The social media activist and convenor of the #FixTheCountry pressure group Oliver Barker-Vormawor has filed an application at the high court praying the court to throw out the Attorney General’s bill of indictment and summary of evidence filed against him.
Barker-Vormawor has been indicted by the state on two counts of treason felony, for actions described as contrary to Section 182(b) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29).
In court
In court on Thursday (13 October 2022), counsel for the #FixTheCountry convenor Justice Srem-Sia told the court, presided over by Justice Mary Yanzuh, that he has filed the said application and served it on the state.
Assistant State Attorney Alice Odame Koranteng said when she got to her feet that the Attorney General’s Department is yet to see the application.
However, she said, the state will get it and will respond appropriately. She therefore asked the court for an adjournment so she can do the needful.
By court
After hearing the parties, Justice Mary Yanzuh’s court ruled that the case cannot continue until the application of the accused person has been heard.
To that end, she adjourned sitting to Friday 21 October 2022, the applicant’s lawyers to move their motion.
Oliver’s contention
In the statement of case supporting the application for certiorari filed by lawyers for Oliver Barker-Vormawor on 6 October 2022, the applicant argues that, contrary to legal requirements, the record of the committal proceedings conducted at the district court will show that the committal magistrates failed properly to take the statutory statement by the applicant (Barker-Vormawor).
“Particularly, the committal magistrate: (a) failed to record the applicant’s statement accurately; (b) failed to allow the applicant the liberty to explain or add to the statement he made, thereby making the record a misrepresentation of the applicant’s statement; and, most importantly, (c) failed to allow the applicant to confirm, sign or attest to the statement which is attributed to him,” the statement of case says.
“All this, My Lord, makes it very doubtful, at best, that the committal magistrate truly considered the applicant’s statement in reaching the decision that a case has been made by the prosecution to warrant a committal.
“More particular is the fact that the magistrate did not even obtain the confirmation, signature or attestation of the applicant – that the statement she recorded and considered (if at all) was a true representation of the applicant’s statement – before going ahead to commit him to stand trial,” the statement of case further says.
“The applicant’s statutory statement, to the extent that it was taken in breach of clear mandatory and essential legal requirements was, in effect, not taken at all.
“The breach in question, we contend, is fundamental and does go right to the core of the committal proceedings itself, namely, whether the magistrate truly gave a hearing to the accused person before coming to the decision to commit him to stand trial,” Barker-Vormawor’s lawyer contends in his statement of case.
