The Republic v. Solomon Asamoah & Another, popularly known as the SkyTrain case, is no longer merely a criminal prosecution concerning an allegedly questionable US$2 million transaction. It has evolved into a significant legal contest over the limits of trial-court discretion, the submission of no case, bail conditions, supervisory jurisdiction and the right to an expeditious trial.

The underlying case concerns a US$2 million payment made by the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) in 2019 in connection with the proposed Accra SkyTrain project. The prosecution alleges that the payment was made without the requisite Board approval and resulted in financial loss to the Republic. The two accused persons, former GIIF CEO Solomon Asamoah and former Board Chairman Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

What follows is the critical chronology.

2019 — The transaction at the centre of the prosecution

The case revolves around the US$2 million payment made by GIIF in relation to the proposed SkyTrain project. The State’s case is that the investment was made without the necessary approval and that the project ultimately failed to materialise. The prosecution consequently alleges financial loss and dissipation of public funds.

The criminal trial — Prosecution presents its evidence

The State subsequently prosecuted the two former GIIF officials on six counts, including conspiracy and substantive allegations relating to wilfully causing financial loss to the Republic and intentional dissipation of public funds. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty.

20 May 2026 — Prosecution closes its case

The prosecution formally closed its case before the High Court. Following the closure, the accused persons invoked the procedure allowing them to argue that the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to require them to enter a defence.

The court subsequently permitted the filing of submissions of no case to answer.

This was the first major procedural turning point.

A submission of no case is not a defence on the merits. It is an assertion that, even taking the prosecution’s evidence at its highest, the State has failed to establish a case requiring the accused to answer.

2 July 2026 — High Court rejects the no-case submissions

Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay dismissed the submissions of no case filed by Asamoah and Ameyaw-Akumfi and directed both accused persons to open their defence. The court’s decision meant that, at that stage, it considered the prosecution to have presented sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to the defence stage.

Importantly, this was not a conviction.
The court did not declare the accused guilty. It determined only that the prosecution’s case had crossed the threshold necessary for the accused to be called upon to answer it.

July 2026 — The defence does not immediately open

The accused persons were initially given 21 days within which to file their defence processes. When that period expired, neither had filed a defence. Instead, applications were made seeking a stay of proceedings.

30 July 2026 — Additional time granted

The High Court subsequently granted a further 21 days. This effectively brought the period available to the accused persons to 42 days.

The significance of this development is that the defence was not simply given one opportunity and immediately shut out. The trial court afforded additional time while the procedural challenges continued.

August 2026 — The legal-vacation controversy

The case subsequently became entangled in a separate procedural issue concerning proceedings during the legal vacation. Lawyers for Mr. Asamoah petitioned the Chief Justice, arguing that their professional and personal commitments during the vacation made attendance difficult and asking that the directive permitting proceedings during the vacation be withdrawn.

The lawyers also indicated that their client had an interlocutory appeal relating to the no-case ruling and did not want to be compelled to prosecute that challenge while simultaneously opening his defence in the High Court.

This introduced an important constitutional and procedural tension: the accused’s right to pursue available legal remedies versus the public interest in the expeditious determination of criminal cases.

20 August 2026 — The second deadline expires

The additional 21-day period expired without the accused persons filing their defence processes.

21 August 2026 — Supreme Court challenge

The following day, Mr. Asamoah’s lawyers filed two applications at the Supreme Court.

The first sought certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to quash the High Court’s decision dismissing his submission of no case and the decision he considers to have varied his bail conditions.

The second sought an interlocutory injunction/stay of proceedings, asking the Supreme Court to halt the High Court trial pending determination of the certiorari application.

This is the point at which the case moved beyond an ordinary criminal trial and squarely into the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

26 August 2026 — High Court gives the accused another opportunity

The High Court subsequently declined the prosecution’s request to convict the accused persons for failing to file their defence.

Instead, Justice Kocuvie-Tay granted another opportunity to file their defence processes, setting 23 September 2026 as the new deadline and adjourning the case to 5 October 2026 for case management.

The prosecution argued that repeated failure to comply with the court’s directions demonstrated an unwillingness to defend the case. Defence counsel, however, pointed to the pending Supreme Court proceedings.

The High Court emphasised an important principle: the filing of an application at the Supreme Court does not automatically deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to continue with the case.

That distinction is crucial.

28 August 2026 — Supreme Court hears the injunction application

The Supreme Court, sitting as a sole judge, heard oral arguments from Mrs Victoria Barth for Mr. Asamoah and Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem-Sai for the Attorney-General.

The applicant wants the High Court proceedings halted until the Supreme Court determines his certiorari application.

The State opposes the application.
The Supreme Court has now reserved its ruling for Monday, 31 August 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

THE REAL LEGAL QUESTION

The Supreme Court is not being asked on Monday to determine whether Solomon Asamoah or Professor Ameyaw-Akumfi is guilty.

Nor is it being asked, at this interlocutory stage, to finally determine the merits of the US$2 million transaction.

The immediate question is narrower:
Should the High Court proceedings be halted while the Supreme Court considers the separate certiorari application challenging the High Court’s decision?

That distinction should be maintained in public discussion.

Certiorari is a supervisory remedy. It is concerned with the legality and propriety of the decision or proceedings being challenged. It should not casually become a substitute for an appeal merely because a litigant is dissatisfied with a ruling.

At the same time, the existence of a criminal trial does not immunise decisions of the trial court from supervisory scrutiny. If a superior court finds that intervention is legally justified, it has the authority to provide the appropriate remedy.

The difficult balance is therefore between two legitimate interests.

On one side is the accused person’s right to challenge what he considers an unlawful decision and to have that challenge determined fairly.

On the other is the principle that a criminal trial should not be paralysed merely because one party has invoked a superior court’s jurisdiction.

WHY MONDAY’S RULING MATTERS

The Supreme Court’s ruling could have consequences beyond the immediate parties.

If the injunction is granted, the High Court proceedings will effectively pause while the certiorari application is considered.

If it is refused, the High Court will remain free to proceed, subject of course to whatever further orders may subsequently arise from the Supreme Court proceedings.

But one point must not be lost in the legal drama:

A refusal to stay proceedings would not amount to a declaration of guilt.

Conversely, granting a stay would not mean that the accused persons have been vindicated on the substantive allegations.

It would simply determine whether the trial should continue while the supervisory challenge is pending.

THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST

The SkyTrain case has become a test of something larger than the fate of two former GIIF officials.

It raises fundamental questions about how Ghana manages public investment, how state institutions authorise major financial commitments, how public officials are held accountable, and how criminal courts should manage prolonged interlocutory litigation.

But accountability must operate within the law.

The State must prove its case. The accused persons must be afforded every lawful opportunity to challenge the prosecution. And the courts must ensure that neither the prosecution nor the defence is permitted to manipulate procedure to defeat the administration of justice.

The public therefore should resist two opposite temptations: declaring the accused guilty because the no-case submission was dismissed, or declaring them vindicated merely because they have taken the matter to the Supreme Court.

Neither proposition is legally sustainable.
The High Court has found that there is a case requiring an answer. The accused persons are challenging that determination. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the trial should be paused while that challenge is pursued.

On Monday, therefore, the Supreme Court is not simply deciding whether one trial continues.

It will be demonstrating, once again, the delicate constitutional relationship between the right of an accused person to seek judicial protection, the supervisory authority of the apex court, the independence of the trial court, and society’s legitimate demand that criminal proceedings be determined without unnecessary delay.

That is the real significance of the SkyTrain litigation.

And whatever the Supreme Court decides, the principle must remain unchanged:

Justice requires both accountability and due process. One cannot legitimately be sacrificed in the name of the other.

#KWP #Certiorari #SupremeCourt #RuleOfLaw #SkyTrainCase #ORALUpdates

Michael Agbesi Kelly