REPUBLIC v. BERNARD AKWASI GYASI & 5 OTHERS

S. K. A. ASIEDU, J.A.:

By the application instant, the 5th accused/applicant herein prays this court to stay the proceedings in the trial circuit court of the accused persons who are standing trial for the offences of stealing and dishonestly receiving. The reason given for this application, in the supporting affidavit, is that a statement given by the 1st accused and tendered in evidence was not marked and so justice would be miscarried if the trial proceeds.

There is evidence before this court, exhibit RKD1 herein, to show that the said statement attributed to the 1st accused person was formally admitted into evidence as exhibit B by the trial judge. The applicant and his lawyer have admitted in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support that the trial judge brought the existence of exhibit B to their attention. We are therefore surprised at the conduct of the lawyer of the 5th accused person in his persistence at stifling and impeding the smooth trial of the case before the learned trial judge as we find no reasonable basis for the instant application which from all indications is geared towards securing an end other than upholding justice. For, we are told, from the affidavit in opposition, that this simple case of stealing and dishonestly receiving has already gone through the hands of two judges and is presently in the hand of the third judge who has also been elevated to the High Court and has been given a special warrant by the Chief Justice to hear the case. Hence, one is tempted to uncover the other motive behind this application and the general trial of the case, albeit, to frustrate the trial judge. The attitude of counsel for the 5th accused must therefore be deprecated and condemned. Counsel is reminded that he is an officer of the court first and foremost and he owes it as a duty to himself and the court to ensure that justice is done without any delay.

A grant of this application will send wrong signals to counsel to employ all sorts of strategies including frivolous objections to stultify the smooth trial of persons accused and arraigned before trial courts. Applications for stay of proceedings in criminal cases are not to be made on grounds which are frivolous in nature. For, accused persons can appeal at the close of the case for the prosecution, if their submissions of no case are overruled and, also, at the end of the trial if they are aggrieved by their convictions. Hence, it is proper that as much as possible, the smooth trial of the