REPUBLIC v. STEPHEN KWABENA OPUNI & OTHERS

GYAESAYOR, JA

This is a repeat application seeking a Stay of proceedings in a criminal trial which is ongoing at the High Court, Accra. The Applicants, are second and third persons being tried for various offences in the High Court.

In the course of the trial, the Appellants/Applicants sought to tender certain documents through the 2nd Prosecution witness one Dr. Alfred Arthur (PW2).

An objection was raised by the Director of Public Prosecution for various reasons amongst which is the fact that Dr. Alfred Arthur is the witness for the prosecution and that it is not appropriate for them to tender the document through him and further that he is not the author of the document or a member of the committee set up to investigate the loss of that document. Furthermore, that the document sought to be tendered had nothing to do with the trial.

On the other hand, the Applicant argued that the document sought to be tendered is in the official custody of Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG) where the witness works and that being so he can testify on it. It was also argued that the document will clarify the issues in controversy as to the nature of the chemical in question.

The learned trial judge in his ruling dated the 25th February, 2019 refused the application on the grounds that;

‘I must state that although PW2 is an official from CRIG he has not been served (and noticed) sic to testify as to the document in that capacity and in any case he was neither a party nor appeared before that Committee and or testified. I think that it would be most unfair to tender the document through the witness who does not know anything about the document’

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Trial Judge, the Appellants/Applicants filed a notice of appeal on the 1st day of March, 2019 seeking ‘to set aside the ruling of the High Court dated 25th day of February, 2019 and to admit the said report together with its attachment as an exhibit in the trial at the Court below.

Since an appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings, the appellants/applicants followed it up with an application for stay of proceedings in the High Court which application was refused. The Trial Judge refused the application for stay of proceedings on the ground that he found no exceptional circumstances for the application to be granted.

The grant of the application of this nature is an invitation to the court to exercise its discretionary powers and this must be done according to law and in the