[ad_1]
The Attorney General (AG) has decided to amend the charge sheet against former SSNIT Director General Ernest Thompson and four others who are on trial for allegedly causing financial losses of more than $ 14.8 million in the SSNIT Operational Business Suite (OBS) project. .
This follows a Supreme Court ruling that the charge related to causing a financial loss to the state did not have sufficient details of the crime.
Also Read: SSNIT Scandal: File Enough Charges Against Ernest Thompson & 4 Others – Supreme Court
The director of the Public Ministry (DPP), Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, informed the High Court of trial on Thursday (March 25, 2021) about the decision to amend the charge sheet when the case was called, reports Judge Agbenorsi of Graphic Online .
She said her office obtained the Supreme Court ruling that the charges for causing financial losses to the state were insufficient on Wednesday alone. [March 24, 2021] praying for a postponement that would allow him to amend the charge.
The case was subsequently postponed until April 22, 2021 by the court, presided over by Judge Henry Anthony Kwofie, a Court of Appeals judge serving as a Superior Court judge.
This will allow the attorney general to amend the charge of causing financial loss to the state and bring it to court and advise the defendants.
All five defendants were present when the case was called.
Legal fight
Mr. Thompson, as well as former Manager of Information Technology (IT) at SSNIT, Mr. John Hagan Mensah, former Head of Management Information Systems (MIS) at SSNIT, Mr. Caleb Kwaku Afaglo, SSNIT’s attorney, Mr. Peter Hayibor and the In July 2018, the Executive Director of Perfect Business Systems (PBS), Ms. Juliet Hassana Kramer, was charged with deliberately causing financial loss to the state, conspiracy to commit a crime, defrauding with deception in contravention of the law on public procurement and authorship of falsified documents.
They pleaded not guilty to the charges in Superior Court.
However, as a result of a legal dispute between Mr. Thompson’s attorney and the AG over the details of the crime in relation to causing financial loss, the case was stopped in Superior Court.
In his attempt to challenge the details of the crime by causing economic loss, Mr. Thompson, who was of the opinion that the prosecution did not provide sufficient details about the crimes he was charged with as required by article 19 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and Article 122 of the Criminal Offenses (Procedure) Law, 1960 (Law 30), submitted a request to this effect on April 19, 2019 before the court of first instance, but it was rejected.
Dissatisfied, Mr. Thompson appealed to the Court of Appeal alleging that Judge Kwofie made a mistake in law and also made a mistake in dismissing his application.
On April 3 of last year, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 majority decision, upheld Mr. Thompson’s appeal and held that, in fact, the details of the crimes in the charge sheet were not enough.
Consequently, he ordered the prosecution to “provide reasonable information so that the appellant (Mr. Thompson) can adequately prepare for his defense.”
The appeal of AG
The Attorney General also decided to appeal the appellate court’s decision to the supreme court because he was also not satisfied with the appellate court’s decision.
The Supreme Court, which had Justices Agnes MA Dordzie, Avril Lovelace-Johnson, Gertrude Torkonoo and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu as other members of the panel, in its ruling, upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision on the grounds that there was no merit in the AG Appeal on Wednesday March 17th of this year.
Alleged OBS scandal
In June 2010, SSNIT initiated the $ 34 million OBS project to use Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to revamp its operations and enable it to provide a state-of-the-art pension management system in the country.
It is the case of the Prosecutor’s Office that between September 2013 and September 2016 the five defendants incurred in various illegalities that caused economic losses to the State in relation to said project.
The contract sum, the prosecution said, also skyrocketed from $ 34 million to more than $ 66 million, despite the fact that the OBS system did not function efficiently as the project contract had envisaged.
[ad_2]
