Judge admits GIIF emails referencing Accra Sky Train in $2m trial

A High Court in Accra has admitted a bundle of email correspondence and attachments linked to the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), with several documents referencing the Accra Sky Train project.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, came after the prosecution challenged the relevance of the emails under sections 51 and 52 of Ghana’s Evidence Act.

Defence counsel Victoria Barth, acting for former GIIF CEO Solomon Asamoah, introduced the emails to support the argument that the Sky Train was not a one-off mention but part of the fund’s ongoing portfolio discussions and reporting.

The court heard that the messages, largely circulated by the company secretary in September 2020, came with multiple attachments, including risk and audit committee material, and referred to projects including the Accra Sky Train.

One thread, referenced in coverage of the proceedings, is said to describe the Sky Train as a GIIF project impacted by the COVID-19 shock, which the defence says clashes with earlier evidence from the prosecution’s first witness, Yaw Odame-Darkwa.

Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem-Sai argued that the evidentiary “north star” for the trial is whether there was board approval, approval for the release of funds, and (where applicable) parliamentary approval for an international transaction, adding that the tendered emails did not establish those approvals.

He also raised concerns that the prosecution did not have all the listed documents, and questioned mismatches between file names and what had been provided to the court.

Justice Kocuvie-Tay overruled the objection and admitted the emails and attachments into the record, with the court indicating the material would be assessed “for its worth”.

Mr Asamoah and former GIIF board chair Prof Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi are facing charges tied to an alleged unauthorised US$2m investment connected to the Accra Sky Train project, which prosecutors say caused financial loss to the state.

The defence, in related reporting, has pushed back on the narrative that the transaction was off-book and has also argued the case has broader governance and political overtones, though that remains disputed.

Note: Some reports say cross-examination was due to continue on Thursday, 15 January, but one version gives the year as 2025 despite placing the hearing in January 2026.