A-G's stay of execution on Benjilo judgement dismissed

Accra, May 22, GNA - An Accra Fast Track High Court on Tuesday dismissed an application for stay of execution filed by the Office of the Attorney-General in connection with a judgement ordering the immediate release of confiscated properties to George Adu Bonsu, alias Benjilo.

A cost of five million cedis was awarded against the state. An affidavit in support of the application filed by the A-G contended that there were inconsistencies on the part of witnesses during cross-examination, which the Court did not take into account. The court on May 10 adjourned the matter to give the state the opportunity to get access to the record of proceedings and point out alleged inconsistencies.

Arguing before the court presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, Principal State Attorney, Mr William Kpobi said the state would suffer untold hardship if the plaintiff should execute the judgement. Mr Kpobi said Benjilo's wife, Mrs Grace Osei-Bonsu had told the court that she bought a house for her son but under cross-examination she said the said house belonged to one Dr Adu Bonsu and her son. When Mrs Osei-Bonsu was further asked why she made those statements, she said it was because the police was harassing her. Mr Kpobi said even though Mrs Osei-Bonsu had told the court earlier that her husband was only an employee and not a shareholder of Benjilo Fabrics, under cross-examination she admitted that her husband had interest in the company.

Mr Yonni Kulendi, counsel for defendants, said the application was a "dead" one because the state had not been able to demonstrate to the court circumstances to warrant stay of execution. Mr Kulendi said before the court could grant the stay of execution it should be satisfied that the application raised questions of law and facts.

On February 13, this year the court ordered the immediate release of the confiscated property of Benjilo.

Benjilo, who served a 10-year prison term for drug-related offences in 1991, had sued the Inspector-General of Police, the Narcotics Control Board and the Attorney General for the release of the properties. They include a number of houses, two shops and three vehicles, namely, a Mercedes Benz, GCM Typhoon and a Nissan Pathfinder. Plaintiffs were claiming 650,000 dollars or the cedi equivalent for the goods in the two shops.

The court noted that the property that had been seized did not belong to Benjilo but to Benjilo Fabric Company Limited and five other plaintiffs, namely, Mrs Grace Adu Bonsu, his wife; Dennis Adu Bonsu, his son; Madam Yaa Konadu; Raymond Kofi Adu Amankwah and Azumah Nelson.

The court said the state did not open its defence and the order was being given based on evidence adduced by the plaintiff under cross-examination.

The state, however, in the statement of defence, said the properties, which it traced, did not belong to the plaintiffs but were owned by Benjilo.

The court ordered the state to pay interest on 1.1 billion cedis being the cost of goods in two of the shops.

It also awarded 50 million cedis cost against the state and 80 million cedis damages for unlawful seizure of the property. In order to rehabilitate the vehicles, the court ordered the state pay 30 million cedis for each.

It noted that defendants should have known that the stock of good were perishable and should have been stored in a suitable temperature or sold.

"In light of the foregoing sketch of the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Law on seizure and forfeiture, I will say that I have found no provision that justified the action and inaction of the defendants in respect of the properties being claimed by the plaintiffs," the court held.

The court admitted that under the law, very wide powers were conferred on the police and Attorney General, adding: "It would be wrong to interpret the provisions of this law as giving unfettered powers to the Police and State to go on rampage interfering in citizen's property without recourse to the law."

The court said: "There may be high suspicion on the properties, the subject matter of the suit, belong to George Adu Bonsu, but suspicion is not sufficient to support a finding against the claimants of those who have led evidence in claim of their properties."

"Since I have not found any law supporting the action of the defendants, it is my view that defendant's actions are unreasonable, arbitrary, unjustifiable and, therefore, unlawful." In April 1997, George Adu Bonsu was convicted and sentenced to 10 years for a drug related offence.

Soon after, certain properties, which became the subject matter, were seized by the defendants, who believed that those properties belonged to Benjilo.

In 1998, the State filed an application for forfeiture at the High Court. The Court struck out the application saying Benjilo's appeal was pending. The Supreme Court finally disposed of Benjilo's case in 2001. The Regional Tribunal on May 3, 2006 ruled that the State had not filed any motion for forfeiture.

The Attorney General filed stay of proceeding at the Fast Track High Court praying the Court to halt proceeding but the Court dismissed same and called on them to open their defence.