The trial of former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Solomon Asamoah, and the erstwhile Board Chairman of the Fund, Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, has taken a new twist, as the defence has accused the prosecution’s first witness, Yaw Odame-Darkwa, of testifying against the accused persons in order to escape liability.
During her further cross-examination of the witness, Victoria Barth, counsel for Mr. Asamoah, suggested to the witness, who was a member of the GIIF board, that he had agreed to be a prosecution witness only to escape liability for the alleged lack of approval for the Sky Train project.
Mr Odame-Darkwa, a former head of the Audit Committee of the board, who sometimes gives drawn-out answers to questions, simply said, “That is not true.”
Mrs Barth made the accusation after the witness admitted that, at the time he gave a cautioned statement to officers at the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB), he was under investigation for stealing and causing financial loss to the state.
Prior to that, the defence lawyer had suggested to the witness that the only reason he subsequently became a prosecution witness is that he “denied that the board had approved of the Sky Train project and the disbursement in respect of that project”.
This question was opposed by the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, who submitted that it was unfair to the witness.
He argued that who becomes an accused person is a matter of prosecutorial discretion to be exercised by the Attorney General, not by a potential accused person.
“The witness is not in a position to say the factors that the Attorney General considered in not charging him. It is deemed that there was no evidence against him, and that is exactly why this question is unfair, and I pray that my Lady will disallow this question,” he added.
The objection was opposed by Mrs. Barth, who argued that the prosecution may exercise discretion in deciding whom to field as witnesses, but those witnesses make an independent decision whether to serve as prosecution witnesses.
“This court has before it documentary evidence tendered without objection as to their authenticity as this witness has agreed, for instance, that signed minutes of a board are the evidence of what transpired at the meetings covered by those minutes and not the individual recollection of members who attended those meetings.”
It is not in dispute that there are financial statements in evidence before this court containing disbursements on the Sky Train project, which disbursements form part of the audited financial statements approved by the very same GIIF board, of which the witness is a member. The fact that a witness says I do not remember does not change the documentary effect of the evidence before the court, she said.
She further indicated that when a witness “somersaults” from being a suspect to a prosecution witness in the face of the admitted facts before the court, it is very appropriate to ask that witness what accounts for the change in his status.
“I’m not asking him to tell me what accounts for the prosecution’s reasoning. I’m asking about him being used as a prosecution witness because he is telling a story that supports the prosecution’s charges,” she added.
The court, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, overruled the objection and asked the witness to answer the question. Mr. Odame-Darkwa, in his response, said, “As I sit here, I don’t know why I was made a prosecution witness.
Mrs. Barth then suggested to the witness that his denial of the board approval for the Sky Train project is partly because you did not understand the structure of that project.” The witness disagreed, saying, “That is your position, not mine.”
“I’m suggesting to you that your denial of recorded statements in the minutes before this court is because you did not pay attention when the events recorded in those minutes took place,” the lawyer further pushed. The witness disagreed.
Mrs Barth again suggested to the witness that his alleged lack of knowledge of the approval of the disbursement of the $2 million for the Sky Train project “is because you failed to carefully review board pacts sent to you via email.” But the witness disagreed with this assertion.
The defence lawyer finally put it to the witness that he had told “half-truths” to the court. “No, my Lady,” the witness responded.
The case was adjourned to February 5 for counsel for Professor Ameyaw-Akumfi to cross-examine the witness.
Background
In 2019, the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) invested US$2 million for a 10% stake in Africa Investor Skytrain Consortium Holdings (“Ai Skytrain”), the company developing Accra’s Skytrain light railway project.
The Africa Investor Group (the “Sponsors”) was selected and granted the rights to develop the project by the Government of Ghana (“GoG”) through the Ministry of Railways Development (“MORD”).
At the time, the Chairman of GIIF was Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was Mr Solomon Asamoah. The Chairman had previously been a member of the GoG. Mr. Asamoah was an international development banker who had been headhunted for the position by a UK recruitment agency.
Following a change of government in Ghana in December 2024, the GoG, through the office of the Attorney General of Ghana, now alleges that this action was taken without Board approval, resulting in a willful financial loss to the state, as there is as yet “no railway built”.
It should be noted that there are no allegations of personal gain or diversion of funds in the charges, and the state has not charged anyone from MORD or the GoG-selected sponsors; only the GIIF Chairman and CEO have been charged.
The state witnesses who initially faced charges of causing financial loss to the state themselves dropped these charges after stating they did not approve the project, casting significant doubt on the reliability of their statements.
The prosecution’s case is built almost entirely on these statements to show that a legitimate transaction was “unauthorized”, without which there would be no case to answer.
“The prosecution’s case appears to be politically motivated, intended to fulfill a campaign promise to prosecute members of the previous government. It is unsupported by the facts, relying on demonstrably false witness statements,” a lawyer familiar with the case stated on condition of anonymity.
__________________
