THE REPUBLIC vs. KWABENA DUFFUOR AND 8 OTHERS [2021]DLHC10526

Date	2021-06-22
Suit No.	CASE NO. CR 0248/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLHC10526

JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

YVONNE ATAKORA OBUABISA (D.P.P) WITH WINIFRED SARPONG (P.S.A)

JOSHUA SACKEY (S.S.A) AND SELASI KUORNU (A.S.A) FOR THE PROSECUTION

OSAFO BUABENG WITH AGYENIM AGYEI BOATENG

JELIU SAPASCHINI AND APPIAHENE OSEI AKOTO FOR 1ST 2ND AND 4TH ACCUSED PERSONS

FRED DOTSE WITH NANCY AMARTEIFIO AND JOHN-MARK BEKUI FOR 3RD ACCUSED PERSON

PAUL ASSIBI ABARIGA FOR 5TH ACCUSED PERSON

AKUA AGYEMANG APPIAH-POKU LED BY CORNELIUS YAWSON FOR 6TH ACCUSED PERSON.

GEORGE ABORGAH FOR 7TH ACCUSED PERSON.

NANA AGYEI BAFFOUR AWUAH WITH THERESA TABI

BERNICE AMA MORTEY AND MENA ADWOA FLETCHER FOR 8TH ACCUSED PERSON.

SIMON ANIMLEY WITH ANTHONY GBEZE FOR 9TH ACCUSED PERSON.

[2021]DLHC10526
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWABENA DUFFUOR AND 8 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

CASE NO. CR 0248/2020 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
22ND JUNE 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YVONNE
ATAKORA OBUABISA (D.P.P) WITH WINIFRED SARPONG (P.S.A), JOSHUA SACKEY (S.S.A)
AND SELASI KUORNU (A.S.A) FOR THE PROSECUTION.<o:p></o:p>OSAFO
BUABENG WITH AGYENIM AGYEI BOATENG, JELIU SAPASCHINI AND APPIAHENE OSEI AKOTO
FOR 1ST, 2ND AND 4TH ACCUSED PERSONS.<o:p></o:p>FRED DOTSE
WITH NANCY AMARTEIFIO AND JOHN-MARK BEKUI FOR 3RD ACCUSED PERSON.<o:p></o:p>PAUL ASSIBI
ABARIGA FOR 5TH ACCUSED PERSON.<o:p></o:p>AKUA
AGYEMANG APPIAH-POKU LED BY CORNELIUS YAWSON FOR 6TH ACCUSED PERSON.<o:p></o:p>GEORGE
ABORGAH FOR 7TH ACCUSED PERSON.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;NANA AGYEI BAFFOUR AWUAH WITH THERESA TABI,
BERNICE AMA MORTEY AND MENA ADWOA FLETCHER FOR 8TH ACCUSED PERSON.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SIMON
ANIMLEY WITH ANTHONY GBEZE FOR 9TH ACCUSED PERSON. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;It has
always been said interpretation hounds in pairs.&nbsp; Thus, any rational lawyers on both sides of a
case may perfectly and reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same sets
of facts without forfeiting their positions to be regarded as reasonable.&nbsp; However, the reality is that the court has to
agree with one conclusion and reject the other, regrettably.&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;What has
attracted the above comments is due largely to the passion with which the
lawyers for the accused persons argued their case and the dexterous skills by
which the Director of Public Prosecutions (D.P.P) responded to the arguments of
the defence legal team. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Arguments
of Counsel for the Accused persons:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Premising
his arguments on S. 122(8) of the Banks &amp; Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions
Act, 2016 (Act 930), learned Counsel for the 1st, 2nd
and 4th Accused persons, whose submissions were ably supported by
the other lawyers in the defence team, had argued that the witness for the
Prosecution (PW1) was not qualified to testify in the present case.&nbsp; Counsel contended that the witness, Nii Amanor
Dodoo (PW1) was a partner in KPMG when that company was appointed the Official
Administrator of uniBank but the official administration ceased on
30/07/2018.&nbsp; However, upon dissolution of
the administration, PW1 was appointed a Receiver of uniBank on 20/08/2018.&nbsp; That being the undisputed facts, Counsel
reasoned, Nii Amanor Dodoo’s appointment as Receiver flouts S.
122(8) of Act 930.&nbsp; He thus advocated
that whatever PW1 has since done pursuant to his appointment to the
receivership of uniBank, is an illegality.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Explaining
himself further, he stated that KPMG having been appointed an Official
Administrator of a bank under Act 930, which administration has come to an end,
PW1 a partner in KPMG could not have subsequently been appointed the Receiver
within 2 years of the determination of the administration.&nbsp; In other words, PW1 cannot hold any position
in the bank that was the subject of administration until after 2 years.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Concluding,
learned Counsel re-emphasized that PW1 as a partner in KPMG at all material
times during the currency of the administration disqualifies him from holding
any position in uniBank just a day after the administration ended.&nbsp; The effect is that PW1’s position is a
nullity and all that he has done pursuant to his appointment is an illegality,
Counsel insisted.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Contributing
to the arguments, and in support of the submissions of Counsel for A1, A2 and
A4, learned Counsel for A8 submitted
that the position of the law is that no court has the power to grant immunity
for breach of statutes.&nbsp; He maintained
that the objection to the capacity or status of PW1 also affects admissibility
of documents the witness seeks to tender in evidence in this case. &nbsp;The determination of the status of PW1 is also
capable of deciding whether all documents he seek to tender were coming from
the proper custody, he added. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Learned
Counsel for A8 then referred the court to S. 52 of the Evidence Act (NRCD 323) and argued that on grounds of public policy the court has the
power to exclude an otherwise relevant evidence. &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;