Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, Former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), says the Accra High Court trying him for causing financial loss to the State has no other legal option than to acquit him.
He said in view of admissions made by the Prosecution and new evidence that had been adduced as the trial proceeded, there was no legal basis for his trial to continue.
This is contained in a 'motion on notice for taking of further evidence' that he has filled at the Court, which would be moved on Tuesday June 17, 2008.
The motion seeks an order granting leave for the Defence to "call further evidence in this case and upon the evidence being heard for Counsel for the parties to be heard in respect of the legal effect of the further evidence adduced".
In an affidavit accompanying the motion, Mr Tsikata quotes relevant portions of the Supreme Court of Ghana Law Reports which states: "But the larger questions remain as to whether there was a financial loss to GNPC as a result of the acts complained of by the Prosecution; and whether such loss, if any, was occasioned by the appellant as the then Chief Executive of the Corporation.
"It is important to re-emphasise that the responsibility of this Court at this stage is simply to determine whether prima facie evidence has been led on such matters."
Mr. Tsikata said the Majority decision stated: "We disagree with submission by the Director of Public Prosecution in his statement of case to the effect that because GNPC is a State institution funded by State resources, repayment of the loan to Caisse Francaise upon default by Valley Farm is ipso facto 'a loss to the State and a drain on the national coffers.' The Prosecution would need to establish more than this in order to secure an actual conviction in court under this statute."
Mr. Tsikata said: "In the Supreme Court, during the hearing of the appeal in respect of whether the IFC has immunity from the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Republic has explicitly admitted in court documents and in oral submissions before the Supreme Court that the Republic is not contesting the viability of the investment that has been made in the Valley Farms."
He said these admissions of the Republic were currently not part of the proceedings, adding; "Indeed if at the hearing of the submission of no case by the Trial Judge, there had been such admissions by the Prosecution and the reliance by the Prosecution on the very evidence of PW1 that my Counsel relied on, the Trial Judge would have had no option but to acquit me at that stage."
"If the admission now made before the Supreme Court had been made in the previous Supreme Court hearing of the appeal in respect of the submission of no case, the Supreme Court also would have had no option but to acquit me," Mr Tsikata said.
He said: "Such important and relevant admissions having been made in the course of the further proceedings, it is necessary that they now be made a part of the record of the proceedings in the High Court.
"I am advised by Counsel and verily believe that the admissions stop the Republic from claiming that there has been a loss occasioned by my conduct," Mr Tsikata said.