High Court presided over Justice Audrey Kokuvie-Tay has ordered the first prosecution witness in the case of the Republic versus Solomon Asamoah and another (Sky Train Case), Mr Yaw Odame-Darkwa, to retrieve and produce some 16 emails he received from the former Chief Executive Officer, CEO of Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Solomon Asamoah to the Court at its next sitting on Tuesday, 16 December 2025.
The Court made the order after the defence lawyer (lawyer for the 1st accused), Victoria Barth Esq., sought to confirm from the prosecution witness, Odame-Darkwa, if he indeed received those emails that pertained to the Sky Train project from the CEO, Mr. Solomon Asamoah, when he served as a member of the board of directors of GIIF.
Ms. Victoria Barth requested that the prosecution witness retrieve the emails from his smartphone, which he had brought to court, since the email addresses were “Yahoo” and “Gmail” accounts that could easily be accessed on a smartphone or laptop with internet provided by the court.
However, Mr. Odame-Darkwa indicated in Court that, in this age of AI (Artificial Intelligence), anything is possible, so he is more comfortable retrieving the emails on his own computer and internet access point and not one supplied by any other source.
Witness Statement
From paragraphs 10 to 14 of his 16-paragraph witness statement, Mr Yaw Odame-Darkwa stated as follows:
“During my tenure, the Board approved funding for several infrastructure projects.
“I wish to state that the Sky Train concept was only introduced at one of our Board meetings.
“The Board did not receive any substantive proposal on the Sky Train project, and hence we did not deliberate or take any decision on the project.
“Additionally, the Investment Committee did not recommend the Sky Project to the Board for approval.”
“To the best of my knowledge, the Sky Train project has not been tabled for consideration at any Board Meeting.”
If the emails that the defence lawyers are seeking to confirm are valid, it will effectively render the evidence of the 1st prosecution witness (Mr Yaw Odame-Darkwa) that he never heard of the Sky Train project until the Auditor General’s report was released, completely inconsistent with the truth.
Cross-examination
During the continuation, Mr Yaw Odame-Darkwa’s cross-examination in Court today, Wednesday, 10 December 2025, Ms Victoria Barth first asked;
Question: Before board meetings were held to discuss new projects or existing projects, there would usually be a preceding meeting of the investment committee (IC) of the board of GIIF. Is that not so?
Answer: Because you used usually, the answer is yes.
Question: The investment committee of which you were a member would usually receive an email notice from either the acting secretary, Kofi Boakye, the CEO (A1), or Harriet Aban, the substantive company secretary. Is that correct?
Answer: Yes
Question: These email notices would usually include the agenda and documents or board pacts for the upcoming meeting of the investment committee. Is that not so?
Answer: Yes
Question: During your tenure on the board of GIIF, some of the projects that the IC considered at its meetings included the Safari Hotel project, Maha Hotel Resort, Woodfields (Fidelity) Tank Farm, and Emirates Capital. Is that correct?
Answer: Yes
Question: I am going to show you some email correspondence on the meeting of the IC on 31/7/18 and 28/718, which dealt with some of the projects I have just mentioned to you.
First, I’m showing you an email of Saturday, July 28, 2018, sent at 6:48 pm on the subject Investment Committee 31 July 2 pm from Solomon Asamoah to you and other board members. There are other emails following up on Monday 30 July at 10:27 am with an attached portfolio update report. These are emails that you received, is that not so?
Answer: That is what it looks like. I would need time to look at it and confirm.
Question: Have you deleted the e-sims that you received while you were at the GIIF board from your email account?
Answer: No.
Question: So, if this court provides a computer with internet access, you would be able to retrieve these emails from your inbox even now, is that not so?
Answer: Not now
Question: If the first accused is called upon to go into his email account on a device provided by the court with internet access right now and the emails are retrieved, would that help you confirm that you received these emails?
Answer: In this era of AI, anything can be done. So, I’ll trust what I would retrieve from my own mail. That is, I’m asking the court to give me time to go through my personal email.
Question: Mr. Yaw Odame-Darkwa, time is of the essence, and there are many emails to be shown to you. So, it should be possible for you right here and right now to go into that smartphone of yours and retrieve the emails in question. Is it not possible?
Answer: My Lady, it is not possible because I’m not using that email right now, and I cannot access it now.
Question: You have internet access on your phone, don’t you?
Answer: Yes
Question: Your email addresses are a Yahoo email address and a Gmail address, is that not so?
Answer: Yes
Question: You are aware that you can access your email address by going online to sign in to Yahoo, are you not?
Answer: Yes, I’m aware.
Question: Then, for the sincerity of that email in your account to be preserved, I am suggesting that it must be retrieved right now from your phone. I’m suggesting to you that it is possible to retrieve it from your phone right now.
Answer: My Lady, it is not possible.
Request for Court Order
To this end, Ms Victoria Barth prayed the court to order the witness to access those emails with internet support that would be provided to him. However, principal state attorney Sefakor Batse urged the court to allow the witness to independently retrieve the emails and supply the same to the court at the next adjourned date.
Ms Victoria Barth further indicated in court that “to enable the witness, do a comprehensive verification,” she provided specific details of the 16 emails the defence is seeking to retrieve from the email of the witness.
By Court
“Flowing from the cross-examination and submission of learned counsels, it is my considered view that the witness should be given time to verify and confirm, and if possible, also produce that which requires an evaluation.
“In the circumstances, the witness would be ordered to provide them on the next date, which is 15 December 2025,” Justice Audrey Kokuvie-Tay’s court ruled.
Background
In 2019, the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) invested US$2 million for a 10% stake in Africa Investor Skytrain Consortium Holdings (“Ai Skytrain”), the company developing Accra’s Skytrain light railway project.
The Africa Investor Group (the “Sponsors”) was selected and granted the rights to develop the project by the Government of Ghana (“GoG”) through the Ministry of Railways Development (“MORD”).
At the time, the Chairman of GIIF was Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was Mr Solomon Asamoah. The Chairman had previously been a member of the GoG. Mr. Asamoah was an international development banker who had been head-hunted into the position from a UK recruitment agency.
Following a change of government in Ghana in December 2024, the GoG, through the office of the Attorney General of Ghana, now alleges that this action was taken without Board approval, resulting in a willful financial loss to the state, as there is as yet “no railway built”.
It should be noted that there are no allegations of personal gain or diversion of funds in the charges, and the state has not charged anyone from MORD or the GoG-selected sponsors; only the GIIF Chairman and CEO have been charged.
The state witnesses who initially faced charges of causing financial loss to the state themselves dropped these charges after stating they did not approve the project, casting significant doubt on the reliability of their statements.
The prosecution’s case is built almost entirely on these statements to show that a legitimate transaction was “unauthorized”, without which there would be no case to answer.
“The prosecution’s case appears to be politically motivated, intended to fulfill a campaign promise to prosecute members of the previous government. It is unsupported by the facts, relying on demonstrably false witness statements,” a lawyer familiar with the case stated on condition of anonymity.
Source: Wilberforce Asare
