Lead counsel for former Signals Bureau Director-General Kwadwo Adu Boahene, Samuel Atta Akyea, has described as unfortunate the Accra High Court’s decision to continue with his client’s trial despite a fresh application before the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the proceedings.

His comments follow the High Court’s dismissal of an application by Mr Adu Boahene to adjourn his trial pending the Supreme Court’s determination of a review application filed by Ofoase-Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah over the continuation of selected criminal cases during the legal vacation.

Counsel had asked the court to adjourn the proceedings until September 2, when a three-member panel of the Supreme Court is expected to hear Mr Oppong Nkrumah’s review application.

Mr Atta Akyea argued that the outcome of the application could have a bearing on the ongoing trial and that it was therefore appropriate for the High Court to await the Supreme Court’s decision.

However, Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Justice Srem-Sai opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution had only one more day to close its case.

He maintained that the Supreme Court had already determined the substantive interlocutory application concerning the legal vacation and that the mere filing of a review application did not automatically suspend the proceedings.

Justice Francis Apanga Achibonga, after hearing arguments from both sides, said he had not identified any rule requiring the trial to be suspended under the circumstances.

The judge noted that although the earlier Supreme Court decision had been delivered by a single judge, it remained binding until it was set aside or reversed by a subsequent decision.

He consequently dismissed the defence’s request for an adjournment and proceeded with the trial.

Reacting to the development after the hearing, Mr Atta Akyea said he was surprised that the judge had decided to continue with the case despite being informed of the fresh application before the three-member Supreme Court panel.

“I thought the judge would respect the fact that the three judges should determine the injunction, which was restraining him from continuing with the case,” he said.

According to him, the defence was placed in a difficult position because his client was expected to cross-examine a witness despite not being trained to do so.

“The pain of what this case is that he wants my client to cross-examine the witness. My client is not trained to do that, and I don't want to be seen also to be defying his orders. I believe that it's unfortunate,” Mr Atta Akyea explained.

He said although an earlier injunction application had been dismissed, the subsequent filing of a repeat application before the three-member panel ought to have been considered by the trial judge.

“I brought it to his attention that, my Lord, although the first one has been dismissed, there is a repeat application restraining you from continuing with the case,” he said.

Mr Atta Akyea further explained that his decision to return to court was informed by the Supreme Court’s decision as well as the renewed application filed by Mr Oppong Nkrumah.

He maintained that, in his view, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to await the determination of the three-member panel before continuing with the proceedings.