Opuni’s application dismissed, Retired Justice Honyenuga to continue with the case
In his ruling, the retired Supreme Court Justice sitting as an additional High Court judge dismissed the application noting that the Chief Justice had the power to give such an extension because he was the administrative head of the Judiciary.
A High Court in Accra on Monday dismissed another application filed by the former COCOBOD CEO, Dr. Stephen Opuni which sought to restrain Justice Clemence Honyenuga from continuing to preside on his case despite his retirement.
Dr. Opuni and Agongo, the CEO of Agricult Ghana Limited, are on trial for allegedly engaging in illegalities in a series of fertilizer transactions which the Attorney-General (A-G) says caused a financial loss of GH¢271.3 million to the state.
They were dragged to court by the A-G in March 2018 on 27 charges, including willfully causing financial loss to the state, defrauding by pretense, contravention of procurement laws, corruption of a public officer, and money laundering.
Justice Clemence Honyenuga has been sitting for over four years as an additional High Court Judge overseeing the case between the Republic against Dr. Stephen Opuni and Seidu Agongo prior to his retirement.
Therefore pursuant to Article 145 of the 1992 Constitution, the Chief Justice of the Republic gave Justice Honyenuga six months per the powers bestowed on him under Article 139(1) (c ) extension to enable him to continue to preside on the case.
This however did not go down well with Dr. Opuni and thus filed an application challenging such an extension.
Moving the motion, counsel for Dr. Opuni deemed the exercise of the Chief Justice’s discretionary powers in the above as unconstitutional as done per Article 144(11).
According to him, such powers relative to the extension of tenure of Supreme Court Justices do not fall under the remit of the Chief Justice powers because he is not the appointing authority rather it is only the president who can exercise such powers.
On her part, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa disagreed with the above assertion insisting that the Chief Justice has such powers and made reference to Article 145(1) (2a) and (4) and indicated that there was no ambiguity relative to the one to exercise such powers.
Earlier, Dr.Opuni’s lawyer had through an objection, attempted to restrain Justice Honyenuga from hearing the application arguing that it would sin against the ‘Nemo Judex in Causa sua’ rule of the principle of natural justice.
In his ruling, the retired Supreme Court Justice sitting as an additional High Court judge dismissed the application noting that the Chief Justice had the power to give such an extension because he was the administrative head of the Judiciary.
