Review July 28 decision, reinstate Justice Honyenugah as trial judge-AG to SC
AG is arguing that it must be on only compelling circumstances that a decision can be taken by the Court to prohibit a judge who has conducted the instant case for almost four years.
The Supreme Court of Ghana will today, October 12, 2021, sit on a review application filed by the Attorney General relative to a July 28, 2021 decision that saw a 3-2 majority decision by the apex Court.
This decision led to the removal of Justice Clemence Honyenugah, trial judge in the case of Republic v. Opuni and another.
However, per its motion of review, the AG indicates the decision cited supra, contained fundamental and grave errors that have manifestly resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice thus called on the court to review same.
“That the applicant respectfully contends that the decision of the ordinary bench of this honourable Court dated 28th July, 2021 contained fundamental and grave errors which have manifestly resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice and therefore ought to be reviewed by this court…,” it said.
Furthermore, the AG contends that the ordinary bench committed a fundamental error relative to its prohibition of the trial Judge, Justice Honyenugah, who only performed his duty as required by law to evaluate adduced by prosecution in determining whether a prima facie case had been made.
Additionally, the trial judge according to the AG, clearly understood the fundamental duty imposed on him by the law by the law whether the accused persons ought to be called open to open their case relative to the strength of the prosecution’s case.
Background
Mr Stephen Opuni brought an application before the Supreme Court praying for an order of certiorari directed at the High Court Criminal Division 1, Accra to quash a part of the ruling of the High Court presided over by His Lordship Justice Clemence Jackson Honyenugah, JSC, sitting as an additional High Court Judge and for an order of prohibition to prohibit him from continuing with the case.
According to his application, Mr Opuni alleged that the trial judge, Justice Honyenugah had made certain pronouncement which he deemed as a clear demonstration of bias on the part of the sitting judge as follows;
“All these were perpetuated to facilitate the 2nd and 3rd accused’s business and defraud COCOBOD.Indeed these acts were all perpetuated to facilitate and intentionally, voluntarily to aid the 2nd and 3rd accused to perpetuate fraud on COCOBOD by supplying a different product from what was tested and approved” page 54 of the said ruling quoted.
Also, “…However, the 1st accused although he knew the correct state of affairs and knowingly facilitated and aided the 2nd and 3rd accused to defraud COCOBOD.” page 54 of the ruling quoted.
Additionally, “The 1st accused made things easier for the 2nd and 3rd accused to succeed in their enterprise of defrauding.” page 55 of the ruling.
However by a majority decision with opinion rendered by Justice Pwamang and supported by Justice Dordzie(Mrs) and Justice Tanko Amadu, the Supreme Court made an order prohibiting Justice Honyenuga from presiding on the trial.
The dissenting opinion on the other hand, consisted of Justice Dotse and Justice Lovelace-Johnson.
Meanwhile the AG is arguing that it must be on only compelling circumstances that a decision can be taken by the Court to prohibit a judge who has conducted the instant case for almost four years.
“That a decision to prohibit a trial judge who has conducted a criminal trial for almost four(4) years, at which the prosecution has called all of its witnesses, from further hearing of the matter, must be on the basis of only compelling circumstances which show indisputable bias on the part of that judge and not on account of matters as complained about by the respondent herein,” the motion read in part.
In conclusion, it noted that justice and fairness require that the July 28, 2021 decision of the court be reviewed.
