Treason felony: Barker-Vormawor asks High Court to Stay Proceedings as he appeals against ruling

Political activist, Oliver Barker-Vormawor has filed a motion on notice seeking an order of the High Court in Accra to “Stay of Proceedings” as he appeals against Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh High ruling on May 27.

Barker-Vormawor through his lawyers led by Dr Justice Srem Sai, per the motion said, wants a Stay of proceedings in the suit, pending the determination of the appeal in the notice of appeal dated, May 29, 2024.

They also want the Court to “Make any other order(s) which the honorable Court deems fit.”

On May 27, Justice Mary Yanzuh dismissed his request to refer to the Supreme Court “Whether Section 182 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) is inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 3(2), Article 3(3), Article19(11), or Article 21(1)(a) & (b) of the 1992 Constitution.”

Unhappy with the ruling of the Court, he has filed a motion on notice to appeal against the ruling and has asked the High Court to Stay Proceedings pending his appeal.

Background

In his Affidavit in support of the motion filed on June 24, 2024, Barker-Vormawor submitted that, on April 29, 2024, he caused a motion to be filed challenging the constitutionality of “my trial.”

He prayed the High Court to Stay the Proceedings and refer the question to the Supreme Court for determination, as to “Whether Section 182 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) is inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 3(2), Article 3(3), Article19(11), or Article 21(1)(a) & (b) of the 1992 Constitution.”

The prosecution on May 20, 2024, opposed his motion for referral of the said section to the Supreme Court for interpretation.

On May 27, 2024, the Court presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh heard arguments from the parties and subsequently dismissed Barker-Vormawor’s motion.

The Court then ordered that the trial be commenced on July 2, 2024.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Barker-Vormawor who is facing two counts of treason felony caused his lawyers to appeal the ruling at the Court of Appeal.

The affidavit in support of a motion for Stay of Proceedings further stated that the matters raised in the motion, and which are also a subject of the appeal are matters which: “Go, head-on, to the jurisdiction of this honorable Court, deeply imperil my fundamental human rights and freedoms, and Severely implicate the constitutionality of the charges and the trial as whole.”

He was also of the belief that his notice of appeal “occasion exceptional circumstances,” and that “this is a proper case where the (High) Court ought to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the determination of the appeal.”

Grounds of appeal

They are challenging the “entire ruling” of the Court dated, May 27.

In his stated grounds of appeal, his lawyers contended that “the learned trial judge erred in law by assuming jurisdiction to interpret Article 3(3) of the 1992 Constitution,”

They also contended that “the learned trial judge erred in law by holding that the Applicant/Appellant’s motion does not raise a question for a referral to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the Constitution.”

His lawyers also pointed out that, “the learned trial judge erred in law by holding that the Applicant/Appellant’s motion does not raise a question for a referral to the Supreme Court for the interpretation of the Constitution.”

“That the decision is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the law and the evidence; and additional grounds to be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Court,” they stated.

The application, which was supposed to have been moved on July 2, was adjourned to July 25, because the Prosecution said they were not served.

Background

On June 1, 2923, the #FixTheCountry convener Oliver Barker-Vormawor arraigned and charged with two counts of treason felony refused to plead to charges he described as “defective” in open court.

His reason was that the amended charge sheet filed by the prosecution was defective and he exercised his rights under Section 238 of the Criminal Offences Code not to respond to the charges.

The Criminal Division of the Accra High Court presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzu after making references to statutes entered a not-guilty plea for the accused on both counts.

The accused is on bail.

The Ashaiman District Court had on August 1, 2022, committed him for trial at the High Court for two counts of Treason felony.

Oliver Barker-Vormawor was indicted by the State on two counts of treason felony contrary to section 182(b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and treason felony contrary to section 182(b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

Section 238—Refusal to Plead

Section 238 of the Criminal Offense Act, Act 1960 stipulates as follows;

If any accused being arraigned upon, or charged with, any indictment, stands mute of malice, or neither will, nor by reason of infirmity can answer directly to the indictment, the Court, if it thinks fit, may cause a plea of “not guilty” to be entered on behalf of the accused, and the plea so entered shall have the same force and effect as if the accused had so pleaded; or else the Court shall thereupon proceed to try or, if the case is triable by jury under section 242 or 245 cause a jury to be empaneled to try whether the accused be of sound or unsound mind, and if he is found of sound mind shall proceed with the trial, and if he is found of unsound mind, and consequently incapable of making his defense, shall proceed in the manner provided by section 133 which shall apply accordingly.