The Supreme Court of Ghana, will today, June 25th, 2008, rule in a case in which the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, is challenging the immunity claims of the International Financial Corporation (IFC) from the jurisdiction of Ghanaian courts. Mr. Tsikata, who, over a year and a half, has been seeking the higher court’s decision that the IFC had no immunity, had his expectation of an adjournment of his case before the Fast Track High Court curtailed, when the presiding judge declared that he had had enough of him and convicted him, sentencing him to five years imprisonment. In stating his case of appeal at the Supreme Court, Mr. Tsikata had declared that counsel for the World Bank agency, IFC, had misled the courts in claiming immunity, by invoking the indemnity clause of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also referred to as the Fund, which operated under a different subsidiary legislation from the World Bank, which is also referred to as The Bank. According to Mr. Tsikata, the IFC counsel, through that misrepresentation, misled the Fast Track High Court and also the Appeal Court, into sustaining the immunity claims by the IFC, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, that the two bodies operated under different Legislative Notifications (LN). Notwithstanding earlier adjournments by the presiding judge of the Fast Track High Court, Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban, on previous occasions, with the reason that she was awaiting the determination of this aspect of the case before the Supreme Court, for the accused, Mr. Tsikata, to complete his defence, she sprang a surprise at him, when she decided to throw out a motion he had filed, convicted and sentenced him at a time his lawyer had written to the court that he was traveling outside the country, the Supreme Court ruling was just a week away, and he was alone in the dock. His lead counsel, Prof. E. Y. O. Dankwa had since indicated that he was in the United States of America (USA), seeking medical attention, while his other lawyer in the case, Major Roland Agbenotor (Rtd.), died a few months ago. Mr. Tsikata was convicted on three counts of causing financial loss to the state and one count of misapplying public property. The first three counts related to remittances that GNPC made when Valley Farms, a cocoa growing company, defaulted on a loan contracted from Caisse Francais de Developement, guaranteed by GNPC in 1991. In his affidavit in support of the Appeal, he indicated that his testimony about the relationship between cocoa exports and crude oil imports, though not contested, were ignored by the trial judge. The guarantee was given before the passage of the law on causing financial loss to the state. He had pleaded not guilty to all the charges. If the Supreme Court, today, decided that the IFC had no immunity, it means the lower court would have no option than to subpoena them to come and testify in this longest running criminal trial. On June 18, the day of conviction and sentencing of Mr. Tsikata, there were heated exchanges between the trial judge and the accused, with the Attorney-General, virtually reduced to the status of a spectator. The judge's patience running out was first expressed, when she called on the accused to move a motion his lawyer had filed on his behalf, seeking to tender in evidence from the Supreme Court proceedings, in which the Attorney General had indicated that the viability of Valley Farms was not in dispute. Some of her pronouncements included statements she made such as: "I have been indulging you six years." In yet another statement she submitted: "…And may I say that I have indulged you. Throughout these proceedings, I have been very very patient with you. It is not for you to decide when the court should sit to do business. That you have been marking the pace all along, and I have indulged you because you needed to exercise your right to a fair trial. I have tried to be very fair throughout these proceedings. I think you are abusing the legal process." Justice Abban had also cut short accused on every statement he had started and her final statement had been, "There must he all end to litigation." The accused had told the trial judge that he had not received the proceedings from the Supreme Court. Called upon to move the motion, he informed the judge that even though he had applied for the judgment delivered and transcripts of proceedings on the day of judgment, he had not been supplied. He said his wife had also followed up with written requests for same. Furthermore, he told the court that he had “also indicated I want to listen to tapes to check the accuracy of transcripts." disclosing that previous checks in the past had revealed thousands of errors. Finally, Mr. Tsikata told the court that he had petitioned the Chief Justice over what he described as bias and hostility by the judge. "I have petitioned the Chief Justice regarding your hearing this case, indicating bias," he stated. The judge therefore adjourned the case indefinitely as the files await the Chief Justice to look into the allegations made by the former GNPC boss. Source: Enquirer