Court warns ex-GIIF chair as Sky Train trial stalls over absence of counsel

The High Court in Accra has issued a stern warning to Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, the former Chairman of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) Board, after proceedings in the high-profile $2 million Sky Train case were stalled on Monday, October 27, 2025.

Presiding judge Justice Audrey Kocuvi-Tay cautioned that the trial would proceed in Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi’s absence if he fails to appear with formal legal representation by Wednesday, October 29.

The warning came after the former minister appeared in court without counsel, explaining that his newly engaged lawyer, Yaw Boafo, had not yet completed the court registration process.

Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi and former GIIF Chief Executive Officer Solomon Asamoah are facing charges of conspiracy and wilfully causing financial loss to the state.

The charges relate to a $2 million payment allegedly made in February 2019 by GIIF to Africa Investor Holdings Limited for shares in the proposed Accra Sky Train project — a 200-kilometre urban rail network that never materialised.

Prosecutors contend the payment was made without board approval and lacked due diligence. The project’s total estimated cost was between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion.

Chief State Attorney Sefakor Batse told the court the prosecution was fully prepared to present its first witness but had been hampered by delays.

Before the judge’s warning, the court ruled on a defence motion seeking access to documents the accused claimed could exonerate them — including GIIF board and committee meeting minutes.

Counsel for Mr Asamoah, Victoria Barth, argued that the materials were essential to proving that the investment was duly authorised. Her position was adopted by Duke Aaron Sasu, previous counsel for Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi.

Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the request, insisting the documents were not in the possession of the prosecution or investigators.

Justice Kocuvi-Tay dismissed the application, holding that the defence had not demonstrated that the documents were under the prosecution’s control. She advised that alternative legal mechanisms could be used to obtain them.

The court adjourned the case to Wednesday, October 29, for the defence to appear properly represented, paving the way for the prosecution to call its first witness.