The High Court of Accra has issued a formal directive compelling Adu-Boahene and his wife, Angela Adjei Boateng, to secure the presence of their legal representation within six days to address the ongoing trial on August 17th. The court’s ruling follows a contentious session on Tuesday, August 11th, where the accused appeared in court without legal counsel, a move that has ignited significant debate within the legal community.
The directive, delivered by Justice Francis Apangabonu Achibonga, a Justice of the Court of Appeal serving as an additional High Court judge, stipulates that failure to secure legal representation will result in the accused being required to personally continue the cross-examination of the fourth prosecution witness, a pivotal figure in the case. The court emphasizes that this is a direct consequence of the previous legal vacation, a decision made by the Chief Justice’s office.
The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, along with Chief State Attorney Sarah Fafa Kpodo, Principal State Attorney Esi Dentaa Yankah, and EOCO Assistant Staff Officer Rabiatu Abdulai, has been present for the continuation of the cross-examination of the fourth prosecution witness. The court’s directive follows a previous communication from the defense team, indicating their intent to abstain from participation in proceedings during the legal vacation.
The defense team, under the leadership of Samuel Atta Akyea, had initially requested a temporary adjournment to the case’s continuation, which was subsequently approved by the Chief Justice. However, the court’s registrar, Dr. Srem-Sai, opposed any suggestion that proceedings could be halted merely because counsel had decided not to attend during the legal vacation.
Justice Achibonga acknowledged the correspondence from the defense counsel, outlining a request for reconsideration of the directive to sit during the legal vacation, as well as the Ghana Bar Association’s August 10th letter raising similar concerns. However, he stressed that these letters do not constitute a stay of proceedings. He stated that the judge’s role is to determine whether proceedings should continue based on the judge’s authority, given a warrant to sit during the vacation.
According to the court’s ruling, the accused persons deserve a fair opportunity to resolve this matter. The court noted that counsel for the accused persons had been present when the case was adjourned to August 11th through to 13 August 2026, yet counsel is absent without any reason. The judge, in his ruling, said it would be unfair to require the accused persons to immediately take over the cross-examination without giving them an opportunity to resolve the issue of legal representation.
He further stated that, if by the next date – August 17th – the accused are not represented by counsel, they will be made to cross-examine the witness themselves, failing which PW4 would be discharged. This action underscores the court’s determination to ensure that the accused persons are afforded the opportunity to present their case effectively, given the significant legal implications of the case.
Watch Related Video
Source: MyJoyOnline
