A prosecution witness has spent about three months under cross-examination by Samuel Atta Akyea, a situation Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr. Justice Srem-Sai says reinforces his suspicion that attempts to halt proceedings during the legal vacation are intended to delay the trial.
Speaking with Sena Numbo on Radio Gold, Dr. Srem-Sai said the witness is the prosecution’s final witness in the case and has remained in the witness box largely because of the prolonged cross-examination.
He said the situation eventually compelled the trial judge to intervene, directing counsel to concentrate on relevant questions and granting one final sitting to conclude the cross-examination.
According to the Deputy Attorney-General, that final sitting was expected to take place on Tuesday and would have allowed the prosecution to close its case.
Dr. Srem-Sai argued that contrary to the impression that the defence would be required to participate in extensive proceedings throughout the legal vacation, only one day of substantive trial was required to complete the prosecution’s case.
Once the cross-examination ends, he explained, the defence would be given time to file a submission of no case, after which the prosecution would respond before the judge delivers a ruling.
He said those processes would largely involve the filing and consideration of written submissions, meaning lawyers would not be required to continuously appear in court during the vacation.
Dr. Srem-Sai therefore questioned the resistance to the remaining sitting, arguing that a defence confident that the prosecution has failed to establish a case should ordinarily be interested in completing the cross-examination and proceeding with a submission of no case.
He alleged that the dispute over vacation sittings was consequently being used to prevent the trial from reaching that stage.
According to him, further delays could have wider implications for the case, as judges currently working during the legal vacation may subsequently take their leave when the regular court term resumes.
Dr. Srem-Sai maintained that the circumstances surrounding the case point to a broader attempt to slow proceedings rather than a genuine dispute over the observance of the legal vacation.
