minister in issuing the bond to Franklin Templeton had put himself in a conflict of interest situation because one of the directors of the US-based investment group Trevor Trefgarne is also a director of a company owned by the Minister.

Meanwhile the Minister has been cleared by the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) of the conflict of interest allegations.

Among the reliefs the group is seeking include; (a) A declaration that by going beyond investigations to make a pronouncement (of guilty or otherwise) on the 1st Defendant in respect of the allegation of breach of conflict of interest, the 2nd Defendant has contravened Article 287 of the 1992 Constitution.

(b)A declaration that by interpreting Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution (as disclosed between paragraph 3 of page 127 and paragraph 3 of page 133 of the Report) the 2nd Defendant has contravened Article 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.

Youth group is also seeking a declaration that by issuing or overseeing the issuance of the said bonds to Templeton without disclosing his relational interest with a director at Templeton, one Trevor G. Trefgarne, the 1st Defendant has acted in contravention of Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution.