Eric Kyei Baffour, the trial judge hearing the case of the Republic versus William Ato Essien and two others, has denied reports that he accused the state of compromising with the accused persons to reach a settlement.
In a press release, signed by the judicial secretary, Justice Cynthia Pamela Addo, the Judicial Service has clarified comments attributed to Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, noting that the reportage in its entirety is false.
“The attention of the trial Judge, His Lordship Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, in the criminal case pending at the High Court Accra, entitled Republic versus William Ato Essien and 2 Others, has been drawn to publications by various media houses alleging that at the proceedings of the court on Thursday, 1st December, 2022, the trial Judge stated that the State was compromised in the matter of the agreement entered into with the 1st accused person, subject to the acceptance of the court and in pursuance of section 35 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459).
“The trial Judge, would like to correct/ clarify the above-stated reportage and place on record that, no statement in the nature of the media reports referred to above, or imputing misconduct on the part of officials of the State, was made by the court either on 1st December 2022 or throughout the trial of the case. He (the trial Judge) enquired from one of the defence lawyers whose client has been charged with offences of abetment and conspiracy, whether the terms of the agreement entered between the State and the 1st accused would not compromise the position of the other accused persons.”
Eric Kyei Baffour
What Happened in Court
It can be recalled that Justice Kyei Baffour, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with additional responsibility as a high court judge, was expected to deliver judgment in the three-year-old Capital Bank trial on 1st December 2022 and bring the case to a logical conclusion. However, when the case was called in court, the deputy attorney general Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, on behalf of the state, told the court that the state has reached a settlement with the accused, based on Section 35 of the Courts Act 1993.
After hearing the Deputy Attorney General, Justice Kyei Baffour’s court ruled that “The money William Ato Essien and the two other accused persons are alleged to have stolen does not belong to the state. The money belongs to the bank and depositors of the bank”.
The judge argued that as the money is not the property of the state or any agency of the state, no loss or harm can be said to have been caused to the state. “It is my candid opinion that Section 35 is not applicable to the case for the first accused person to enter into a settlement with the prosecution,” the judge said.
Following reportage on the 1st December 2022 court sitting, there have been mixed reactions on the position of Justice Kyei Baffour’s court. Lawyer Kofi Bentil for example, commenting on the ruling said contrary to the judge’s suggestion, Section 35 is making crime in Ghana unattractive.
Mr Bentil indicated that there is good reason in philosophy, in what is proper and practical, for the state to have a Section 35, because there are people who actually steal state money and want to go to jail for five, even ten years, come back and enjoy it. He explained that while custodial sentences only create a delay in convicted individuals enjoying their stolen wealth, Section 35 forces them to cough up.
READ ALSO: Investors Are Bearing High Consequences For Government’s Debt Exchange Program – Isaac Adongo
