<<Print>>

The trial of the Member of Parliament for Assin North, Kennedy Agyapong, who is accused of pitting Ashantis against Gas and Ewes and declaring war, continues to thrill by drama. At the Supreme Court Tuesday, an attempt by the state to have all the proceedings relating to the matter before the High Court quashed, exposed lapses in the state�s action as the court questioned the rationale behind resorting to a certiorari application instead of a nolle prosequi. The Assin North MP is facing three counts of treason felony, attempted genocide and engaging in terrorism act for allegedly inciting Ashantis against Ewes and Gas, as well as declaring war. The state moved an application for an order of certiorari to quash all the proceedings in the matter before the High Court, presided over by Justice Charles Quist. However, the president of the court, Justice Dr Date-Bah asked whether there was any difference between the order that was being sought and the Attorney-General�s power of a nolle prosequi. An Assistant State Attorney, Mr Kwame Amoako, who was on his feet tried to offer an explanation regarding the difference but that did not help matters. Nevertheless, the court allowed the application to be moved with Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, a Principal State Attorney taking over affairs from his junior to say that the state relied on all processes filed. According to the state, the order for certiorari was grounded on the fact that the lower court assumed jurisdiction in a matter in which it did not have that power and that argument was followed by a question as to who sent the MP to that court. The state attorneys explained that what happened at the lower court was committal proceedings but that was equally met with another flaw since according to the Supreme Court, there was no bill of indictment apart from the charge sheet. A team of lawyers for the Assin North MP, comprising Mr Ayikoi Otoo, Mr Frank Davis and Mr Ata Akyea, with Mr Otoo as lead counsel, opposed the application describing it as vexatious and an abuse of the court�s process and ought to be dismissed. Mr Otoo argued that the state had alternative remedies which could be used to bring the proceedings before the lower court to a close and in response to the committal proceedings, said that if they wanted commital proceedings they knew what to do since what happened at the lower court was none of that. He said at the lower court there was only a single charge sheet without any bill of indictment or exhibits whilst the state attorneys did not inform the court that what they did was committal proceedings. He prayed the court not to allow the state to take advantage of its wrongdoing to apply for an order of certiorari. The court adjourned the matter to July 4, 2012 for its ruling. The lower court had on April 19, 2012, granted bail in the sum of GH�200,000 with one surety to be justified to the Assin North MP, who was also bonded to be of good behaviour until the final determination of the criminal action brought against him by the state.