The Receiver of Unibank can tender email correspondence-Judge to Duffuor,8 others
According to lawyers for A1, A2, A4 and A8, the email correspondence is private correspondence guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution.
The High Court, presided by Justice Bright Mensah, an Appeal Court Judge sitting as a High Court Judge on Tuesday, May 25, 2021, ruled on an objection by the defence team relative to the tendering in this case by PW1, of email correspondence.
According to lawyers for A1, A2, A4 and A8, the email correspondence is private correspondence guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution.
Therefore they argued that the correspondence sins against the fundamental human rights of the accused persons if PW1 retrieved it from the computer system of Unibank without obtaining a court order.
The Director of Public Prosecution(DPP) Mrs Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, referred to various cases in opposition to the arguments by the defence team.
In his ruling, Justice Mensah referred to S.129(1) of Act 930 of the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institution Act.
The judge further resorted to Article 18(2) and Article 12(2),18(2) of the1992 Constitution, section 51 of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323) and other authorities.
Finally, he overruled the objection of the defence team and accepted the email correspondence of the PW1 in evidence as Exhibit G.
“I am also of the respectful view that the document the Prosecution seeks to tender is relevant in terms of S. 51 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and is coming from proper custody.”
“The objections by the defence team, therefore, fail and hereby overruled. Consequently, I accept the email correspondence in evidence as Exhibit G,” said the judge.
Subscribe to the Dennislaw database to read the full ruling.
