|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Former Chief Executive of COCOBOD, Dr. Stephen Opuni has petitioned the Chief Justice to stop Justice Clemence Honyenuga from being a judge in his own case.
The application to get Justice Honyenuga, a justice of the Supreme Court sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court, to recuse himself has been fixed for Thursday December 16, 2021.
The trial judge has been accused of being bias and showing open hostility towards Dr. Opuni.
For four years running, the judge has been hearing the trial of former COCOBOD boss, Dr. Stephen Opuni and businessman Seidu Agongo accused of causing financial loss to the state and contravention of the Public Procurement Act.
The latest application is the third time Justice Honyenuga has been hit with a motion to recuse himself. He sat on a previous application and threw it away, paving way for him to continue hearing the case.
But Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, is now being asked to stop that practice from continuing.
“I state that this motion for recusal has been fixed for hearing before his Lordship Justice Honyenuga. I state further that this act of fixing the motion which seeks the recusal of his Lordship Justice Honyenuga would result in Justice Honyenuga hearing a case in which he is the subject of recusal and would therefore result in his Lordship being a judge in his own case.
“I therefore petition you and humbly request that this motion for recusal be placed for hearing before another judge. This in my opinion would ensure that his Lordship Justice Honyenuga would not be a judge in his own case,” the petition to the Chief Justice read in part.
On Monday, when the application was brought to the attention of Justice Honyenuga, lawyer Samuel Codjoe who is the counsel for Dr. Opuni cited a ruling by former Chief Justice, Mrs. Georgina Wood, to remind the court of the impropriety of the judge sitting on his own case.
“My Lord, I will also refer My Lord, to the case of The Republic Vs High Court, Exparte Agbeshie Awusu II No 2 and it is reported in 2003 to 2004 Vol 2 of SCGLR at page 907. And My Lord, Wood JSC as she then was held that in the case where allegations of bias the Judge should not sit on the motion which seeks his recusal and that if the judge sat on such a case, he will be a judge in his own case and that will be a breach of the rules of natural justice on page 919.”
In the recusal application at the high court, Dr. Stephen Opuni pointed out “that the conduct of His Lordship Justice Clemence Honyenuga since I opened my defence is one of open hostility towards me, his acts and conduct is such that justice cannot be said to be seen to be done”.
According to Dr. Opuni, he is convinced that the conducts of Justice Honyenuga breached his right to a fair hearing and also constitute a breach of Rule 3 (5) of the code of conduct for judges and magistrates, which stipulates that:
“A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice, A Judge shall not, in the performance of Judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, and shall requite Court personnel and others not to do so.”
The affidavit in support of the motion also noted: “That I state that unless the learned trial judge recuses himself from hearing this matter, I would be denied a fair trial since I would be prevented from conducting the case in a way which I am entitled to by making references in this instance to specific portions of the ruling.
“That I state further that the fact that the learned trial judge is biased is further evidenced from his conduct of the 2nd day of December, 2021, where the learned trial judge, even though aware of the fact that I had the constitutional right of deciding the mode of calling witnesses, initially objected to DW1 giving evidence. This was most unfortunate in that at no point in time during the presentation of the case by Prosecution did he seek in any way whatsoever and or howsoever to instruct on the sequence of calling their witnesses.
“That I state further that the learned judge has repeated on numerous occasions since I opened my defence that his diary at the Supreme Court does not afford him enough time hence his act of imposing these said dates. It is thus clear to me that I will not get a fair trial as my trial would be rushed through by his Lordship the trial judge”.
