Set aside Peprah's conviction & sentence - Counsel

Accra, March 17, GNA- Nana Adjei Ampofo, Counsel for Kwame Peprah, former Minister of Finance, has prayed an Appeal Court in Accra to set aside his client's conviction and sentence.

Counsel who was defending his grounds of appeal against a prison sentence involving Peprah, the Appellant, also told the three-member panel of the court presided over by Mr. Justice F.M. Lartey on Wednesday, that the appeal be allowed.
The other panel members included Mr. Justice S.T. Farkye and Mr. Justice J.C. Amonoo-Monney.
Mr. Osafo Sampong, Director of Public Prosecutions, represented the State.
An Accra Fast Track High Court presided over by the late Mr Justice Dixon Kwame Afreh on Monday, April 28, 2003 sentenced three former top public officials to various terms of imprisonment for their involvement in the Quality Grain Company case.
They were charged with conspiracy and causing financial loss of 20 million dollars to the State in a rice project at Aveyime in the Volta Region.
Nana Ampofo argued that the three-year sentence imposed on his client on each of the first three counts were harsh, excessive and unreasonable, adding "he and the other accused persons stood on the same footing, and they were convicted of offences allegedly committed joint criminal enterprises, when the other accused were given two years on the same count".
He argued further that the sentence on count four to four years was excessive, harsh and unreasonable in the circumstances of Peprah having regard to the explanation he gave to the charge.
"The joinder of the charge of conspiracy with the substantive offences was unfair to the Appellant in the circumstances of this case and occasioned by miscarriage of justice", he added.
Counsel submitted that the charge of conspiracy was bad for duplicity, because it did not give enough information as to which of the other six counts it related to, saying, "since it related to all the other counts it was incurably bad for duplicity".
Counsel said the charge of conspiracy was laid without any indication as to what financial loss Peprah caused, offended Article 19 (2) (d) of the Constitution in that it did not give detailed information and that the trial judge erred in law in convicting Peprah on that count.
He said the trial judge erred in convicting his client of conspiracy when on the evidence, his client and the other Appellants neither agreed to commit a crime nor acted together to commit or abet a crime.
Nana Ampofo said: "the finding of the trial judge that at the time of recommending the project, the accused persons knew or ought to have known that their conduct was going to cause financial loss to the state, is not supported by the evidence".
Counsel stated that the trial judge erred in holding that the Constitutional challenge to the law under which Peprah and the others were charged had been settled in the case of "Mallam Isa vrs The Republic, because the said case never decided the issue of vagueness and over-breadth".
He added that the trial judge therefore, misdirected himself and disabled himself from considering the challenge.
Nana Ampofo said the trial judge erred in not acquitting his client on the grounds that "the law under which he and the other persons were charged was void of vagueness and over-breadth".
Quoting legal authorities to buttress his claim, Counsel noted that the trial judge felt hindered and restrained from completely and effectively performing his judicial duty and accordingly, justice could not be said to have been done, saying "there was therefore, a miscarriage of justice".
He said the statement by the trial judge that after considering the pleas of Counsel, he had tried to be as lenient as possible, but "there are a lot of people who argue that because of the amount involved, these accused persons deserve very long sentences", show that he had listened to argument from a lot of people outside the court room.
He therefore, remarked that the trial judge had either been influenced by them or had created the impression that he had been influenced by them and added that "Justice was accordingly not seen to have been done".
Hearing continues on Thursday, March 18.