Ghana’s Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an application filed by former Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) Chief Executive Officer Solomon Asamoah seeking to overturn a High Court decision that ordered him to open his defence in the controversial Sky Train case.
The apex court rejected the request to quash the High Court’s July 2, 2026 ruling, which dismissed a submission of no case and directed Asamoah to respond to the criminal charges brought against him.
Asamoah and former GIIF Board Chairman Professor Christopher Ameyaw Akumfi are standing trial over allegations that include causing financial loss of approximately $2 million in connection with the Sky Train project.
The prosecution has concluded presenting its evidence, prompting the High Court to order the accused persons to open their defence and respond to the charges.
Following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the application, proceedings are expected to continue, with a defence Case Management Conference scheduled for Monday, October 19, 2026.
Solomon Asamoah Challenges High Court Decision in Sky Train Trial
Solomon Asamoah, the first accused person in the case, approached the Supreme Court through his lawyer, Prince Asafo Agyei, seeking orders of certiorari and prohibition.
The application sought to set aside the High Court’s ruling delivered on July 2, 2026, and prevent the trial judge from continuing with the proceedings.
Asamoah’s legal team argued that Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay exceeded her jurisdiction when she dismissed the submission of no case and directed the accused persons to present their defence.
Counsel contended that the judge went beyond the limited assessment required at that stage of a criminal trial by making what he described as definitive findings on whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
The defence argued that such findings risked prejudicing the ongoing proceedings before the accused persons had presented their side of the case.
Defence Raises Concerns Over Bail Conditions and Alleged Bias
Asamoah’s lawyer also raised concerns about events on July 30, 2026, when the High Court was hearing an application for a stay of proceedings and reportedly varied the accused person’s bail conditions.
According to counsel, the court reversed an earlier variation and reinstated a requirement for weekly reporting without a formal application before it and without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.
The defence further objected to a remark attributed to the trial judge suggesting that Asamoah was directly responsible for the financial loss under investigation.
Counsel maintained that the comment went beyond what should ordinarily be determined during consideration of a submission of no case.
The lawyer argued that the alleged prejudicial remarks, changes to the bail conditions and what he described as off-record proceedings on July 2, 2026, could lead a reasonable person to question whether Asamoah would receive a fair trial.
On that basis, the defence asked the Supreme Court to intervene and prevent the proceedings from continuing before the High Court.
Deputy Attorney General Opposes Supreme Court Application
Deputy Attorney General Dr Justice Srem-Sai opposed the application, maintaining that the accused person had not suffered any injustice that warranted the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Addressing the concerns about bail conditions, Dr Srem-Sai explained that Asamoah had previously applied for a variation of his bail on February 9, with the variation tied to the duration of the trial.
He argued that once the relevant period expired, the trial judge merely restored the original bail conditions rather than imposing an entirely new restriction without justification.
The Deputy Attorney General also rejected the argument that the High Court judge had exceeded her jurisdiction when dismissing the submission of no case.
He maintained that the defence’s interpretation of the legal requirements was misconceived and that the allegations raised did not establish judicial bias under the applicable legal principles.
Dr Srem-Sai therefore urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the application and allow the Sky Train trial to proceed.
Five-Member Supreme Court Panel Unanimously Rejects Application
The Supreme Court panel, presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang, unanimously dismissed the application brought by Asamoah.
The other members of the five-judge panel were Justices Samuel Asiedu, Hafisata Amaleboba, Sophia Rosetta Bernasco-Esaah and Anthony Forson Jnr.
In its decision, the court stated: “We are of the view that the application ought to fail.”
The panel consequently refused the applications for certiorari and prohibition, leaving the challenged High Court ruling in place.
The decision means that the High Court proceedings can continue, subject to the applicable court procedures, with the accused persons expected to present their defence following the prosecution’s closure of its case.
What Happens Next in the GIIF Sky Train Case?
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks another development in the criminal proceedings involving the former GIIF chief executive and former board chairman.
With the application dismissed, attention now turns to the next stage of the trial, including the defence Case Management Conference scheduled for October 19, 2026.
The case centres on allegations involving a $2 million financial loss linked to the Sky Train project. The allegations remain subject to determination through the ongoing judicial process, and the accused persons’ guilt or innocence has not been established by the dismissal of the application.
The proceedings continue to attract attention because of their implications for public financial management, accountability and the oversight of major infrastructure investments in Ghana.
Source: newsthemegh.com