Capital Bank case: Court rejects Ato Essien's request for further talks with AG
The request of the founder of Capital Bank, William Ato Essien, for an opportunity to appear before the Attorney General of the High Court in Accra has been rejected.
It comes after Ato Essien brokethe terms of the agreement that allowed him to avoid jail time by promising to repay GH¢90 million to the state, Myjoyonline.com reports. AtoEssien did not meet the payment deadline for the payment of GH¢20 million by April 28, 2023, after the firstpayment of GH¢34 million.
Based on his failure to meet the payment deadline, the Attorney General said they have no choice but to go back to court to enforce the arrest warrant. But Ato Essien's lawyers did not agree, however, asking the court to make the will of the law to grant such an agreement. Chief lawyer Thaddeus Sory insisted that his goal was to ensure recovery, saying that the businessman had only enteredfinancial difficulties, so the terms of the agreement could not be fulfilled. “Let's take a closer look at this. We emphasize that section 10 (4) of the Rules of Procedure requires the court to read every statute and consider the purpose of the statute and to interpret the statute. "We have put togetheran agreement that shows the amount that will come in. "Wealso want to draw the court'sattention to the fact that this event is a court-enforcement process that is being done to support the court's judgment against the defendant. case. "The court has the power in any case to suspend the exercise of its jurisdiction if there is good cause. We draw the court'sattention to Article 126(4) of the 1992 Act. "Monsignor has the right to make a final decision. You have the right to give further instructions," he said. However, DeputyAttorney General Alfred Tuah Yeboah insisted that the jail term was necessary. “The accused must respect the sanctity of his own contract.That is the spirit of section 35. In this case, the defendantbreached his own contract. “He's come to the end of the road. Therefore, the invitation to this court to stop the workand allow the accused to negotiate with the prosecution is a dangerous call and must be rejected. Instead, granting this request will send a dangerous signal to others that they maycome to court, agree to certainterms, violate those terms, and return to court for an extension. “The state is not interested in negotiating with the accused. Therefore, there will be no point in interrupting the process of the State doing whatit does not want to do,” Mr.Yeboah said. Chief Justice Eric Kyei Baffuor denied the petition saying hewas asking the court to clarifythe law. "First of all, being convicted in court, I think thatmens rea is a requirement in a criminal case before being convicted. Our stage is lookingat the application of the sentence of detention of libertyand I do not think that The petition Court found mens rea at this stage well founded. We have passed that stage. “I was also called to insert or interpret Article 35 of Law 459, by design but not literally. Telephoto is not a general control for the judge to interpret and to import into the text of the legislative provision any explanation that imposes illusions or illusions. “Therefore, I do not see the call of the learned counsel as to the correct interpretation of Article 35. "I don't think it isnecessary to answer the question of the amount that the convict paid and what should be done. I will state that in the motion of the Republic," he said. The court adjourned the case to May 17 to consider the issue of imprisonment.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0