The Supreme Court will today hear the application filed by Tsatsu Tsikata asking the Court to quash certain decisions and determinations of Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban on 18th June 2008 prior to the delivery of her judgment convicting and sentencing Tsatsu Tsikata. The decisions and determination that Tsatsu Tsikata is seeking to have quashed, per the exercise of the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction are the following: a. The ruling striking out for want of prosecution the application by Counsel on behalf of the applicant for further evidence to be placed before the court and for legal argument to be heard on the effect of the further evidence. b. The determination that the applicant was abusing the court process. c. The decision to rescind her earlier decision to stay further proceedings in the criminal trial before her to await the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings on whether the International Finance Corporation(IFC) is amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of Ghana. d. The determination that as it was “only judgment” that she was going to deliver, it was not necessary for the applicant’s counsel to be available. e. The decision not to adjourn proceedings, but to proceed to deliver judgment. It was following these decisions and determinations that Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban went on to convict Tsatsu Tsikata and sentenced him to five years imprisonment for causing financial loss to the state. In addition to seeking to quash the above cited decisions and determinations, Tsatsu Tsikata is also asking the Supreme Court to arrest its judgment in the appeal currently pending before it on whether the International Finance Corporation (IFC), part of the World Bank group, is amenable to the jurisdictions of the courts of Ghana to testify in a case. Tsatsu Tsikata states that the Supreme Court has to restore its dignity and authority against the disrespect to its authority shown by Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban sitting as a judge of the High Court (Fast Track Division) in Accra on 18th June 2008 before proceeding to deliver its judgment in the appeal. According to Tsatsu Tsikata statements by Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban that two years was long enough for the appeals to the higher courts to be determined and that she would no longer wait for the judgment of the Supreme Court constituted a slap in the face of the Supreme Court. Tsatsu Tsikata has filed in support of his application a statement of case and a supplementary statement as well as six affidavits in support of the application. Among Exhibits filed by Tsatsu Tsikata as attachments to his affidavits are certified true copies of the proceedings before Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban in which, at the request of counsel for Tsatsu Tsikata Professor E.V.O Dankwa, she had adjourned proceedings before her to await the appeal, first to The Court of Appeal, and subsequently, to the Supreme Court on the issue of whether the IFC is amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of Ghana to testify. Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban had determined that it was necessary to await the outcome of the appeal since it could have an impact on further proceedings before her and in order to avoid “a mistrial or a miscarriage of justice”. Tsatsu Tsikata is contending that having thus stayed proceedings, Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban acted arbitrarily and capriciously (contrary to Article 296(b) of the Constitution) when, suddenly on 18th June 2008, she decided that she would no longer wait for the decision of the Supreme Court which was one week away , especially as neither the Attorney-General nor Tsatsu Tsikata had applied to her to vary her earlier considered decision to stay proceedings until the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court. Tsatsu Tsikata also contends that Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban acted in breach of her duty under Article 296(a) of the Constitution to be fair and candid in the exercise of the discretionary power of a judge and committed patent errors of law in making the various decisions and determinations she made. According to Tsatsu Tsikata the striking out by Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban “for want of prosecution” of an application filed by counsel on his behalf for further evidence to be called simply because Tsatsu Tsikata had been unable to reach another counsel to stand in for his counsel who was out of the country was a patent error of law that not only infringed Article 296(a) and(b) of the Constitution but also denied Tsatsu Tsikata his fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choice as provided for in Article 19(2)(f) of the Constitution. It is the further contention of Tsatsu Tsikata that, by the judge seeking to compel him to represent himself because he is himself a lawyer when he had clearly stated his option to be represented by counsel as had been the case throughout the trial, Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban denied him the fundamental human right of equality before the law and not to be discriminated against on account of his occupation as a lawyer. Tsatsu Tsikata is claiming that the proceedings that took place before Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban on 18th June 2008 amounted to a desecration of justice with the judge resorting to subterfuge in order to incarcerate him without just cause. Even before the judge had heard the application for further evidence which was before the court she had decided to throw it out and, therefore, took along to court the judgment she was determined to read that day. She had also alerted the police to be ready to take Tsatsu Tsikata to prison at the time the application was pending before her. The application by Tsatsu Tsikata to the Supreme Court was filed on 25th June 2008 and first came before the Supreme Court on that very day when the court was scheduled to deliver the judgment in the IFC matter. The court, however, adjourned because the Attorney-General had not been served with the motion. Subsequently the case was listed for Wednesday, 16th July 2008 before a new panel of the Supreme Court. On that day Tsatsu Tsikata indicated that Mr. Justice Brobbey who was on the panel might wish to recuse himself. After Tsatsu Tsikata referred to the fact that Justice Brobbey had been appointed to an administrative committee to investigate allegations in another case similar to those Tsatsu Tsikata was now making against Mrs. Justice Henrietta Abban, Mr. Justice Brobbey cut in to announce that the facts Tsatsu Tsikata was alleging were indisputable and that he would recuse himself and notify the Chief Justice accordingly. The court adjourned sine die. The case was then fixed for Tuesday 22nd July 2008 when Justice Anin-Yeboah replaced Mr. Justice Brobbey. Tsatsu Tsikata, after the case was called, stated that it amazed him that Justice Anin-Yeboah had been empanelled and was sitting on the case. This was because Justice Anin-Yeboah had been on the Court of Appeal panel on the issue of whether the IFC was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of Ghana; he had written the judgment of the court in which statutory provisions on the immunity of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had been quoted to grant immunity to the IFC. Tsatsu Tsikata referred to a part of his supplementary statement of case in which he had pointed that the two institutions were entirely different. He went on to say that since he had applied for the arrest of the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the Court of Appeal decision read by Justice Anin-Yeboah it was possible that in this application the Supreme Court may have to give certain directions in respect of the IFC case and Justice Anin-Yeboah, now on the Supreme Court panel, would be participating in giving directions in respect of his own decision in the Court of Appeal. Tsatsu Tsikata nevertheless emphasized that he wished to proceed with the application while reserving his rights so as not to lose time. He said he left it to the conscience of Justice Anin-Yeboah to choose whether he intended to be part of the panel or not. After brief consultations, the presiding Judge, Ms. Justice Sophia Akuffo, announced that Justice Anin-Yeboah was opting out of the panel and the case was adjourned sine die with Ms. Justice Sophia Akuffo indicating that she would be speaking to the Chief Justice about the situation after the court session. Credit: Kyeretwie Opoku