<<Print>>

His Lordship Justice Batu who sits on the Appeals Court, Fast Track Court 6, in Accra, will, come tomorrow, decide on the fate of Eunice Wubbling, a former employee of Dutch Hotel in Nungua, who has since 2014 been wrestling with the state to gain her freedom from incarceration on charges of possessing forged document and deceit of public officer.

Justice Batu’s decision to deliver judgment today follows the last sitting on 11 June, this year, where he told the court that his judgement was not ready and that it would be ready tomorrow, 25th June, 2015.

This paper is reliably informed that due to the international recognition the case has gained, it is likely some members of the international diplomatic community would be in the court to see justice being done.

Since December 4, 2014, Mrs. Wubbling, through her present Counsel KissiAgyebeng has been in-and- out of the Appeal Court, seeking to quash the decision of an earlier court, Circuit Court, under the gavel of Her Worship Ms. Sedina Agbemava, for convicting her wrongly on the offences of possession of forged documents and deceit of a public officer contrary to sections 166 and 251, respectively of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

She was sentenced to twenty-four (24) months In Hard Labour ( I.H.L)for count 1,that is, possession of forged documents, contrary to section 166 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 9Act 29) and  twelve (12) months I.H.L for count 2, deceit of a public officer. Both sentences were to run concurrently, beginning 14 November, 2014.

Proceedings for the appeal, this paper gathered, commenced on the 12 February 2015, where the Appellant was represented in court by Kissi Agyebeng and Nana Aba Akwaaba Acquaah, whilst Richard Gyanbibi represented the Republic.

At that sitting, the judge made an order for the lower court, that is, the Circuit Court to make the Records of Proceedings available to the court at the next adjourned date as all the parties in court were not privy to the proceedings in the lower court. The case was then adjourned to 26 February 2015.

As at the next adjourned date, the 26 February 2015 came; the Records of Proceedings were still not ready. The case was then adjourned to 5 March 2015. Eventually when the day arrived, the court did not sit, as His Lordship, our checks revealed, was under the weather. The case was then adjourned to 12 March 2015.

It was at the next adjourned date, 12 March 2015, that Records of Proceedings were ready, where the judge  then ordered that counsel for the Appellant should file his written submissions on 26 March 2015, to enable the lawyer from  AGs department to file theirs subsequently. The case was then adjourned to 2 April 2015.

On the 2 April 2015, during hearing, counsel for the Appellant made an application to the court that the Records of Proceedings presented to the court were insufficient because the Registrar of the court had left out some salient materials. Counsel for the Republic also made the same submissions which led to the case being adjournedto 16 April 2015.then came 16 April 2015, the Records of Proceedings was still not conclusive so the case was adjourned to 7 May 2015.

Eventually, Counsel for the Appellant filed his written submissions on 4 May 2015.

At the next adjourned date, 7 May 2015, Mr. Richard Gyanbibi, representing the Republic indicated to the Court that he had not received the written submissions filed by Counsel for the Appellant even though the court had received its copy. Counsel for the Appellant obliged him and allowed the case to be adjourned to enable him file his submissions and Judgment delivered. The case was then adjourned to 28 May 2015 for judgment, this paper learnt.

Enter the next adjourned date, 28 May 2015, where counsel for the Republic, when the case was mentioned indicated to the court that he was only able to file his written submissions the previous day, 27 May 2015. Meanwhile, the court had received its copy on the morning of 28 May 2015. The Honourable judge was not pleased with the conduct of the Counsel for The Republic. Again, counsel for the Appellant obliged him and the case was adjourned to 11 June 2015 for judgment.

It was on 11 June 2015, that His Lordship Justice Batu indicated that the judgment was not ready and therefore further adjourned the case to 25 June 2015 for judgment.

It would be recalled that Eunice Boateng brought charges of defilement against her former employer Arthur Paes on behalf of a young lady (name withheld) who was under her care.

It was in the course of the said trial that she was charged with possession of forged documents and deceit of public officer contrary to section 166 and 251, respectively of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29)

Meanwhile, this paper can report that throughout the trial of the Republic v. Eunice Boateng, at the Circuit Court, Mr, Arthur Paes, the person who was alleged to have defiled the minor had never been seen in court. However, he was seen in court anxiously prancing about the court premises for hours.

Stay tuned.