Officials of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) picked up Kafui Bansah after it emerged that he had deliberately refused to enter the date for the hearing of the state’s appeal.
An official search from the Court of Appeal’s registry indicated that Bansah received hearing notices for two cases, including Woyome’s, on November 18, 2015, but he made entries for one, leaving out Woyome’s.
Woyome’s case was billed for hearing on November 26, 2015.
However, on the said date, no official from the A-G’s Department was in court.
A highly placed source from the A-G’s office told the Daily Graphic: “We only got to know of the case through online portal reports which indicated that we were absent in court.”
“We have filed a 72-page detailed address justifying why Woyome’s freedom should be curtailed. Why then would we fail to appear in court?” it said.
“You will notice from the dispatch book of the Court of Appeal that on November 18, 2015, processes in two cases were served on us, namely, The Republic v. Woyome and Stephen Nyarko v. The Republic.
“Our clerk signed for both of them. However, he entered only the Stephen Nyarko case in our records and did not enter the hearing notice on Woyome’s,” the source noted.
Bansah, the source explained, would be processed for court after investigations.
He is currently on interdiction.
The state and Woyome have filed written submissions at the Court of Appeal for and against Woyome’s acquittal.
While the state is calling on the court to quash a High Court judgement which freed Woyome of any wrongdoing in the GH¢51.2 million case, the latter is praying the court to dismiss the state’s appeal.
A 72-page submission filed by the prosecution is asking the Court of Appeal to curtail Woyome’s freedom and imprison him accordingly on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law in acquitting and discharging the businessman of defrauding by false pretences and causing financial loss to the state.
But the defence team is of the view that the state failed to concretely justify why the March 12, 2015 High Court judgement should be overturned.