Court of Appeal to determine if Anas’ face should be viewed in chambers before he testifies

An Accra High Court has stalled its decision to discharge former Ghana Football Association President, Kwesi Nyantakyi and one other as the Court of Appeal determines the mode of testimony by investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

The Court presided over by Justice Marie-Louise Simmons in February had threatened to discharge the accused persons, “if by the end of April, no meaningful steps have been taken in the appeal.”

The Court also recounted that, due to pending interlocutory appeals – one by the prosecution and another by Kwasi Nyantakyi in relation to the mode of testimony of Anas, the court was reluctant not to discharge the accused.

But on Tuesday, April 30, the judge indicated that she had received letters from the Court of Appeal regarding the state of pending appeals before it.

“The court, however, has been informed by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal of the state of the appeal pending. I have been informed that indeed the delay in the appeal has been due to some logistical constraints….and also partly due to a mistake made by the prosecution in the title of the case which necessitated…in order to correct the misspelt name of A1 which order was granted.

“With the information from the Registry that the compilation of the records is faced with constraints, I will await the outcome of the appeal process filed by both sides,” Justice Simmons noted.

Counsel for Kwesi Nyantakyi argued that Prosecution’s failure to show up in court was a sign that they were no longer interested in the case and urged the court to discharge his client.

Baffour Gyau Bonsu Ashia reminded the Court of its orders to discharge the accused persons if the prosecution failed to call their witnesses.

The former GFA President and a former Northern Regional representative have been charged with fraud and corruption and Conspiracy to commit fraud over involvement in the Anas Aremeyaw Anas #Number12 Exposé.’

They have both pleaded not guilty.

Justice Marie-Louise Simmons further held that the prosecution was employing tactics to delay the trial.

“It is obvious that these are all tactics to waste the time of the court. The court will therefore deem that the prosecution does not intend to call any other witness apart from the one whose mode of testimony is to be determined by the court of appeal.”

The court therefore adjourned the trial to June 10 pending the determination of the Court of Appeal.