Adamu Daramani Sakande
A verbal application by Yoni Kulendi, counsel for Adamu Daramani Sakande, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, for stay of proceedings at an Accra High Court pending the final determination of an appeal, was yesterday refused.
This was after the trial judge at the High Court, Justice Charles Quist, stated that the application had not been formally put before him even though he had been notified by the High Court registrar of the pendency of an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The MP is being tried for perjury at the High Court.
According to the judge, in summary trials, a judge had the discretion to decide whether or not to grant a stay based on issues such as the stage of the trial among other considerations, and said he would not stay the trial.
He however said the Bawku MP had the right to appeal.
Earlier, Rexford Wiredu, the principal state attorney, told the court that the appeal by the MP was premature because it remained to be seen if the state would call a witness, adding that the accused person should have waited until that time to appeal.
He said the accused person had not even closed his case and was concerned about the new witness the prosecution would bring to testify.
The state attorney said he saw no reason why the case should not go on and prayed the court to continue hearing.
Mr. Kulendi noted that he would not respond to what Mr. Wiredu was saying, but rather prayed the court to, in the interest of justice, stay proceedings for them to go on appeal.
The MP is at the Court of Appeal over Justice Quist’s decision to allow the state time to call another witness if it so wished.
He has filed an application for stay of proceedings at the Fast Track High Court till the final determination of an appeal he has filed on the issue.
The MP believes that once the ruling had to do with him being compelled to identify a document he did not know anything about, the judge should have stuck to that and not veered into others areas.
At the Court Of Appeal where the application for stay of proceedings was to be heard, the principal state attorney, Rexford Wiredu, who said he had “not filed an affidavit in opposition because I was out of jurisdiction”, raised a preliminary objection which he said would affect the content of the application filed by the MP.
The court presided over by S.E. Kanyoke told Mr. Wiredu to file his objection since it was a court of record. Mr. Kulendi on the other hand said the Attorney-General’s office was served with the motion.
Mr. Wiredu admitted that his office was served but explained that he and the Director for Public Prosecutions were not around so he was not served personally.
Furthermore, he said the motion came with a court list and that was how he got to know he was to appear in court, adding that the application had no date.
Mr. Yoni Kulendi however maintained that the application was originally endorsed with a date so Mr. Wiredu could not say he was objecting because the motion had no date.
Mr. Wiredu said Mr. Yoni Kulendi should have filed the application at the High Court and not the Appeals Court, in accordance with CI (19) Section 28.
However, the trial Justices S.E. Kanyoke, Aduana Osei and Dennis Adjei pointed out to the state attorney that under CI (19) Section 27, a lower court could not stay its own proceedings and explained that that it was only in a case where an application for stay of execution had been filed that a court could stay its own execution.
Mr. Kulendi prayed the court to dismiss the objection because it had no legal basis, to which the state attorney said he wanted it to be on record.
The court ordered Mr. Wiredu to file his affidavit in opposition within seven days. The case has been adjourned to October 12.
By Fidelia Achama