The Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP) has appealed to the Chief Justice to bring in a new judge to preside over Cecilia Dapaah’s corruption case.
The matter is presently in the hands of Justice Edward Twum, who recently ordered the OSP to release cash confiscated from the former minister’s apartment.
The OSP agreed, but on the same fateful day, it seized the money once again and issued a fresh freezing order.
Prosecutors then filed fresh court processes, asking the High Court to attest to this new seizure and freeze order.
The case was to be heard on October 18, but Madam Dapaah urged the court to have an expedited hearing, explaining she was being subjected to disgrace and untold hardship.
The request was granted by Justice Twum as he adjourned proceedings to October 12.
Justice Twum announced on October 12 that he had received a letter indicating that the OSP was asking for a new judge to sit on the case.
The letter’s substance did not sit well with the former minister’s attorneys, who expressed their displeasure. According to lead lawyer Victoria Barth, the OSP did not even bother to appear in court.
She further described the request as a lazy move geared towards frustrating Madam Dapaah.
“We see it as a deliberate ploy to frustrate this morning’s hearing and a desperate attempt to avoid his own ill-fated application and there shall be a day of reckoning. He says he’s the conscience of the nation he should, he should be above this”
The former minister has also been charged with failing to comply with the lawful demand of an authorised office.
The OSP has also made the same request to the Chief Justice. Ms. Barth was again not happy with the order. She stressed that her client was not even informed about this case.
“This charge sheet, save from being casually handed to the accused persons by persons suspected to be from the OSP, was not properly served. Didn’t have summons or a return date,” she stated.
The issue is not clear which specific issue the OSP is raising against the judge, but three news sources believe it primarily has to do with the initial stance taken by the judge not to confirm the freezing order. October 18 is slated for another hearing.
