High Court Admits Emails Linking Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund to Accra Sky Train Project
The High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, has admitted into evidence a set of email correspondences and accompanying attachments referencing the Accra Sky Train project, identifying it as one of the investments under the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF).
The admitted documents include an email thread dated September 2020 which lists the Sky Train project among GIIF investments affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The contents of the emails directly contradict testimony earlier given by the prosecution’s first witness, Mr. Yaw Odame-Darkwa, who had told the court that the Sky Train project was mentioned only once at a board meeting and that the board minutes did not accurately reflect discussions or decisions on the project.
Contradictions Emerge Under Cross-Examination
During cross-examination, counsel for the first accused person, Mrs. Victoria Barth, sought to establish that the Sky Train project had been discussed on several occasions at board level, thereby challenging the credibility of the prosecution’s witness.
Mrs. Barth tendered an email sent in 2020 by the Secretary to the GIIF Board, which was circulated to board members and contained 15 attachments. Some of the attachments, including a risk report, made explicit reference to the Accra Sky Train as an “existing project” within GIIF’s investment portfolio.
According to the defence, the same witness, in his capacity as Chairman of the Audit Committee, had himself authored and circulated a report to the full Board discussing the impact of COVID-19 on GIIF’s investments, again listing the Sky Train project as an approved investment. The defence argued that this materially contradicts the witness’s claim that the project had not received board approval.
Deputy AG Objects to Admissibility
Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, objected to the admission of the emails, questioning their relevance under Sections 51 and 52 of the Evidence Act. He argued that the central issues before the court are whether the GIIF Board approved the investment and whether parliamentary approval was obtained for the transaction as an international financial arrangement.
According to the Deputy AG, the documents tendered did not directly address these issues and were therefore irrelevant to the determination of the case.
Court Overrules Objection
Mrs. Barth countered that the emails were received by both the witness and the full Board and were relevant in testing the accuracy, consistency and credibility of the witness’s testimony. She maintained that the documents corroborate the board minutes and demonstrate that the Sky Train project was treated internally as an existing and approved investment.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Kocuvie-Tay overruled the objection and admitted the email correspondence and attachments into evidence.
Background to the Case
In 2019, GIIF invested US$2 million for a 10 per cent equity stake in Africa Investor Skytrain Consortium Holdings, the company developing the Accra Sky Train light rail project. The Africa Investor Group was selected by the Government of Ghana through the Ministry of Railways Development to develop the project.
At the time, Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi served as Board Chairman of GIIF, while Mr. Solomon Asamoah was the Chief Executive Officer.
Following a change of government in December 2024, the Office of the Attorney-General initiated criminal proceedings against the former GIIF Chairman and CEO, alleging that the investment was made without board approval and resulted in financial loss to the state, citing the absence of a completed railway project.
The charges do not allege personal benefit or diversion of funds, and no officials from the Ministry of Railways Development or the project sponsors have been charged.
Earlier in the proceedings, some state witnesses who initially faced charges of causing financial loss to the state were discharged after indicating that they did not approve the transaction, a development that has raised questions about the consistency and reliability of the prosecution’s case.
The trial continues.
