OSP accuses Cecilia Dapaah of attempting to prevent them from replying her affidavit.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor has accused former Sanitation Minister, Cecilia Dapaah of attempting to prevent the republic from replying to her affidavit in opposition to the application for confirmation of freezing and seizure orders.
This is in response to an application for abridgement of time for the hearing of the confirmation application.
The lawyers of Cecilia Dapaah and her husband had argued that the application to abridge the time for the hearing of a case is premised on grounds that the delay in hearing the matter is ‘causing undue hardships to the respondents’ and the application for confirmation is a repeat application hence the office of the special prosecutor will not be ‘prejudiced by the granting of their application to abridge time’
Lawyers from the office of the special prosecutor, however, opposed the application claiming that Cecilia Dapaah and her husband are seeking to prevent them from ‘responding to their affidavit in opposition to the substantive application for confirmation of freezing and seizure orders’
The instant application is aimed at getting the court to hear the application to confirm the orders to seize the money found in her home and her frozen bank accounts earlier than the return date of October 18.
Lawyers of Cecilia Dapaah led by Victoria Barth say the application for the abridgement of time is further grounded by the failure of the office of the special prosecutor to serve the confirmation application on them earlier.
According to the lawyers, even though their client served notice of her decision to waive her right to personal service to the application filed on September 5, it was not served on them until September 20.
But lawyers from the office of the special prosecutor argued that the said request was irregular as their process is ‘an originating notice on the motion which is a process that requires personal service.’
But Cecilia Dapaah’s lawyers opposed this view saying ‘It cannot be correct that a party is not entitled to waive personal service of a process and to say I have instructed a lawyer to receive on my behalf’
Cecilia Dapaah also grounds this application on an assertion that the confirmation application filed on September 5 is a repeat of an application that was dismissed on August 31.
According to her lawyers, ‘On August 8, 2023, the respondent filed an application for the same reliefs as those in their application with the return date of October 18. That earlier application was premised on the same events and information which they seek to rely upon in the second application and that is why I call it a repeat application.’
But the anti-graft body says this view is based on a misconception. Lawyers for the OSP indicated that ‘The substantive application is a fresh process unfettered by any prior considerations. This application is originating from events of September 5 and not on July 24.’
The legal team of the office of the Special Prosecutor also argued in court that the application for abridgement should be dismissed as they intend to file a supplementary affidavit to the application for confirmation of the seizure and freezing orders.
They argued that this is essential as Cecilia Dapaah through her lawyers said in open court that they are not opposed to the application.
But Cecilia Dapaah’s lawyers further waiving their rights to supplementary affidavits urged the court to admit the documents and instantly allow for the main case to be heard earlier than the October 18 date.
Victoria prayed the court to accept the application to abridge the time as the opposition to the application has no merit.
OTHER NEWS: GBC needs new Director General – workers demand removal current Director
Meanwhile, the court has adjourned the case to 3 p.m. later today for a ruling.
