Accusations, which they afterwards refuted
While Dr. Opuni was mounting the defense, the prosecution had concluded its case after calling seven witnesses, and the defense had called seven witnesses as well, with more to come.
The trial docket earlier this month had to be moved by the then-Judge Honyenuga’s court to the Chief Justice for reassignment after the retired Supreme Court judge’s six-month extension to end the case expired.
Prosecution’s argument
Mrs. Evelyn Keelson, a Chief State Attorney, asked the court to uphold the earlier procedures and said that starting over would be significantly unfair to the state.
She suggested the court should examine the delays, the stage of the case, and the fact that the prosecution had completed its case and the first accused (Dr. Opuni) had summoned seven witnesses.
Mrs. Keelson claimed that because the issue has already been litigated, heard by the Supreme Court, and subject to numerous judgements, refusing to start the case “de Novo” (from scratch) will result in an injustice.
Instead of arguing that the case should be reopened, the chief state’s attorney claimed that adopting the existing proceedings would not result in a miscarriage of justice for the accused.
Starting this case “de novo” will assist the accused by lengthening the case, the government argues, and “it will rather create injustice to the Republic.”
