His Lordship Justice Clemence Honyenuga has literally shredded an application filed by former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of COCOBOD, Dr Stephen to stay proceedings pending determination of interlocutory injunction at the Court of Appeal.

The application was dismissed on the reason that it lacked to establish any exceptional ground, for which the sitting judge should consider it.

But the Dr Opuni’s lawyers led by Samuel Cudjoe indicated to the court that the application at the higher court was a result of a case that His Lordship ruled on concerning a statement he made at a durbar that his client deemed it political.

On the premise that the statement by judge may have negative consequences on Dr Opuni’s fate, he has challenged Justice Honyenuga to recuse himself from further hearing the case.

Since the latter refused to set aside, Dr Opuni and his lawyers have proceeded to the Court of Appeal to decide on the matter.

As a result, the former COCOBOD ECO filed a motion before Justice Honyenuga who is a Supreme Court to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the Court determination.

 One major case that rose from the side of Opuni, first accused person, was that Justice Honyenuga has acted as a judge in his own case, which is a breach of the rules natural justice.

Mr Cudjoe argued that his client risks his constitutional abused since his case is a political trial.

While saying this, he was also mindful of the fact that “the grant or refusal of stay of proceedings lies entirely within the discretion of the trial court” but the discretion must be exercise judiciously balancing the interest of the republic against the right of the accused person.

He continued that the Court of Appeal has held that if there was a risk of an applicant’s constitutional right then proceedings could be stay, adding “it is our submission that we have raised issues of a constitutional nature namely the right to a breach of rule of natural justice, that your lordship should not be a judge in your own case.”

The defence counsel also stated that state’s affidavit in opposition is either here or there since it failed to address concerns raised that his lordship determining the issue of whether the motion of his recusal to have been held by himself.

Secondly, he strongly contended that Principal State Attorney, Stella Ohene Appiah have sworn an affidavit as a witness in the matter, hence cannot act as lawyer for the same matter, as it is against the rules of legal profession.

Addressing issue the application been described as to cause unnecessary delays in the trial and a grave injustice particularly when the appellant is not the only person being tried, A1’s lawyer rebutted that the counsel for the other accused are in support of their position.

Mrs Appiah, however, stated that the issue raised by counsel had already been addressed by the court and could not fathom why it was still surfacing from the same quarters.

“My lord, respectfully this issue has ever come up in this same court and my lord ruled on it dismissing counsel’s objection. Counsel has not appeal that ruling of the court against the dismissal of his objection.

“My lord, counsel cannot raise this same objection against same before and proceed to claim that he wants to cross examine the prosecutor. It is unfair and counsel is abusing the rules of court. He knows what to do if he is dissatisfied with the ruling of the court. My lord I submit,” she said.

Mr Cudjoe in a comeback refuted the Principal Attorney argument that under Section 62 of the Evidence Act that a witness cannot only testify if he is subject to all actions to motion while in this motion, the evidence is by affidavit and she is a witness for the prosecution hence she cannot object to be cross examination and it is not also a surprise.

Despite the enormous attempts by the counsel to capitalise on the point he raised, the court said it failed to see why she should be stopped from responding to the motion, since she is the one handing the case.

When Mrs Mensah was given the opportunity to address the court on the issue at hand, said the applicant has had occasions to appeal against decisions of this court when he was aggrieved by those rulings.

“My lord, therefore, it is improper for the applicant to suggest at this point that his constitutional right is at risk and been infringed upon. It is right that the grant of stay of proceedings is at the discretion of the judge, however, the applicant must also, demonstrate that an exceptional circumstance has risen for to warrant this decision in his favour.

 “It is our submission that this applicant has woefully not demonstrated any such circumstance to this court. My lord we pray that this application should be dismissed as without merit,” she added.

The court ruled that the applicant only picked and chose from the statement he delivered on behalf of chiefs and people of his area as a paramount chief.

He also said the applicant did not address any exceptional condition for which application should be granted, hence dismissed it.

By Akutu Dede Adimer