The High Court in Accra has instructed the office of the Special Prosecutor to provide the investigation caution and charge statements taken from Cecilia Dapaah and her husband while they were under investigation by the anti-graft body to Patience Botwe, the house help.
The house help is the first accused person in the ongoing criminal trial of persons suspected of stealing huge sums of money from the house of the former Sanitation Minister.
The ruling is in response to an application by Patience Botwe, who asked for the investigation caution statements, charge statements, and the recordings and transcripts of interviews and interrogations of Cecilia Dapaah and her husband by the office of the special prosecutor.
Lawyers of Patience Botwe had earlier applied to the office of the special prosecutor under the Right to Information law to demand the same documents.
However, the office of the Special Prosecutor declined the request explaining that the information requested is exempted under the RTI ACT.
Her lawyers thus applied to the High Court Judge hearing her case to order the OSP.
The office of the Special Prosecutor opposed this application on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the court had not been properly invoked and the application was made prematurely.
The judge resolving the issue addressed the objection raised by the office of the special prosecutor.
On concerns of Jurisdiction, Justice Marie-Louis Simmons explained that not only is the court empowered with its inherent powers to grant the demands but also the application made on strength of article 19(2)(e)(g) allows the court to make such orders.
Article 19(2)(e)(g) of the 1992 constitution empowers an accused person to be given adequate time and facilities to prepare for his defence and to be given adequate facilities to examine witnesses called by the prosecution.
The judge also dismissed the OSP’s claims that the application was filed prematurely.
According to the High Court Judge, the OSP having refused the application under the RTI ACT can not argue that the appeal to the High Court was premature.
For Justice Simmons, there is no law barring the first accused from making such an application after a refusal by the office of the special prosecutor.
In resolving the substantive application, Justice Marie-Louis Simmons noted that it is the right of an accused person to be provided with all the necessary documents available to the prosecution to help in his defence.
To her, the Supreme Court’s reference to prosecution in the Baffoe Bonnie case was not limited to the prosecution team. But including third parties who have access to information that is important to the accused person.
The first accused in her application for the disclosure argued that Cecilia Dapaah and her husband have not been consistent with their narration of events and source of monies allegedly stolen.
Patience Botwe made reference to communications from the office of the special prosecutor that Cecilia Dapaah and her husband were unable to offer an explanation of the source of some of the funds.
The first accused in her application thus sought to use the information to cross-examine Cecilia Dapaah and her husband who are witnesses in the ongoing criminal trial against her.
The judge in her ruling, reckoned that the investigations by the office of the special prosecutor of Cecilia Dapaah and her husband were triggered by the arrest and arraignment of the first accused person.
She thus ordered the office of the special prosecutor to make available the investigation and caution statement of Cecilia Dapaah and her husband to the first accused person.
She however declined the request for the recordings and transcripts of the interrogation and interviews of Cecilia Dapaah and her husband to be released to the first accused.
The office of the special prosecutor is ordered to carry out the instruction a week after being served with the orders of the court.
#GhanaPolls2024
#CitiVerify
#ElectionBureau
