The Supreme Court has dismissed an application filed by Solomon Asamoah, the first accused in the $2 million SkyTrain case, seeking to quash decisions of the trial court on allegations that the presiding judge exceeded her jurisdiction and made findings capable of prejudicing his defence.
The court, sitting as a five-member panel presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang, with Justices Samuel Asiedu, Hafisata Amaleboba, Sophia Bernasco-Esaah and Anthony Forson as members, held that the application ought to fail.
It accordingly refused the applications for certiorari and prohibition.
Allegations against the trial judge
Presenting the application on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, counsel for Asamoah, Prince Asafo-Agyei, said it was filed on August 21, 2026, to challenge the High Court’s ruling of July 2, 2026, which dismissed the accused person’s submission of no case to answer.
Counsel contended that the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction by making definitive findings on the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to warrant a conviction at that stage of the proceedings.
He argued that the judge went beyond the permissible scope of her authority by making findings that, in his view, should not have been made when determining a submission of no case to answer.
Mr Asafo-Agyei further alleged that on July 30, 2026, the judge reviewed the applicant’s bail conditions while considering an application for a stay of proceedings without allowing him to respond.
He particularly objected to the judge’s alleged statement that the applicant was “the direct cause of the loss”, arguing that the comment exceeded the issues the court was required to determine at that stage and could prejudice the defence.
Bail conditions and impartiality concerns
The applicant’s counsel also contested the trial court’s decision to revert Asamoah’s bail conditions to a requirement to report monthly until the conclusion of the trial.
He submitted that his client was not given notice of the decision or an opportunity to be heard, adding that no application had been brought before the court seeking a variation of the bail terms.
According to counsel, the combined effect of the judge’s findings, the alteration of the bail conditions and what he characterised as off-record proceedings on July 2, 2026, created a reasonable apprehension that his client would not receive an impartial hearing.
State opposes application
Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai, opposing the application, maintained that the complaint concerning the bail conditions had no basis.
He explained that the accused had applied for a variation of his bail conditions on February 9, 2026, and that the variation was granted subject to the continuation of the trial.
He said the trial judge merely restored the original conditions after the period covered by the variation expired.
“We do not see any injustice in this case,” he said.
Addressing the allegation of jurisdictional overreach, Dr Srem-Sai argued that the applicant’s position stemmed from a misapprehension of the elements of the offence.
He further submitted that the allegations forming the basis of the application for prohibition were unfounded and did not establish any element of bias.
Background
Asamoah, a former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), and Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, a former board chairman of the fund, stand trial over an alleged $2 million payment linked to the proposed Accra SkyTrain project, which was never constructed.
According to the prosecution, the money was transferred from GIIF’s account to Africa Investor Holdings Limited, a South African company, without the GIIF board’s required approval.
The two accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
