The legal representatives of Solomon Asamoah and Prof Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, two former officials of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) have argued before the High Court in Accra that the Covid-19 pandemic, rather than any criminal wrongdoing, caused the failure of the Accra Sky Train project and the loss of a $2 million investment.
The defence made this argument while urging the court to dismiss the case against former GIIF Chief Executive Solomon Asamoah and former Board Chairman Prof Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi.
The two former officials are facing trial over the collapsed Accra Sky Train project, which aimed to reduce traffic congestion in the capital through an automated elevated rail system.
According to prosecutors, GIIF transferred $2 million to Africa Investor Holdings Limited in February 2019 without obtaining the required approvals or following proper governance procedures.
The prosecution maintains that the transaction lacked formal board approval. It further claims that the funds were spent without producing any infrastructure or other tangible asset.
As a result, the State has charged the two men with conspiracy to commit a crime, wilfully causing financial loss to the State, and intentionally dissipating public funds.
The defence, however, strongly disputes these claims. Lawyers for the accused told the court that GIIF followed its established procedures and regularly discussed the transaction at both management and board meetings.
They also pointed to documentary evidence, including board meeting minutes and internal communications, which they say prove that GIIF officials monitored and reviewed the project throughout its implementation.
In addition, the defence argued that the Covid-19 pandemic played a major role in the project’s delays and eventual collapse. According to the lawyers, the global health crisis disrupted investment activities, delayed project schedules, and affected international business operations.
Based on these arguments, the defence has filed a submission of no case to answer. The lawyers insist that the prosecution has failed to provide enough evidence to justify calling on their clients to present a defence.
The prosecution has already concluded its case after presenting all its witnesses.
