Understanding the High Court Ruling on Application filed by Mr. Richard Jakpa

The High Court (Financial & Economic Crime Division 2), Accra presided over by her ladyship JUSTICE AFIA SERWAH ASARE-BOTWE (MRS.) JA sitting as an additional High Court delivered its ruling on applications filed by the 3rd Accused Person Mr. Richard Jakpa.

The Court commenced its ruling by addressing a preliminary legal objection made by the 3rd Accused Person’s lawyer on some of the paragraphs in the Affidavit filed in opposition to the Application by the Attorney-General.  Lawyer Sory objected to paragraphs 13, 16 and 20 of the affidavit in opposition and the depositions therein which border on the mention of the venue of the (a) meeting between the Attorney-General and A3, the circumstances of the meeting and the fact the Attorney-General has alleged that he has never met the 3rd Accused/Applicant anywhere than at that particular venue. 

The court ruled that

After having assessed the three paragraphs to which Mr. Sory has taken exception, I fail to see the point of the objections.

From the statement of A3/Applicant at page 38 of 31 of Exhibit A, he [Mr. Jakpa] himself acknowledges and alleges that; “ …but I want to make it clear here that the Attorney-General has on several occasions had private meetings with me at odd hours both in person and on phone…”.

Further, in the affidavit in support of the motion being dealt with, the 3rd Accused/Applicant states that he met the Attorney-General who assured him that he (A3) will eventually be exculpated. In that circumstance, the fact of the meeting(s) not having been denied, there is no issue on that joined between the parties, and as such an objection just for the sake of contrariness is of no moment.”

On the Substantive motion the court had to “determination of whether the charges against A3 ought to be dropped.” The court had to put the issues in two fold in these words. 

The two very simple issues arise out of the grounds set out immediately above is whether there is such evidence of abuse of process on the part of the Honourable Attorney-General to merit a termination of this case without going further because of conversations he had with A3 outside of the courtroom proceedings, and whether there is the potential danger of the 3rd Accused/Applicant not having a fair trial in this case going forward.

The court made references to her earlier ruling in respect of Applications filed by the 1st Accused Person and proceeded to rule that

In any case, once the accused persons are in court and the evidence being put before the court, it is obvious that it is the duty of the Court to assess the evidence and make a decision as to whether the quality of the evidence would be enough to support the charges. It is not the work of the Attorney-General or any other party to assess the evidence and state that there was no likelihood of conviction. 

The court in conclusion held that 

This “stand-alone” application for Stay of Proceedings which is intended to abruptly terminate this case, whether in the nature of a discharge or an acquittal, is not known to our law and same is accordingly refused.

In summary the court dismissed all the Applications filed by the 3rd Accused Person.