State prosecutors in the case in which a former Director-General of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), Mr Ernest Thompson and four others are standing trial for causing financial loss to the state are expected to amend the charges within a week.

This latest development follows a Supreme Court ruling that the particulars the state had provided to support the charges of causing financial loss to the state against the accused persons are scanty and inappropriate.

Mr Thompson and four others have been accused of causing financial loss of more than $14.8 million in the SSNIT Operational Business Suite (OBS) project.

The other accused in the matter are Mr John Hagan Mensah, a former Information Technology (IT) Manager at SSNIT; Ms Juliet Hassana Kramer, the Chief Executive Officer of Perfect Business Systems (PBS); Mr Caleb Kwaku Afaglo, a former Head of Management Information Systems (MIS) at SSNIT; and Mr Peter Hayibor, the lawyer for SSNIT.

Appearing before the High Court presided over by Justice Henry Anthony Kwoffie, a Justice of the Court of Appeal for the first time after the Supreme Court judgement on Thursday, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mrs Yvonne Atakora Obuobisah informed the Court that, they only obtained a copy of the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on March 7, just yesterday.

According to the DPP, they have looked at the judgement and “we are now amending the charges on Causing Financial Loss to the state.”

She added that, the prosecution would be able to do that within a week and serve the defence team and therefore believed that, within two weeks, the parties should be able returned to court.

Lead Counsel for Ernest Thompson, Lawyer Samuel Codjoe also told the court that, they have received a copy of the Supreme Court judgement and at this point, “we will wait until the come.”

EIB Court Correspondent Murtala Inusah reports that, the court after listening to the parties and with the Easter festivities in mind, adjourned the case to April 22, 2021.

What happened at Supreme Court?

The State had gone to the apex court to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the particulars of offence levelled against Thompson were scanty.

In a unanimous ruling of a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Yaw Appau on March 17, said the charges preferred against the accused persons do not meet the constitutional requirement.

The panel ruled that, the apex court is in agreement with the ruling of the Court of Appeal and so there is no merit in the application filed by the state.

The presiding judge after the court dismissal of the application charged the Director of Public prosecution Mrs Yvonne Atakora Obuobisah, to go back and look at the charges and provide enough particulars to them.

He said, the country has gone past the stage where accused persons are surprised by the state.

They have pleaded not guilty to the charges with the trial yet to commence at the Accra High Court due to the legal tussle over the particulars of the offences.

Background

The former SSNIT boss wants the charges against him struck out on grounds that the prosecution failed to provide adequate particulars of the offences as required by law.

Particulars of offences

On every charge sheet, there is a statement(s) of offence(s) which states the particular offence an accused person has been charged with and the particulars of offence which provide the details of what an accused person is alleged to have committed in relation to the offence and this case was not different.

However , it is the case of Mr Thompson that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient particulars on the offences levelled against him as required under Article 19 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 122 of the Criminal Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30).

His lawyers argued that the particulars are so scanty that they do not afford their client any concrete information to enable him to mount his defence.

Charges

The prosecution, on the other hand, has insisted that the particulars of the offences contain adequate information, and argue that the contention of Mr Thompson when allowed holding, will amount to prosecution providing evidence in the particulars of offence.

The offences levelled against Mr Thompson and the other accused persons include willfully causing financial loss to the state, conspiracy to commit the crime, defrauding by false pretence in contravention of the public procurement act and authoring of forged documents.

Source: Kasapafmonline.com/Murtala Inusah