Selormey's case on hold till Sept 12

THE trial of Victor Selormey, a former Deputy Minister of Finance in the court computerisation case, has been put on hold until September 12, this year.

The Fast Track High Court, which is hearing the case, granted the long adjournment at its sitting yesterday in Accra to enable the defence team to move a motion at the Court of Appeal for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of an appeal.

The application would be moved on September 10.

At the court’s sitting on August 24, Mr Barimah Manu, one of the lawyers of Selormey informed the court that the defence team had filed a motion for stay of proceedings at the Appeal Court.

However, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Sam Baddoo, an Appeal Court Judge, who is sitting as an additional High Court Judge, adjourned proceedings to yesterday for the defence to furnish him with the motion papers.

Selormey has pleaded not guilty to six counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretence and wilfully causing financial loss to the state.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is currently on a ¢1.5 billion bail with two sureties to be justified.

The former Deputy Minister is alleged to have conspired with one Dr Frederick Owusu-Boadu, Chief Executive Officer of Leebda Corporation of the United States of America, to fraudulently cause the loss of $1,297,500 to the state.

It would be recalled that on August 16, the court authorised the defence team to recall Selormey to give further evidence.

This was to enable the accused person to tender in evidence a contract document he signed with Leebda Corporation, in his capacity as a deputy minister, for a court computerisation project in Ghana.

It was also to provide Selormey with the opportunity to tender in evidence a CD ROM, which was produced by Leebda Corporation in connection with the project.

The court arrived at the decision in its ruling on a motion for stay of proceedings filed by defence counsel.

The defence team, led by Mr Johnny Quarshie-Idun, however, refused the proposal by the court on the grounds that it was not in the interest of both the accused person and the law generally.

The grounds for the appeal are that throughout the course of the proceedings, counsel had sought to put across to the witnesses of the prosecution that there was a contract entered into between Leebda Corporation and the Ministry of Finance.

According to an affidavit in support of the motion, in the evidence of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr Jeff Edward Musore, who was the investigator in the case, he said under cross-examination that he received some documents from the solicitors of Leebda, which he admitted in his evidence to include a project proposal and a consultancy contract.

It said in the evidence of the accused, counsel took pains to spell out the contract the Ministry of Finance entered into with Leebda, the terms thereof and the fact that a CD ROM was produced.

According to the affidavit, when the solicitors of Leebda sought to lay a foundation for the tendering of the CD ROM, the court refused to allow it, on the grounds that there was no contract in evidence and that they did not produce the CD ROM.

This, it added, was in spite of evidence of a contract on record.

The affidavit said in the evidence of Mr Sam Awortwi, who was the head of the investigation team, he admitted to having received a letter dated May 22, 2001, together with some attachments.

The affidavit said although the court admitted the letter into evidence, it refused to admit the attachments, which were made up of the proposal, the consultancy contract, an inception report and comments by some members of the Judiciary on the demonstration of the CD ROM.

It said Mr Justice F. Y. Kpegah and Mr Justice George Kingsley Acquah, both Supreme Court judges, and Mrs Sabina Ofori-Boateng, an official of the Attorney-General’s Department, testified in court that they saw a demonstration of the CD ROM by Dr Owusu-Boadu.

“When leave was sought to have the CD ROM demonstrated in court to enable them to say whether it was the same product that was demonstrated to them by Dr Owusu-Boadu, the court refused,” it added.