<<Print>>

The application by Dr. Richard Anane, former minister for Roads and Transport as to whether or not he filed his notice of appeal on time was, on Thursday, dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The court presided over by Justice Isaac Douse held that the former minister failed to file his notice at the time he was supposed to in accordance with the rules of filing notice of appeal. They he was supposed to file within a month but he filed his notice of appeal after 84 days and noted that his application was �incurably bad� as he failed to abide by the rules of court and went ahead to dismiss his application. Dr. Anane and Dr. Anthony Akoto-Osei, former Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance had gone to the Court of Appeal over the decision of Justice Bright Mensah, an Accra Fast Track High Court judge, not to refer their trial to the Supreme Court for interpretation. Dr. Akoto Osei has been given leave to file his written submissions by April 2, 2013. The case has been adjourned to April 8, 2013. Other justices in the case included P.K. Gyasayor and Kwaku Gyan. Mathew Amponsah, a principal state attorney was there for the state while Jacob Acquah-Sampson was there for Dr. Anane with Joseph Acheampong representing Dr. Akoto Osei. The two applicants were being tried at an Accra Fast Track High Court together with Kwadwo Mpiani, former Chief of Staff under the Kufuor Administration; Sammy Crabbe, former Greater Accra Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and Prof George Gyan-Baffuor, Member of Parliament for Wenchi and a former deputy minister at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. They are facing charges of causing financial loss to the state to the tune of $56million for their alleged role in the operations of the now defunct Ghana International Airlines (GIA). The two applicants wanted the trial judge, Justice Bright Mensah, to refer certain aspects of the case to the Supreme Court for interpretation and to order the prosecution to make available to them certain documents which the state intended to use in the trial against them. They also wanted the list of names of witnesses who are to testify against them and copies of statements they gave to the state before they were arraigned but the trial judge has refused to grant them their wishes. Giving reasons for his verdict, the trial judge said having looked at Article 19 vis-�-vis Act 30 he did not believe there was the need for any interpretation as they were unambiguous. Justice Mensah stated that section 96(7) of Act 30 was not in contravention of any Article in the Constitution, stressing that there would be no need to refer to the Supreme Court when the validity of the law arose.