Tsatsu Appeals against Appeal Court's ruling

Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), has filed a notice of appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgement upholding a Fast Track Court's (FTC) ruling that he has a case to answer.

On March 28, this year, the FTC presided over by Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban overruled a submission of "no case" made by counsel for Tsikata, who was standing trial for causing financial loss to the State, without assigning any reason.

Tsikata subsequently filed an appeal against the ruling, which the Court of Appeal dismissed on Thursday, November 27.

In his notice of appeal, Mr Tsikata complained of the decision, saying, the Court of Appeal erred in using a repealed law as the basis for its failure to enforce Article 19(5) of the Constitution when the charges against the accused were not brought under the law.

He said the Court of Appeal also erred in not enforcing Article 19(11) of the Constitution and regarding references to textbooks and dictionaries as satisfying the constitutional requirement of a definition by "written law" of an offence for which a person is convicted.

Mr Tsikata said the judgement of the Court of Appeal was contradictory in claiming on the one hand that the Court was not to make findings of fact and yet proceeding to make selective findings of fact and not taking into account the evidence as a whole.

The notice of appeal said the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the failure of the trial judge to give reasons for her decision was legitimate and failing to appreciate that neither in the charge sheet nor in evidence before the trial court was there any showing whatever of financial loss being incurred by the State.

It said the Court of Appeal also erred in holding that section 176 of Act 30 was applicable in respect of the fourth count as there was only a variance between the charge sheet and the evidence adduced in respect of time, adding that, additional grounds may be filed upon receipt of the certified true copy of the decision.

The Court of Appeal in dismissing Tsikata's 18 grounds of appeal described the application as unmeritorious and that it was proper for the trial Judge to ask him to open his defence after the Prosecution had established a prima facia case against him.

The Court of Appeal noted that under the law, the FTC was not bound to give reasons on its ruling and, therefore, asked Tsikata to go back to the FTC to stand trial.

The panel was made up of Michael Lartey, presiding, Mr Justice J. C. Ammono-Monney, Mr Justice Felix and Mr Justice Stephen T. Farkye, all Court of Appeal Judges.

Tsikata is accused of having caused the loss of 2.3 billion cedis to the State during his tenure.

He is facing four counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the State and intentionally misapplying public property.

He has denied the charges and the FTC has admitted him to a 700 million-cedis self-recognisance bail.

Appealing against the TFC's ruling on his "submission of no case," at the Appeal Court, Tsikata stated that the trial Judge had erred in law when she failed to give reasons for her ruling.

The Appellant further stated that the trial Judge also erred in law when the Court asked him to open his defence because the Prosecution had failed to establish a prima facia case against him.

Mrs Justice Abban, an Appeal Court Judge with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, stated that at the close of the evidence in support of the charge, the court found that a case was made out against the accused sufficiently to require him to make a defence.

She, therefore, asked the accused to open his defence.

However, Tsikata's team of lawyers led by Professor Emmanuel Victor Oware Dankwa said it was going to appeal against the ruling.

Tsikata was accused of illegally guaranteeing a loan of 5.5 million French Franc from Caisse Francaise de Development, a French company, to Valley Farms, a limited liability company.

Valley Farms subsequently defaulted in the payment of the loan after the period scheduled for its repayment had expired - subsequently leading to the settlement of the debt by GNPC, when it was requested to do so.