Ameyaw-Akumfi’s Lawyers File Motion to Halt Trial and Request Supreme Court Review
Lawyers argue charges are premature and seek constitutional interpretation by Supreme Court
- Ameyaw-Akumfi’s lawyers have filed to suspend his criminal trial over the Sky Train deal
- They seek Supreme Court review on whether the charges violate constitutional fair trial rights
- The High Court will rule on the motion on July 9
Legal representatives for Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi have filed a motion in the High Court seeking to suspend his ongoing criminal proceedings.
The former Chairperson of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) is standing trial alongside ex-CEO Solomon Asamoah over allegations tied to the controversial Sky Train project.
Both face accusations of causing financial loss to the state and the deliberate misappropriation of public funds.
In their recent submission, Ameyaw-Akumfi’s lawyers argue that the charges are premature and should be dismissed. They have further requested the court to refer a constitutional matter to the Supreme Court, invoking Article 130(2) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. This provision requires lower courts to pause cases and seek the Supreme Court’s guidance whenever constitutional interpretation or enforcement questions arise.
The legal team wants the Supreme Court to review whether Sections 1 and 7 of the Public Property Protection Law (SMCD 140) violate Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
Section 1 of SMCD 140 prescribes penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for intentional dissipation of public funds, and up to 5 years for intentional misuse. Section 7 holds company directors, officers, and partners liable for offenses committed by their entities unless they can prove the offense was committed by another party or that they exercised due diligence to prevent it.
The defense is also requesting the High Court to halt the trial until the Supreme Court issues its verdict on these constitutional questions.
The High Court has adjourned the matter until July 9, when it will decide on the defense’s motion.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have trimmed their witness list, withdrawing four testimonies, and now plan to rely on eight witnesses to support their case.
