Mallam Isa's counsel says prosecution erred

Counsel for Mallam Ali Yusuf Isa, ex-Minister of Youth and Sports, Ambrose Dery, has told an Appeal Court (Criminal Division), that the prosecution failed to explain the charges preferred against his client before arresting him.

As a result, he said, "We are at a loss as to what action or omission we are being taken on." Mr Dery said a person charged shall be informed of the offence, before he is arrested. Counsel was giving reasons for an interlocutory appeal against the ruling by the Fast Track Court that his client has a case to answer.

Mallam Isa is charged with stealing and fraudulently causing financial loss to the state. He has pleaded not guilty and has been admitted to a 500 million-cedi bail. The court ordered him to deposit a land title deed to the registrar of the court and report three times in a week to the police.

Defence Counsel on May 24 filed an interlocutory appeal at the Court of Appeal for an order to stay proceedings in the case pending the determination of the appeal against two rulings of the trial judge.

The interlocutory appeal was against the over-ruling of a preliminary objection against the second count of fraudulently causing financial loss to the state and the submission of no case by counsel after the prosecution closed its case on May 24.

In those submissions, Mr Dery quoted extensively from the Court of Appeal Rule CI 21 of 1998 and Rule 27 and 28 (CI 19) of 1997 to support his reasons why Justice Ansah must uphold his motion. He told the court comprising Justice S. G. Baddoo (presiding), Justice Samuel Brobbey and Justice J.C. Amonoo-Monney that count two, "fraudulently causing financial loss to the state," does not specify any action or omission at all, on the part of the accused person.

Mr Dery said at the time of the charge, between February 23 and 28, his client was in Sudan. He argued that the act or omission constitutes contempt, but "admittedly what amounts to fraudulent action or omission is not defined." He contended that Article 19 (11) of the Constitution requires that criminal offence must be defined.

Counsel argued that no person shall be prosecuted on criminal offence, unless the offence shall be defined.

Quoting Article 137 (2) of the Constitution, Counsel said: "I submit that our appeal is in the exercise of our right."

The court noted that Counsel's client has not gone to the Supreme Court to initiate action against his human rights. The court wanted to know from counsel if that fraudulent action or omission gives him an indication or a limitation of the action. The court said if an employee is to work for eight hours but works for five hours by that act or omission the state has incurred the financial loss.

The court noted further that if someone is a cashier and he opens his safe to allow someone else to collect the money, it is the cashier who will be held liable.