The Supreme Court has dismissed an application filed by Solomon Asamoah, the first accused in the $2 million SkyTrain case, seeking to overturn decisions made by the trial court. Asamoah had argued that the trial judge acted beyond her jurisdiction and made findings that could prejudice his defence.
The five-member panel, presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang and comprising Justices Samuel Asiedu, Hafisata Amaleboba, Sophia Bernasco-Esaah and Anthony Forson, ruled that the application lacked merit. The court consequently dismissed his applications for certiorari and prohibition.
Alleged excesses
Moving the application before the court on Wednesday, October 14, counsel for Asamoah, Prince Asafo-Agyei, said it was filed on August 21, 2026, to challenge a July 2, 2026 ruling by the High Court dismissing his client’s submission of no case to answer. He argued that the trial judge had acted beyond her jurisdiction by making conclusive findings on whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to justify a conviction at that stage of the trial. According to counsel, the judge overstepped her authority by making findings that were inappropriate when determining a submission of no case to answer.
Counsel also contended that on July 30, 2026, the judge reviewed Asamoah’s bail conditions while considering an application for a stay of proceedings, without first giving him an opportunity to respond. He specifically objected to the judge’s alleged remark that Asamoah was “the direct cause of the loss”, arguing that the statement went beyond the issues the court was required to determine at that stage and had the potential to prejudice his client’s defence.
Bail conditions
Mr. Asafo-Agyei further contested the trial court’s decision to reinstate the applicant’s original bail conditions, which require him to report monthly until the conclusion of the trial. He argued that the applicant was neither notified nor given the opportunity to be heard before the ruling was made. He also noted that no formal application had been filed before the court seeking a review or variation of the bail terms.
Counsel maintained that the combined effect of the judge’s findings, the modification of the bail conditions, and what he described as proceedings conducted off the record on July 2, 2026, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that his client would not be afforded a fair and impartial hearing.
Opposed
Opposing the application, Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai dismissed the complaint concerning the bail conditions as unfounded. He explained that the accused had applied for a variation of his bail conditions on February 9, 2026, with the adjustment intended to remain in effect only while the trial continued. He said that once the period covered by the variation expired, the trial judge simply reverted to the original bail conditions.
“We do not see any injustice in this case,” he told the court. Addressing the claim that the trial judge had exceeded her jurisdiction, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the applicant’s position stemmed from a misunderstanding of the elements of the offence. He further maintained that the allegations forming the basis of the application for prohibition were without merit and failed to demonstrate any element of bias on the part of the trial judge.
Background
Mr. Asamoah, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), and Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, a former Board Chairman of the fund, are facing trial over an alleged $2 million payment linked to the proposed Accra SkyTrain project, which was never realised.
According to the prosecution, the funds were transferred from GIIF’s account to South Africa-based Africa Investor Holdings Limited without the required approval of the GIIF Board. Both accused persons have denied any wrongdoing and have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
