Godfred Yeboah Dame
Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has said he took the decision to challenge the Supreme Court’s removal of Justice Clemence Honyenuga in the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) fertiliser procurement trial because he wanted to protect the country’s criminal justice system for posterity.
He said the court’s decision to restrain Justice Clemence Honyenuga, a Supreme Court judge who is sitting as an additional High Court judge, from further hearing the case of former Chief Executive Officer of COCOBOD, Dr. Stephen Opuni and two others, for allegedly causing over GH¢217 million financial loss to the state, was an error which would have empowered lower courts to disregard the binding principles of the apex court’s authority if he did not take the steps.
He said in an interview in Accra yesterday after the court reinstated Justice Honyenuga that the decision of the ordinary bench to remove the trial judge “contained multiple fundamental flaws which occasioned miscarriage of justice.”
Only Reason
According to the AG, the only reason for the grant of Dr. Opuni’s application was the trial judge’s interpretation of the Evidence Act where he (judge) excluded certain exhibits.
The AG explained that if, at all, any error occurred in the exclusion of exhibits, it did not warrant the invocation of the supervisory powers of the Supreme Court and did not also warrant the decision of the ordinary bench as it did in late July.
Mr. Dame said the ruling by the ordinary bench would have occasion irreparable damage to the Republic in the substantive trial if the ‘errors’ by the bench had not been corrected.
Opening Door
Mr. Dame further argued that apart from the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the parties in the case, it had the tendency to open the door to the filing of similar applications by parties to shop for judges of their choice.
“Prohibiting a judge who has obeyed the judicial precedent of the Honourable Court strikes at the heart of the certainty of the law, with greater consequence on the administration of justice,” the AG insisted.
He reiterated that what Dr. Opuni had done could be interpreted to mean that he was deciding who should be the judge in his own case and that was going to set a dangerous precedent if the ordinary bench’s decision had been left to go unchallenged.
Court’s Authority
He said the ordinary bench’s decision contained “errors that go against the administration of justice, not only in this case,” and added that “the refusal of this review would have permitted the lower courts to disregard without more, the binding precedents of Supreme Court Authority.”
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court in a 4:3 majority decision reversed its earlier decision and reinstated their colleague Justice Honyenuga, to continue the trail of Dr. Opuni, businessman Seidu Agongo and the businessman’s company called Agricult Ghana Limited for their alleged involvement in the procurement of Lithovit fertilizer, which the prosecution is claiming caused over GH¢217 million financial loss to the state.
First Grant
The decision to reinstate Justice Honyenuga who has been hearing the case since 2017, came after the court granted an application for review filed by the Attorney General, of an earlier 3:2 majority decision of the court to take the judge off the case on grounds of bias as alleged by Dr. Opuni.
The former COCOBOD boss had applied to the Supreme Court to take Justice Honyenuga off the case on grounds of bias, alleging that he will not be given the opportunity to defend himself as he claimed the trial judge was bent on sending him to jail, and in late July the three Supreme Court judges as against two said their colleague could not continue to sit on the case because the applicant (Dr. Opuni) had been able to prove the allegation of bias.
The panel also granted an application for certiorari application by Dr. Opuni, which sought to quash portions of Justice Honyenuga’s ruling on a submission of no case as well as prohibit him from further hearing the case.
Review Application
Not satisfied with the decision, the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame filed an application for review in August, urging the court to reverse its decision, arguing that the court had departed from settled principles in dealing with matters and was setting a dangerous precedent as far as criminal administration of justice was concerned.
Opuni Opposition
Samuel Codjoe, counsel for Dr. Opuni, during the argument had vehemently opposed the application by the AG saying that the application for review did not meet the threshold needed for the court to take a decision.
He had insisted that the applicants (Attorney General’s Department) were just rehashing the arguments made in the previous application which was granted.
He said the trial judge was clearly bias as he did not give the accused person the opportunity to open his case but instead predetermined and prejudged the case.
“He had made his mind and was going through the rituals while waiting to pronounce sentence,” Mr. Codjoe, had fired in court.
4:3 versus 3:2
Justices Jones Victor Dotse, who presided over the panel (4:3) for the review application, Avril Lovelace-Johnson, Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey and Gertrude Torkonoo formed the majority while Justices Gabriel Pwamang, Agnes Dordzie and Umoru Tanko Amadu dissented.
In the ordinary bench decision when Justice Honyenuga was restrained, the majority (3:2) were Justices Pwamang, Dordzie and Tanko Amadu whilst Justice Dotse and Lovelace Johnson dissented.
Two Justices, Prof. Kotey and Torkonoo, were added to the original panel to decide the review application filed by the Attorney General.