Ambulance Case High Court to Rule on Applications to Halt Prosecution on 6th June

Justice Afia Serwaa Asare Botwe, sitting as an additional High Court judge of the Economic and Financial Division of the High Court has set the 6th day of June, 2024 to deliver her ruling on the multiple applications brought by the accused, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson and Mr. Richard Jakpa against their prosecution.

Her Ladyship opted not to hear Counsels in open court but to rule on the applications before her and only hear the learned Thaddeus Sory who, on behalf of Dr. Ato Forson had objections to paragraphs of the Affidavit opposing their application filed on the 30th of May, 2024.

Objection

The learned Sory said his objections was on three grounds. He said, in arguing his first ground that the affidavit deposed to by the learned Richard Gyambiby, a respected State Attorney is inadmissible.

He added that the affidavit failed to disclose the source of information deposed to. Mr. Sory argued that the deponent-State Attorney did not have personal information of the facts deposed to.

He relied on rules under C.I. 47 governing affidavit evidence to suggest that the affidavit is irregular as they breach the said rules under the C.I 47, High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004.

 
Dame Responds

The learned Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame rose in stiff opposition to the objection.

Per the learned A-G, the manner of raising the objection was unfair. The A-G argued that the affidavit deposed to by the learned State Attorney disclosed the source of information of the deponent. He also attempted to shoot down the argument of Mr Sory on breaches to C.1 47. He said that the rule is on civil proceedings but the instant matter was a criminal proceeding and thus, the rule relied on by Mr. Sory is not applicable.

The learned Sory rose to his feet to respond to the rebuttal of his learned friend. He admitted that the rule relied on was applicable to civil proceedings but said same is the only rule with extensive provisions on affidavit evidence.

He then quoted section 60 of the Evidence Act and said his arguments can be rooted on the said section and same is far more potent for his argument than that relied on in C.I 47.

The A-G then responded to this section of the Evidence Act and said it is not applicable to affidavit evidence but to evidence during trials.

Judge

Her Ladyship said any other objections may be filed if any of the party wishes. She added the date for her ruling after she spent a little time with the learned Dr. Bassit Bamba who rose to his feet to request direction from the court as they sought to have leave of the court to play the audio conversation attached to their affidavit seeking to half the prosecution of Dr. Forson.

Her Ladyship responded, to laughter from the gallery, that she is not short of hearing and thus, can play the audio for herself and possesses all gadgets to play the attached audio.

Dr. Bassit who appeared unimpressed by the intention of Her Ladyship, requested if it will be prudent to type out the audio recording but Her Ladyship insisted the audio recording can be examined by her.

Moving applications

Mr. Sory sought to advert the mind of the Court to the fact that the applications brought by them were not moved. Her Ladyship clearly pointed out to the learned Sory that there is no rule that requires that an application be heard in open court before a ruling on same be provided.

The Court thus adjourned to Thursday, the 6th of June for Her Ladyship's ruling.thelawplatform