High Court presided over by Justice Audrey Kokuvie-Tay at its sitting on Thursday, 22 January 2026, overruled an objection raised by Deputy Attorney General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, on a question posed by defence lawyer Victoria Barth, to the first prosecution witness of the State in the ongoing trial of Solomon Asamoah and Christopher Ameyaw Akumfi.
Victoria Barth, Counsel for the first accused (Solomon Asamoah), during cross-examination, sought to confirm from the first prosecution witness, Yaw Odame-Dankwa, that the Ghana Sky Train Limited company was duly incorporated and that a set of emails related to the approval of the 2019 GIIF budget were the same as his records. She also asked the witness to confirm that the sole shareholder of Ghana Sky Train Limited, as listed in the incorporation document, was Ai SkyTrain Consortium Holdings.
However, Dr Srem-Sai, the Deputy Attorney General, objected to the line of questions suggested to the witness of the state by the defence lawyer. Justice Audrey Kokuvie-Tay’s court, after hearing the objection and the strong explanation presented by defence lawyer, Victoria Barth, overruled the objection of the Deputy Attorney General and asked the witness to answer the same.
Cross-examination
Question: Is it incorrect that the GIIF board did not sanction the incorporation of Ghana Sky Train Limited, as you claim?
Answer: The answer is no. The board did not sanction it. If we had, there is no way we would have agreed on Kobina Hughes as the director of Ghana Sky Train Limited. Unless, of course, counsel had a document that I don’t know of.
Question: You will agree with me that you are not in a position to recollect every discussion that took place at all board meetings while you were on the board of GIIF.
Answer: Yes, my lady. I recognize that. That is why, if there is any document, Counsel should make it available.
Question: Do you have any documents to support your assertion that for all the companies that the GIIF board dealt with, they discussed who would be appointed as directors of those companies and approved of their decision as a board?
Objection
Following this question posed by the defence lawyer, the Deputy Attorney General objected to the same. He submitted in court as follows;
“Counsel is fishing and relevance. Defence Counsel claims that the board sanctioned the incorporation of Sky Train Ghana Limited. The witness has indicated that the board on which he served did not sanction the incorporation of this company. Any attempt to show whether the witness account is correct or not could only come from the witness box by way of testimony and not from the Bar.
“Secondly, proceeding to ask the witness whether or not he has a document to support his claim is an unfair question which results in a fishing expedition. Counsel has her own witnesses if she chooses to present evidence to contradict the evidence of the prosecution’s witness. The prosecution witness should not be sent out on a fishing expedition to satisfy the defiance’s desires,” Srem-Sai submitted in court.
“Expanding on every answer to the court’s request for documentary evidence to support an answer a witness gives to a court will become impossible. We pray that the question, which seeks to call on the witness to provide documentary evidence to support his answer, be disallowed,” the Deputy AG said in court.
Defence Rebuttal
In a sharp rebuttal, defence lawyer, Victoria Barth, noted as follows: “The question I asked was, do you have any document to support your assertion?” My questions relate solely to an assertion he has made, and, as counsel for the accused, I’m entitled to ask him whether he has evidence to support it, to the extent it concerns the alleged practice of the board.
“So that subsequently, when I assert in my written submission that this court cannot rely on this assertion as a fact, the witness would have been given the opportunity to establish the fact that he is asserting.
“It is trite that a court did not rely on bare assertions, and therefore it is very appropriate for me to ask the witness to substantiate his assertion with evidence. If he can, so be it. If he cannot, then it ends. Wherein lies the fishing when the assertion was made by the witness himself?
“This is a criminal matter, and every doubt that the defence is able to establish inures to its benefit, and it is my duty to ensure that I leave no issue unaddressed. After all, the document is relevant enough to have been admitted into evidence. Therefore, testimony arising from it must be subjected to cross-examination,” Victoria Barth submitted.
“Secondly, the accused is entitled to decide not to mount the witness box, and the dual purpose of cross-examination is to advance the accused’s case through the prosecution witnesses and to undermine their evidence where warranted.
That is my job, and that is all I’m seeking to do. The witness is not prejudiced in any way by the question because it relates to facts within his personal knowledge. I therefore submit respectfully that the objection is unfounded,” Ms Barth further submitted.
By Court
Justice Audrey Kokuvie-Tay, after hearing both sides, agreed with the argument of the defence counsel. “Having listened to learned counsel, the objection is overruled,” the court ruled.
The question was then repeated to the witness, who confirmed the answers to both questions were “yes”.
The court subsequently adjourned sitting to Monday, 2 February 2026, for the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness to continue.
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 head-hunted into the position from 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.
_____________________
