Sunday

May 19th , 2024

FOLLOW US

CAPITAL BANK CASE: ATO ESSIEN’S JUDGMENT DAY NEARS

featured img
News

A year ago

The judge presiding over the case in which William Ato Essien, the founder of the bankrupt Capital Bank, and two others are on trial for misappropriating about GHc130 million in Liquidity Support to the Bank has suggested that the trial may be completed this month.

 

The hearing should take place in the next two or three sittings, according to Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, a Justice of the Court of Appeal with additional responsibilities as a High Court judge.

 

 

 

"I aim to finish by the end of the month," the trial judge intimated, "so we may have to leave here by 2:30 or 3 p.m. so that we may finish in the next two or three sittings."

 

 

 

This indicates that if you're looking for a unique way to express yourself, This indicates that a judgement date might be set for the month, and if the trial concludes this month as the court has indicated, the attorneys will be instructed to file their written addresses, and a judgement date will be set.

After calling 17 witnesses, the prosecution has concluded its case.

 

Tettey Nettey, the first accused person, and William Ato Essien, the second accused person, have both closed their cases in the two-year-old trial.

 

 

 

On Thursday, June 8, the third accused person, Rev. Fitzgerald Odonkor, the former Managing Director (MD) of the capital bank, finished his evidence-in-chief and is now being cross-examined.

 

 

 

 

 

The objection has been overruled.

 

 

 

On Thursday, June 8, Justice Kyei Baffour overruled an objection by Ato Essien's attorneys, led by Baffour Gyawu Bonsu Ashia, to the submission of an audio tape taken by the "Special Investigations Teams (SIT)" during the interrogation of the accused people.

 

 

 

The third defendant was relying on the audio recording that had been made.  The recordings of the altercation between A1 and the special investigation team were made without A1's agreement, according to counsel.

 

He further claimed that the SIT neglected to advise A1 of his rights, and that the third accused individual, who was not present at the time of the recording, was not the creator of the recordings.

 

 

 

By order of the court

 

 

 

"Having listened to a portion of the recordings and being aware that, this tape was found by the prosecution and that, being in the hands of all the attorneys engaged in the case and being further satisfied," the court declared.

 

 

 

 

Meet the Author


PC
Emmanuel Amoabeng Gyebi

Content writer

follow me

INTERSTING TOPICS


Connect and interact with amazing Authors in our twitter community