Capital Bank trial: Judgement day nears as judge hints of finishing trial in June

The judge presiding over the case in which the founder of the defunct Capital Bank, William Ato Essien, and two others are standing trial over the misappropriation of some GHC130M Liquidity Support to the Bank has hinted at wrapping up the trial this month.

Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the hearing should be done in the next two or three sittings.

“I intend to wrap up before the end of this month and so we may have to leave here by 2:30 pm or 3 pm so that in the next two or three sittings, we will be done,” the trial judge hinted.

According to EIB Network’s Court Correspondent what this means is that a judgement date could be fixed in the month. And if the trial ends this month as hinted by the judge, then, the lawyers would be directed to file their written addresses and a judgement date would be fixed.

So far, the prosecution has closed its case after calling 17 witnesses.

William Ato Essien, the first accused person and Tettey Nettey, the second accused person have both closed their cases in the trial that started about two years ago.

The third accused person – Rev. Fitzgerald Odonkor, the former Managing Director (MD) of the capital bank also ended his evidence-in-chief on Thursday, June 8, and is facing cross-examination.

Objection overruled

In court on Thursday, June 8, Justice Kyei Baffour overruled an objection from lawyers of Ato Essien led by Baffour Gyawu Bonsu Ashia to the tendering of an audio recording obtained by the “Special Investigations Teams (SIT)” when the accused persons were being interrogated.

The third accused person was relying on that audio recording produced by the prosecution to buttress his evidence.

It was the contention of counsel that, the recordings of the confrontation between A1 and the special investigation team were done without the consent of A1.

He also argued that the SIT failed to inform A1 of his right and was of the view that the third accused person was also not the author of the recordings since he was not present when the recording took place.

By court

The court after listening to the parties ruled that “having listened to a part of the recordings and being aware that, this recording was discovered by the prosecution and that, being in the custody of all the lawyers involved in the case and being further satisfied that, the lawyer for A1 had played and listened to the recording based on which he even raised an objection from restraining the court from listening to it, it is the opinion of the court that for effective management of the proceedings of this trial, no injustice will be occasioned to any party, if the court was to stop playing of the recordings.”

To this point, the said, “at this juncture and to further proceed with the trial and as stated, that, all the lawyers have had access and played the recordings and are very much conversant with its content, I will listen to the full content of the audios in due time.”

The case has been adjourned to Thursday, June 16, 2022 for continuation.