The Supreme Court has dismissed another application filed by convener of #FixTheCountry Movement, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, asking it to strike out the decision of an Accra High Court which dismissed his motion to strike out his committal proceedings.
A five-member panel of the court presided over by the Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah, dismissed the application on ground that the High Court was right to have dismissed his case and ordered for an amendment of the charge sheet.
Oliver Barker-Vormawor has been charged with two counts of treason felony after he had indicated on his Facebook and Twitter handles that he will undertake a coup, calling the Ghana Military “useless” in the process.
He had asked the High Court to strike out the committal proceedings on which he was committed to stand trial, on ground that he was charged with treason felony and high treason which sins against the rule of duplicity.
The court, presided over by Justice Mary Yanzuh, in her ruling, dismissed the motion to strike out the committal proceedings but upheld his other application seeking to strike out the charges on the Bill of Indictment on grounds of duplicity and multiplicity, and ordered the prosecution to amend the charges levelled against him to reflect what the law says.
Not satisfied with the decision, the accused through his counsel filed a motion at the Supreme Court seeking a certiorari to strike out the High Court’s decision.
Moving the motion, his counsel, Justice Srem-Sai, argued that the particulars of the offence indicated that Barker-Vormawor has caused both treason felony and high treason, and this sins against the rule of duplicity and multiplicity.
He said the committal court took into consideration the particulars to the chats on social media, and committed him to stand trial at the High Court.
He maintained that the prosecution cannot be asked to amend the particulars of the charges as directed by the High Court.
The application was opposed by Hilda Craig, a Principal State Attorney who argued that the accused did not properly invoke the jurisdiction of the court, as the error complained about should be a fundamental one to invoke the Supreme Court’s supervisory authority.
She said the High Court acted within its jurisdiction when it ordered the prosecution to amend the charge sheet, and the trial judge did not exceed her jurisdiction when she gave that order.
The five-member panel, in its ruling, said the errors complained of is within the jurisdiction of the court, and the court was right to order for an amendment of the particulars of the charges.
The court, therefore, dismissed the application.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak