The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) led by Kissi Agyabeng has been granted one last opportunity by the High Court in Accra to put its house in order in the application seeking a Confirmation order of Seizure and Freeze of Cecilia Abena Dapaah’s financial assets.

This was after lawyers (Prosecutors) of the OSP led by Esther Fafa Tetteh had prayed for an adjournment “due to certain developments” which was opposed to by lawyers of Cecilia Dapaah.

Justice Nana Brew, the judge who has been assigned with the case dockets after Justice Edward Twum had proceeded on leave, said the court will oblige them a two-week adjournment which would be the last opportunity for the OSP to put its house in order.

The case has been adjourned to January 11, 2024.

Undisclosed developments

In Court on Friday, December 22, when it was confirmed by the Court that, the case docket was assigned to the relieving Justice Nana Brew of the Financial & Economic Division of the Accra High Court, the OSP’s Prosecutors sought an adjournment.

Esther Fafa Tetteh, representing the OSP told the Court that, her instruction was for the case to be adjourned “due to certain developments” which when resolved could affect the outcome of the case before the Court.

She said, that adjourned will help the OSP to determine the pending applications.

EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah is reporting that, the phrase “due to certain developments” has been used in the other legs of cases pending at the General Jurisdiction 13, to seek adjournments.

Chronicle of events

Lead Counsel for Cecilia Dapaah, Lawyer Victoria Barth while opposing to the request, recounted how the OSP (Applicant) has frustrated the process including a “dead on-arrival Certiorari application at the Supreme Court.

While giving a chronicle of the events on the case so far, Counsel submitted that, the Applicant’s (Special Prosecutor) motion for confirmation of his orders of freezing and seizure of suspected tainted property was filed as far back as September 11.

She added that, the Application had the returned date of October 18, a good five weeks from the date of filing.

Counsel submitted again that, thereafter the Applicant (OSP) filed an application (Certiorari) before the Supreme Court to quash a ruling of the Court that was abridging the hearing of their application for confirmation orders.

Lawyer Barth said on the back of the application to the Apex Court, they filed a motion to Stay Proceedings in the High Court, however, “it was eventually heard on November 29, 2023 only for the Applicant to withdraw it having taken a cue from the bench that the application was ‘dead-on-arrival’.”

Forfeited dates

Counsel submitted that, on that same November 29, when the court fixed hearing of the application for the confirmation orders and related applications before the high court, that date “was forfeited because the same parties have to be at the Supreme Court.”

This, she said, led to an adjournment of the case to December 11, and “the case dockets were not before the court.

But, the Applicant, Counsel said, “also made it clear that even if the dockets were before the court, their instructions from the Special Prosecutor was to request for a two-week adjournment, so that certain undisclosed developments within the peculiar knowledge of the Applicant would have crystallized and lead to the possible termination of pending matters before the court.”

“My lord, as an officer of the court, I am putting it on record that, in another matter before the Human Rights Court between the same parties in respect of this same subject matter, counsel for the applicant (OSP) made the same prayer for an adjournment prior to the December 11,” Victoria Barth argued.

We can await the coming of Christ, not OSP

Counsel again submitted that, “We can await the coming of Christ because that is not a Court matter but when you put an application before the court that affects the rights of another party, in this case their economic rights, which are guaranteed by the Constitution, you cannot come back to the Court and expect to be granted an adjournment for your convinience in dealing with internal matters which you refused to disclose to the court or those affected by the delay.”

Lawyer for Cecilia Dapaah while pointing to Order (1) rule(1) sub rule (2), said it enjoins the court to apply the rules in the manner that achieves speedy and effective justice, avoid delays and unnecessary expense and ensure that as far as possible all matters in dispute between parties are effectively and completely determined.

“My lord, granting the prayer for adjournment would be complete contravention of this rule and not in the interest of Justice,” Victoria Barth argued.

“My lord, we urge you to take judicial notice pursuant to section 9 of the Evidence Act NRCD232 of the public notices that the Applicant continually issues about this matter which prejudice the Respondent while he refuses to come and move his application so that the public will know whether there is any merit in what they have been reading or not,” she submitted.

Counsel submitted, that “This matter are generally known every where on X …the Special Prosecutor is not above the law, and cannot be given preferential treatment which the ordinary applicant will not even there to ask the court for.

“He is either ready to deal with their application or he should honorably withdraw it since he is not precluded from exercising his administrative powers to seize or freeze suspected tainted property whenever the grounds for doing so arise.

“The amount of money he had seized is public knowledge,” Counsel argued.

“There is no risk of concealment or decipation because indeed there are sanctions in the law, should the respondent engaged in any such conduct after the initial seizure.

“And my lord, it must not be lost on this court that the seizure and freezing, the subject matter of the applicant motion, occurred right after he purported to complied with this court order to release and unfreeze the same property,” Victoria Barth.

“So in effect, he had been holding on to the alleged tainted property since July 2023 which far exceeds the statutory 60days he is permitted to hold into such property where he even obtains a grant for application for confirmation orders,” Counsel argued.

“In all these months, he has not been able to prefer a charge against the respondents for any identifiable corruption or corruption related offence properly defined by law.

“It will be the height of injustice within the reasons I have outlined to grant the applicant an adjournment to complete his secret developments since it will amount to a grant of the application which he has already enjoyed from September to date without moving it.

“Finally, they have an application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit in which they have indicated that even when it is granted they will now file the supplementary affidavits after it is sworn by the deponent.

“This means that, even if the court wants to hear the application, that said will take us to another date.

“We are on record before this court and Supreme Court that we are not opposed to that application and that the court can admit the proposed suplementary affidavit as it it because it already under cover of a surly sworn affidavit.

“That’s is another huddle to summount. At the very least today (December 22) their applicant for stay which the can only but withdraw and for leave to file supplementary affidavit must be heard and subject to the courts decision we proceed with the main application,” Lawyer Victoria Barth submitted.

It was again the case of Prosecutors from the OSPs office that, the Certiorari was withdrawn at the Supreme Court after a cue was taken from the bench that renders the application for stay of proceedings pending before this court moot.

“We do not have any issue withdrawing that because that would been part of the business for the day,” Ms Tetteh told the Court.

She intimated that, “we are still asking for an adjournment and that’s our prayer.”

The Court subsequently, granted the OSP one las chance to to put their house in order as case adjourned to January 11.

Both Madam Cecilia Dapaah and husband Daniel Osei Kuffuor were present in Court.