Xfm 95.1 NewsCenter

Accra, June 25, GNA – The Committee for Joint Action (CJA) on Wednesday said the trial and conviction of Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), was politically motivated.

Did the people of Ghana agree with this statement?

The majority of the respondents held a neutral view. 16% of the respondents believed CJA’s assertion that the trial was politically motivated whilst 20% of the respondents believed it was not politically motivated.

Some Comments Posted

No one is asking what business does GNPC had in a telecommunication company that your beloved government is now selling for 120 million dollars…..of which Kuffour would pocket a cool 20% kickbacks, to be modest…..$30 million dollars.

What about ECOBANK…..when no foreign banks would come to Ghana….ECOBANK WAS THERE……how soon some forget…

WHAT ABOUT the OSAGYEFO BARGE or the TANO PROJECT….what does GNPC and oil company has to do with a electricity production but Kuffour was quick to count is as one of his efforts to solve the power crisis…….go figure….

this issue here is bigger than any political propaganda and the smartest brains can muster…..for when the CIVIL WAR COMES IT WOULD TAKE YEARS TO END….AND, IT WOULD TAKE MORE THAN SWEET WORDS TO RESOLVE…..

PEOPLE……TAKE OFF YOUR KUKRUDU LENSES AND BE FORWARD-THINKING……

NPP IS SO IGNORANT, RECKLESS, CYNICAL, AND MYOPIC…..THEY ARE BUILDING EXTREME HATRED/ANYMOUSITY? AGAINST AKANS….ESPECIALLY ASHANTIS…..MOST OF WHOM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NPP POLITICS…..

BUT WHEN THE CIVIL WAR COMES….DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WOULD CARE TO ASK WHO IS WHO OR NOT…..

WISE UP…..ASHANTIS AND AKANS…..QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT…

WISE UP….GHANA…..

STOP THE CIVIL WAR BEFORE IT BEGINS….

GHANA IS NO SPECIAL THAN ANY AFRICAN COUNTRY…..LET’S NOT FIND OUT THE HARD WAY……WHILE THIS NPP POLITICIANS RUN AWAY FROM THE COUNTRY AND LEAVE THE DEFENSELESS ASHANTIS AND AKANS BEHIND TO FACE THE HORROR…..

BOB MARLEY SAID….

until the philosophy
of one race
is superior
to another
is discredited,
and abandoned,

THERE WILL BE NOTHING BUT WARRRRRR O….

—————————————
FELA IS JUST THE MESSENGER….dont kill the messenger o…..

What is all this talk about politically motivated trial of Tsatsu Tsikata? If someone falls foul of the law and he is taken through the due process of the law is it politically motivated? Once a court of competent jurisdiction deals with him we should rest assured that justice will be served. This is not the time for us to talk about a looming civil war because some particular group apparently are being persecuted. We need to have faith in the rule of law and accept the court system as doing their best. This is not a case of Ashantis or Akan versus Ewes. We have to admit that all those govt officilas who were jailed had the opportunity to defend themselves. They were not picked in the middle of the night to surface somewhere else. They were not intimidated by the President, nor were they publicly humiliated. Yes, the CJA has the right to complain, and it also has the right support Tsatsu to appeal against the conviction. It will do them no good to go about climing that the trial and conviction were politically motivated.

Tsatsu ‘The Ant’ Tsikata is a political criminal and as such deserves more than he has got now.

Tsatsu ‘The Ant’ Tsikata was the legal brain behind the P/NDC’s kangaroo sytem of justice when the Ghanaian had no basic legal rights under their regime.

He introduced the carrying of latrine as a form of punishment of doing community service by politicians of the 3rd republic who could otherwise be his father, for serving their country.

If Tsatsu ‘The Ant’ Tsikata had concentrated on the core duties of GNPC which he was mandated to do, Ghana would have hit oil some many years ago.

Even with the fast track court, Tsatsu ‘The Ant’ Tsikata had 7 years at his disposal to prove his innocence and had the privilege of self-recognisance bail, a luxury his victims never had.

Had the victims of P/NDC brutalities had that amount of time and legal representation, they would still be alive by now and Ghana would not have been polarised as it is now.

Tsatsu ‘The Ant’ Tsikata is not better than other Ghanaians who fell foul of the laws of Daaavi Ghana and had to do their time in jail.

He was praised as the best lawyer in Ghana when he was winning, now it has turned against him and all of a sudden the courts of Ghana has become NPP political party. What a double standards! Anyway, I will suggest to the CJA people to initiate a private investigation on former NPP ministers like Osafo Marfo, Kwamena Bartels etc to find out whether they could make any case to query the NPP government why they’re not prosecuting their ministers for causing financial loss to Ghana. I still think this law of causing financial loss to the state is quite difficult to implement since the Attorney General who’s also a cabinet minister for Justice will never take any of his cabinet members to court. Its even not possible…so abolish this law.

The CJA should explain to us why guaranteeing a loan to a private firm without due consideration to its ability to honor its finanacial obligation, leading to the firm’s default to pay back the loan, and the guarantor(GNPC/gov’t of Ghana) sued to pay the loan and did pay the loan does not constitute financial loss to the state.

Since when did it become political witch-hunt to punish wrong doing? When NDC does it, it’s fine but when NPP does it, it is political witch-hunt. We Ghanaians do not need to be reminded of anything by the CJA because we have followed this case since it was opened in court and know what is at stake here: National interest and not political interest.

You are a very misrable person. You seems to have no brains at all. You are among the stupid supporters who have led Ghana to the state of economic hardship and judicial injustice being practiced in Ghana. This is what NPP and its supporters like you call it DEMOCRACY. God help people like you and safe mother Ghana from political/judicial injustice and econmic hardship.

Kufour seems to be running out of time in writing his political history. His moves are quite calculated–trying to buy a comfortable retirement. By realeasing Abodakpi–he seems to be “buying” friendship with NDC–then gets Tsatsu to please NPP. It seems Kufour is afraid of his retirement.

CJA has said it all that Tsatsu’s trial and conviction was politically motivated. Showing that the lens used was wrong. We don’t have to put on political lenses in our court rooms please.

The international world is also alarmed about this particular case but with the counsel of our honorable Chief Justice of Ghana, the right steps would be taken. As a citizen of Ghana, i’m sure that the high esteemed office of our Chief Justice can handle this case.

Since this is a political act on the part of Mrs Abban, the nation will get the wrong message until our honorable Chief Justice steps in.

I wonder if personal emotions over rules in our courts, because Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban has allowed emotions, her political lens to rule over judgement. Then she took advantage of the absence of Tsatsu’s lawyer. I repect my nations education so much. Our court should not be handled like a political platform or a conference room.

The nation should calmly await the outcome of the petition that Tsatsu Tsikata has forwarded to the Chief Justice on allegations of the judge’s conduct. God bless our homeland!

This lazy useless lousy lots have nothing to do but criticize everything. CJA against increse in Worldwide petrol prices. CJA crying out loud for government to put money in the POCKETS of USELESS lazy fools. Now CJA has turned to be MASTERS of the law of the land. You want money to be in the pockets of the lazy and social misfits but will not go after people who will squander the peoples money. How do you get money in the pockets of your STUPIDITY if you do not go after people STEALING the money? It defies simple logic that this USELESS AMORPHOUS talkatives are having space in the airwaves to voice their senseless arguments that moves in circles. Get yourselves some jobs to do. If you qualify to be judges or lawyers then take Tsikata’s appeal and argue constructively to free him. We are TIRED of your STUPIDITY and BULL CRAP.

I have noticed a certain vindictive strain and recklessness in the attitude of the Ashantis.

One law for the Ashanti and another for others. Its application, as long as it hurts their perceived enemies, especially an ewe, must be defended without regard to its merit forgetting that the precedents do come around.

Has the NPP done any of the things they criticized piously in opposition? They are without sin? So they are casting stones?

‘Wilfully causing financial loss to the State’,
This law was enacted by the NDC when the NPP, CPP, PNC, DFP were not even represented in parliament. When the MPs like Serlomey, Abodapi, brought this law little did they know that will also be caught in the same net. Unfortunately, the idea of scrapping the law originates from Prof Evan Atta Mills, when his friends like Serlomey, Pepra, Abodapi and the likes were prosecuted and jailed for their corrupt practices.

We need this law: ‘willfully causing financial loss to the state’, very much to keep the corrupt, greedy and unscrupulous politicians and civil servants in check to make them responsible and accountable for their looting of state treasures. Ghana is not for sale to the highest bidder.

The law will instill transparency and accountability in our public officials.

It is high time Ghanaians stop supporting criminals because of Party or tribal affiliation because politics should not be seen as an avenue to amassing illegal wealth.

The courts should enforce this law and Ghanaian politicians public Servants and their accomplices would go to prison for that.

The Ministry of information should embark on a mass education program to sensitise the population about the dangers of stealing from the national coffers for their personal gain.

I dont think CJA is making the noise for nothing, we all know that When judgment is going to be pronounced the trial judge is suppose to inform the parties the date on which the judgment will be will be read, even if the trial judge finds Tsatsu guilty of the offence, the way and manner in which she read the judgment is childish and political, why, has she not been a lawyer before, is she not aware of the rules of the judicial, it is because she is being manupulated by the NPP, look at what happened during the trial of Obodakpi what kind of manner and beast is Justice Henritta Abban, they should be aware that when we came to power we will build more prison hotels for them to go and enjoy there. Even if the CJA is making most noise, the noise they are making is a warning, i dont blame you because you are alien in this country

Below is a compilation of 35 points regarding Tsatsu Tsikata’s arrest, trial and conviction; readers should draw their own conclusion as to the conduct of the trial judge, the guilt or innocence of the “convict”.

__________________________________________

1. Tsatsu Tsikata (TT) served as Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) between October 1988 and 4th December 2000 during the regimes of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the Provisional National Defence Council.

2. The transfer of power from the government of the National Democratic Congress to the New Patriotic Party (NPP) took place in January 2001 following the December 2000 elections.

3. In April 2001, an article published in a private newspaper (the Chronicle) under the name of Mr. B.A. Mensah, a businessman linked to the NPP government announced that it was time for the untouchables of the previous regime such as TT to be dealt with.

4. In September 2001, the Minister of Energy held a press conference making allegations against TT and announced that a forensic audit of GNPC would be undertaken. The audit, reportedly conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers Ghana, did not contact TT who had publicly responded to the Minister’s allegations. Although no contents of any audit report were ever made available to TT, newspapers citing government sources announced that charges would be laid against him.

5. TT was summoned to the Police Headquarters on 29th November 2001 and told that a case of wilfully causing financial loss to the State in which he was involved was being investigated. He was asked to write a statement on GNPCs involvement with Valley Farms Company Limited. After writing the statement, he was told he was being charged with causing loss to a public property under SMC Decree 140 Section 1(2), which provides that any person who intentionally misapplies or causes loss of or damage to public property shall be guilty of an offence ..

6. TT appeared before the Circuit Tribunal on 30th November 2001. A charge of causing loss by carelessness to public property contrary to Section 1(2) of the Public Property Protection Decree 1977 (SMCD 140) was read. TT pleaded not guilty and was granted bail. He appeared before the Tribunal on 18th December 2001, 8th January 2002, and 29th January 2002. On two of these occasions the prosecution simply did not show up in court.

7. Although bail conditions did not prohibit travel outside the country, on 27th December 2001 TT was prevented by state security personnel at the airport from travelling. After about two weeks of representations, TT was finally allowed to travel.

8. On 7th February 2002 TT was served with notice that the proceedings before the Circuit Tribunal would not continue. He was, however, told orally that he would be charged before the Fast Track Court which had been used for a number of political prosecutions.

9. Upon being served with a summons to the Fast Track High Court TT brought an action in the Supreme Court on 11th February 2002 contesting the constitutionality of the Fast Track Court on the ground that it had not been established in accordance with constitutional procedures. On the same day he appeared before this Court. The charge read was wilfully causing financial loss to the State contrary to Section 179A (3) of the Criminal Code 1960 Act 29.

10. On 28th February 2002, the Supreme Court, by a majority (5-4) decision declared that the Fast Track Court not having been properly established was unconstitutional. President Kufour announced from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia that he had instructed the Attorney-General to use all legal means possible to have the decision overturned.

11. The Attorney-General, with other Ministers, held a Press Conference criticising the Supreme Court decision, and announced that he was applying for a review of the decision, and that the prosecution of TT would, in any case, continue in the regular High Court the following day.

12. On 1st March 2002 at about 1.30 p.m. TT was served with a summons requiring him to appear before the High Court on the same charge and before the same judge as in the Fast Track Court.

13. Defence counsel raised the constitutional objection that an accused person could not be charged in respect of acts which at the time they were carried out did not constitute an offence. The legislation on which the charge was based had entered into force in July 1993 while the actions cited in the particulars of the offence were said to have occurred in or about February 1993.

14. The Director of Public Prosecutions responded that in or about February 1993 could include July 1993! The judge rejected this argument and on Friday 15th March 2002 struck out the charge and discharged TT. The Deputy Attorney-General then declared in a radio interview that the High Court decision was based on a mere technicality and that the government would continue the prosecution.

15. On Sunday 17th March, 2002, two Policemen from the Criminal Investigations Department, having met that morning with the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney-General, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, attempted to arrest TT during a church service. They were eventually persuaded by the Reverend Minister and members of the congregation to leave the premises.

16. Following media reports and public uproar, a police statement was issued stating that TT was not wanted by the police. Government representatives alleged that opponents of the government had staged the incident to discredit the government.

17. The government having filed an application for a review of the Supreme Court decision, President Kufour proceeded to appoint a new judge, Mr. Justice Kwame Afreh, to the Supreme Court. An official statement indicated that the appointment was at the instance of the Chief Justice to enable him to compose a panel for the pending review. Justice Afreh was at the time sitting as judge of the Fast Track Court in another political prosecution, the Quality Grain case, in which he was in April 2003 to convict four other former NDC regime officials on similar charges.

18. The Chief Justice at the time Justice Wiredu, one of the dissenting judges in the Supreme Court decision, made public statements prior to the hearing of the review application, insisting that the Fast Track Courts would continue to operate. On one occasion he phoned into a radio programme to speak about the case.

19. On 26th June 2002, the enlarged panel of the Supreme Court including the newly appointed Justice Afreh, by a 6-5 majority provided by the votes of Justices Afreh and Lamptey, reversed its earlier decision and declared the Fast Track Court constitutional. Justice Lamptey who had by then reached retirement age was immediately given a new appointment by the President. The majority decision included the claim that the Chief Justice could by oral order create a Division of the High Court such as the Fast Track Court. The judge who made this pronouncement, Justice George Acquah was subsequently appointed Chief Justice. Costs in the amount of ten million cedis were awarded against TT.

20. On September 2nd, 2002, TT was served with a summons to appear before the High Court, Accra on 9th October 2002 on substantively the same charges based on the same facts. Defence counsel indicated that the accused, without prejudice to his rights arising from the surrounding events, was ready to face trial and to answer the claims that: (1) payments made under a guarantee, provided by the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation to the French development agency, Caisse Francaise de Development, in respect of a loan to Valley Farms, amounted to wilfully causing financial loss to the State and (2) the purchase of shares in Valley Farms by GNPC amounted to intentionally misapplying public property.

21. At the close of the case for the prosecution, defence counsel sought to make a submission that no prima facie case had been established against the accused to warrant his being called upon to open his defence. The Judge, Mrs. Henrietta Abban a High Court Judge subsequently to be promoted to the Court of Appeal, after initially refusing to allow defence counsel to make his submission, finally relented. Having reluctantly heard the submission and the prosecutions reply, the Judge rejected the defence’s submission without giving reasons, claiming that she was not obliged to give reasons for her ruling.

22. The accused appealed against this ruling. On 27th November 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling claiming among other grounds that events occurring subsequent to the signing of the guarantee agreement could justify the prosecution. The Court of Appeal also cited a repealed law not previously referred to by the prosecution.

23. The Accused filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal decision on grounds including the following:

a) The Court of Appeal erred in using a repealed law as the basis for its failure to enforce the Constitution when the charges had not been brought under that law. b) The Court of Appeal erred in holding that the failure of the trial judge to give reasons for her decision was legitimate. c) The Court of Appeal erred in failing to appreciate that neither in the charge sheet nor in evidence before the trial court was there any showing that the State had incurred financial loss.

24. The Supreme Court on 8th November 2004, with only four members of the 5-member panel sitting, purported to uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal by a 4-1 majority.

25. Accused applied for a review of this Supreme Court decision on the grounds, among others that the Supreme Court majority judgment had failed to refer to the legislation which governed the question of the standard of proof in criminal proceedings – the Evidence Decree – and had wrongly held that a lower standard of proof than proof beyond reasonable doubt applied at this stage of the proceedings. A 7-member Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, on 28th June 2005 by a 6-1 majority denied the application for review.

26. On 11th July 2005 the trial Judge ordered TT’s arrest for failing to appear in court. This despite a failure to notify the accused or his counsel of the hearing date. At a subsequent hearing on 14th July following representations by counsel for the accused who was away from the country at the time, the judge rescinded the arrest order.

27. The Judge insisted that the trial continue during the annual legal vacation in the month of August 2005, a departure from the usual practice. In response to an outburst by the Judge at the 25 August session, counsel for the accused requested at the next session that she recuse herself from further hearing of the case given her apparent bias against the accused. This request was rejected.

28. The Accused opened his defence and testified as to the circumstances of the GNPC investment in Valley Farms and the payment on the guarantee following Valley Farms default on the loan. Testimony on the background to the investment was also given by Caisse Francaise as well as by Merchant Bank who had promoted the project. The substance of the defences case was that the investment was a reasonable business decision validly made at the time and that the project remained viable. It was undisputed that the guarantee agreement had been signed in March 1991 two years before the law on financial loss came into force. When Valley Farms defaulted on its loan and GNPC had to meet its obligations under the guarantee agreement, it was compensated by an increase in its equity in the company. There were no actions by the accused at any time after the financial law had come into force that could constitute the basis of an offence.

29. The attempt by the defence to obtain project documentation from the International Finance Corporation which had been involved in the appraisal and promotion of the Valley Farms project, to support its case regarding the regularity and viability of the project, was denied as the judge upheld the plea of immunity by the IFC. Although neither the IFC Charter nor the relevant Ghanaian legislation accords the breadth of immunity claimed by the IFC, applications to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court to review the High Court’s denial of access to IFC evidence were unsuccessful.

30. The judgment date originally set for 22 February 2007 was postponed on a number of occasions on account of pending proceedings in the Supreme Court on the IFC issue.

31. In 2007, during appeal proceedings against the conviction of another former official of the NDC regime, Mr. Dan Abodakpi, counsel for Abodakpi objected to Justice Henrietta Abbans sitting on the Court of Appeal panel on the ground that she had interfered in the judgement of the case improperly influencing Justice Faakye, the trial judge to sentence Abodakpi to 10 years imprisonment. After denying the allegation and initially refusing to recuse herself, Abban left the Court of Appeal panel. The complaint by Abodakpis counsel eventually led to an administrative enquiry set up by current Chief Justice Georgina Woode, which proceedings and outcome have not been disclosed.

32. Proceedings continued in the Supreme Court concerning evidence from the IFC on the Valley Farms project. In its most recent submission to the Supreme Court, the prosecution asserted that evidence from the IFC was not relevant because the prosecution was not contesting the viability of the Valley Farms project. Counsel for TT then applied to the High Court to admit these statements by the prosecution as fresh evidence in the trial, which contradicted the prosecutions previous submissions.

33. On Wednesday 18 June, the trial judge, in the absence of TTs counsel who had given the court prior written notice that he would be out of the country, Justice Henrietta Abban dismissed the application to admit the fresh evidence of the prosecutions position on the viability of the Valley Farms project. The prosecution, represented by the Attorney-General, Mr. Joe Ghartey objected to TTs request for an adjournment in order that he could be represented by counsel. The Judge insisted on continuing the proceedings and is reported to have stated that TT being a lawyer should represent himself. She then read a judgement convicting TT on all the charges and sentenced him concurrently to five years imprisonment on each count. She also refused his application for bail, opposed by the Attorney-General.

34. The case against TT involves the criminalising of an investment decision based on a law not in force at the time of the investment. In a non-political setting, given the largely undisputed facts, and fundamental constitutional principles governing criminal proceedings, the charges should have been dismissed outright and ought not to have led to seven years of legal proceedings. However, given the pattern of judicial decisions in political cases since 26 June 2002, the probability that a verdict would be based purely on the facts, the evidence and the law, without regard to extraneous political considerations, was always low.

35. The proceedings in Justice Henrietta Abbans court on Wednesday 18 June have confirmed the worst expectations.

The law is supreme as far as conviction of alleged criminals and percieved fraudsters etc. is concerned.CJA, MY CANDID ADVISE IS TO ALLOW THE JUDICAIL PROCESS TO OPERATE and function as and when demands.Any attempt to temper justice with mercy as far as causing a misuse of state funds comes to question is tantamount to a denial of the ordinary man access to social justice,wealth,health and freedom of movement, access and goodhealth.My question is did he or did he not stray from engaging GNPC from its core business; by guaranteeing on behalf of Valley View Farms to grow cocoa which later became a white elephant and went ahead to source funds to pay off? Why should he hedge without carefully consider its implications to the nations resources which eventually cost us.Was he not a party to drafting the so called causing fnancial loss bill?Did he carefully consider the implications of his actions? Let the CJA depoliticise the matter and allow due process of the law to remain.If an ordinary citizen can suffer the implications of this law why not the politician and a an astute lawyer who should no better?