The Minister of Justice and Attorney-General (A-G), Hon. Joe Ghartey, yesterday told the Supreme Court that Justice Henrietta Abban, the Judge who jailed Tsatsu Tsikata, former boss of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), did not show any bias towards him. He said the judgment was fair and there was nothing binding on the Fast Track High Court to stay the judgment which was stayed for two years to give the former GNPC boss the opportunity to take the issue of whether the International Financial Corporation (IFC) should be called to testify to the Appeals Court. The A-G said these in response to an application by Tsatsu, who is seeking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to have the judgment of Mrs. Abban, who last month sentenced him to five years imprisonment, quashed. According to him, the applicant, after Mrs. Abban dismissed his IFC application, took the matter to the Court of Appeal where he also lost and made an attempt to get a certiorari from the Supreme Court which was also unsuccessful. Explaining further, he said there was therefore nothing preventing the trial Judge, Justice Abban, who gave Tsatsu almost two years to pursue the IFC issue, from delivering her judgment. The A-G noted that it was proper for the High Court to rescind its own decision and give judgment on the case and added that even though he had filed an application to have the words “bias” deleted from his application at the Supreme Court, the word had appeared in other documents he had filed to the same court. The A-G explained that the trial Judge gave Tsatsu the opportunity to represent himself on the day of the judgment when he said he had an application but he refused to proceed, on the grounds that his lawyer was out of his jurisdiction. Hon. Ghartey continued that Mrs. Abban’s statement that what Tsatsu was doing amounted to abuse of the court process did not mean she was making a determination or referring to his application before her. In addition, he was of the view that since the Judge was not bound by any Supreme Court decision, any attempt by her to bend backwards to accommodate the applicant would not amount to fairness. Moving his application for the court to quash the decision of Mrs. Abban earlier, Tsatsu told the court, presided over by Justice Sophia Akuffo, that the trial Judge had been arbitrary and capricious and lacked fairness and candour. According to the applicant, the High Court Judge predetermined an application he had before her on the day he was jailed and dismissed it as she had made up her mind to have him jailed and therefore would not countenance anything that stood in the way of her judgment. Tsatsu said on the day, unknown to him, she had alerted the police about the jail sentence so there was tight police presence which was a blatant breach on her part to be fair towards him. On his application, the former GNPC boss observed that even the A-G was not opposed to his application, neither did he pray the court to have it struck out before she did, after she herself in October 2006 had promised to stay proceedings till the decision of the Supreme Court was made. Furthermore, the applicant said he did not go to the Supreme Court for an order because the Judge had given the assurance that she would not go ahead with the judgment before any decision was made by any of the superior courts. He described the action of the trial Judge as an affront to the dignity of the Supreme Court where his appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal ruling on the IFC was pending. Tsatsu ended his speech by saying that it was up to the Judges to ensure that the desecration of the court was not repeated, but Ms Akuffo stopped him, saying he should go straight to the issue before them and not sermonize, to which he prayed the court to strike out the judgment. However, he also prayed the five-member panel to arrest the judgment of the IFC since he wanted the decision on Mrs. Abban’s judgment made before they give their judgment on it. The presiding Judge asked how they could arrest the decision of another panel of Judges, but Tsatsu said Article 128 and 129 (B) of the constitution says the Supreme Court duly constituted could make any decision and added that they could refer that aspect of his application to the Chief Justice for determination if they so wished. Source: Daily Guide