The ongoing criminal trial involving former Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) Board Chair, Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, has taken a dramatic legal turn, as his lawyers seek to question the constitutionality of the charges levelled against him.
In a motion filed at the High Court, Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi’s legal team has requested that proceedings be suspended and key aspects of the case referred to the Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation. The development has thrown a spotlight on the controversial application of a 1977 law—SMCD 140—in modern-day prosecutions.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi, a seasoned academic and public servant, is on trial alongside Solomon Asamoah, former CEO of GIIF, over the contentious Sky Train project. Both men are facing charges of causing financial loss to the state and willful dissipation of public funds. However, the defence now argues that the case against Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi is not only premature but potentially unconstitutional.
Central to their argument is the contention that Sections 1 and 7 of the Public Property Protection Law, 1977 (SMCD 140), conflict with Article 19 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, which outlines the right to a fair trial. Section 1 criminalises intentional dissipation or misuse of public property, carrying up to ten years in prison. Section 7 goes further to hold directors or officers liable for corporate offences, unless they can prove due diligence or distance from the offence.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi’s legal team has invoked Article 130(2) of the Constitution, which mandates lower courts to refer such constitutional matters to the Supreme Court for determination. They argue that the interpretation and enforcement of Article 19 in the context of SMCD 140 should be settled before the trial proceeds.
The defence is also urging the High Court to stay proceedings entirely until the Supreme Court provides clarity on the constitutionality of the charges.
In a related procedural shift, the Attorney General’s office has revised its approach to the case, withdrawing four witness statements and indicating that it now intends to call eight witnesses instead of the original twelve.
The High Court is expected to rule on the motion on July 9, a decision that could significantly alter the course of the high-profile prosecution and potentially test the constitutional boundaries of criminal accountability in public office.
The outcome may not only determine Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi’s legal fate but could also set a broader precedent on how historical laws such as SMCD 140 interact with the protections guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution.
