The Supreme Court has dismissed an interlocutory injunction filed by former Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund CEO Solomon Asamoah, allowing the Skytrain trial to proceed in Accra. Justice Senyo Dzamefe ruled that the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious case or irreparable harm, clearing the path for the September 23 defence deadline.
Legal battles surrounding the financial scandal took a sharp turn when the apex court cleared obstacles standing in the way of ongoing proceedings. Solomon Asamoah, who formerly led the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund as its chief executive officer, had pushed to halt the lower court’s schedule while separate legal challenges moved through the judicial system.
The Dismissal of Asamoah’s Injunction Bid
Mr. Asamoah found his legal strategy blocked when the Supreme Court handed down a rejection of his interlocutory injunction request. Sitting as a single Justice, Justice Senyo Dzamefe evaluated the arguments presented after hearing submissions from both sides.
The applicant had sought to restrain the Accra High Court from proceeding with the trial while awaiting a determination on his certiorari application. That underlying certiorari request aimed to invalidate the High Court’s decision rejecting his submission of no case after the prosecution rested.
However, the bench found the applicant’s position legally deficient. Reviewing the submitted affidavit evidence, Justice Dzamefe concluded that the complaints raised did not disclose a serious issue for trial and belonged properly within the realm of an ordinary appeal rather than an injunction.
Jurisdiction and the Question of Irreparable Harm
Beyond dismissing the claim of a serious triable issue, the court directly addressed the boundaries of judicial authority. Justice Dzamefe ruled that the trial judge acted within proper jurisdictional bounds when issuing the ruling on the submission of no case.
Furthermore, the court noted that the defense failed to establish what irreparable harm would be suffered if the trial continued while the certiorari petition remained pending. Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai had opposed both the injunction and related applications concerning bail conditions during the hearings.
Charges and the Core Allegations in the Skytrain Scandal
The criminal proceedings stem from financial allegations involving state infrastructure management. Solomon Asamoah stands as the first accused person in the dock, facing prosecution alongside Prof. Christopher Ameyaw Akumfi, who served as the board chairman of the infrastructure fund.
Prosecutors brought multiple criminal counts against the two men, including stealing, causing financial loss to the state, and money laundering. At the center of the dispute is an unapproved $2 million payment disbursed for the Skytrain project without authorization from the governing board of the fund. Both accused individuals have maintained their innocence, entered pleas of not guilty, and remained free on bail while the trial progressed through testimony from three prosecution witnesses.
Parallel Legal Maneuvers by the Second Accused
While Mr. Asamoah’s injunction bid failed at the Supreme Court, his co-defendant pursued a separate procedural path. Professor Ameyaw-Akumfi filed an independent application seeking a stay of proceedings, shifting the immediate legal battleground to a different appellate forum.
That fresh application by the former board chairman is slated for review before the Court of Appeal. The simultaneous legal filings highlight the defensive efforts deployed by the accused as the trial nears its evidentiary phases.
Next Steps and the Upcoming Defence Deadline
With the Supreme Court refusing to block the lower court, criminal proceedings in the High Court will forge ahead without waiting for the final resolution of the separate certiorari matter. The immediate operational timeline points toward a procedural boundary set by the trial bench.
The High Court established September 23, 2026, as the final extended deadline for the accused persons to file their defence, leaving them to decide whether they will present evidence or rely on the legal standing established after the close of the prosecution’s case.
