Embattled Chief Executive Officer of defunct gold dealership firm Menzgold – Nana Appiah Mensah, has appealed to his trial judge to grant him “reasonable time” to “scout and engage” new lawyers.
Nana Appiah Mensah, affectionately known as NAM1, said his plea is to afford him the opportunity in “my quest to affirm my innocence” before the Court and the global community.On July 11, 2024, the High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice Ernest Owusu Dapaa, ordered NAM1 and his two companies to open their Defence to charges of some 37 counts after ruling on a submission of no case to answer.
Fast forward, NAM1 who has been charged together with two of his companies- Menzgold Ghana Limited and Brew Marketing Consult, filed a motion for Stay of Proceedings pending an appeal against the order of the High Court on July 11.
On December 5, the High Court dismissed that request for a stay of proceedings and ordered him to comply with the orders of the Court on July 11 to open his Defence.
When the matter was called, on Tuesday December 17, NAM1 who is also representing his two accused companies appeared without his lawyers led by Kwame Boafo Akuffo.
Asked by the Court where his lawyers were, NAM1 pleaded with the Court to afford him the opportunity to address the Court on his lawyers absence.
“My lawyer and I, have a difference. One that is so fundamental to the extent that it places a point of divergence for us,” NAM1 said in his opening remarks.
“This is in respect to the tangent based upon which we (he and his lawyers) wish to proceed with our (accused persons) defence,” he explained.
“On the basis of that, my lord, kindly permit me to owe you an immeasurable gratitude by granting me a reasonable time in your estimation and in the interest of Justice to scout and engage new counsel (new lawyers) to lead me, and my defence pursuit in my quest to affirm my innocence before this honourable court, the Republic and the global community,” NAM1 submitted to the Court while in the docket.
Stay of Proceedings
The Director of Public Prosecution, (DPP), Mrs Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, while reacting to NAM1’s request reminded the court of what had happened so far in the trial and further drew the Court’s attention to the accused persons “deliberate” desire not to open their defence.
She added that, Mr Watkins “was just shown a copy without being given a hard copy and our (AG’s) office has not been served.
It was the submission of the DPP that, the said application was signed by Kwame Boafo Akuffo (counsel) representing the accused persons and “for all intents and purposes, this can only mean that at the time this application (for Stay of Proceedings) was filed today (at the Court of Appeal) it was done on the instructions of the accused persons (NAM1, Menzgold Ghana Limited and Brew Marketing Consult).”
“The said application in the court of appeals has no return date,” according to the DPP and in her view “It is therefore difficult to place merit on what the first accused (NAM1) has just informed this (High) Court.”
To buttress her point, the DPP said “This is more so when on the 11th of July, 2024, this court gave a ruling on a submission of no case
and called upon the accused persons to open their defense.”
She said “They (accused persons) were further ordered by the Court to file Witness Statements on or before October 16, 2024.”
It is the case of the DPP that, on October 16, 2024, “the accused persons have failed to file their witnesses statements and this court magnanimously adjourned this case to the 29th October, 2024.”
No desire
Mrs Obuobisa said, “Without complying with the orders of the court, the accused persons on October 25 filed an application for Stay of Proceedings in this court.”
“My lord. after a lot of arguments the matter was adjourned to 21 November for the application to be moved, the application was moved, arguments taken and the stay was refused.
The DPP submitted that, the accused persons were again ordered by this court to comply with it earlier ruling which they have failed and the matter was adjourned to today December 17.
“In my estimation, the persistent refusal by the accused persons to comply with the orders of the court, (that is to file Witness Statements to and open their defence), demonstrate that the accused persons do not want to open their defense having been given multiple opportunities to do so over a period of about 5 months,” the DPP submitted.
“My lord, the assertion of the first accused person (NAM1) speaking for the other accused persons (Menzgold and Brew Marketing Consult) as well seems to be another attempt to deliberately” stall the progress of the trial.
While making reference to section 174(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30), she said where it appears to the court that a sufficient case has been made against an accused person, “the court called upon him to make his defence, ‘If he so desires he may give evidence himself on oath or may make a statement.”’
She added that, “the court shall then hear the accused (if he desires to be heard) and any evidence he may adduce for his defense.”
“My lord, it is our case that the accused has demonstrated that he does not desire to open his defence,” the DPP said while drawing the Court’s attention to section 11 (2) of the evidence act, NRCD 323 and the recent case of Dr Cassiel Ato Forson and two others
vs the Republic at the Court of Appeal dated July 30, 2024, at page 42 para 104.
“At the stage of the submission of no case, when accused person has been asked to open his defense and has no desire, a tribunal can reasonably convict the accused persons,” she urged the Court.
By Court
Justice Ernest Owusu Dapaa, a Justice of the Court of Appeal who is presiding over the case as an additional High Court judge, acknowledged the submission made by the DPP and said court has “jurisdiction to proceed and convict the accused persons.”
While appreciating the candor of the DPP and the correct reference to the law, the Court it has been shown a copy of the motion at the Court of Appeal by the Clerk to Defence counsel and the “judicial propriety” is to adjourned the case is to adjourned the case until when the court of appeal is dealt with that matter.
According to EIB Network Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, though the submission of NAM1 appeared to the Court as having sacked his lawyers, he dismissed that understanding and said, he is not satisfied with services being rendered to him by his lawyers, hence his prayer for time to scout new lawyers.
The case has been adjourned to February 4.
