By Issah Olegor
The high-profile Sky Train criminal trial involving former Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) Chief Executive Officer Solomon Asamoah and former Board Chairman Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi has reached a critical stage, with defence lawyers asking the High Court in Accra to dismiss all charges against their clients on grounds that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case.
The defence applications, commonly referred to as “submissions of no case,” were filed ahead of the court’s sitting on June 11, 2026. Lawyers for the two accused persons contend that after months of testimony and documentary evidence, the Attorney-General has been unable to prove that any financial loss occurred or that the investment at the center of the case lacked board approval.
Victoria Barth, counsel for Solomon Asamoah, filed a comprehensive 96-page submission, while Yaw Acheampong Boafo, representing Professor Ameyaw-Akumfi, submitted a separate 30-page legal argument. Both applications urge the court to acquit and discharge the accused persons without calling on them to open a defence.
At the heart of the case is a $2 million investment made by GIIF in 2019 into Africa Investor Skytrain Consortium Holdings, the company established to develop the proposed Accra Sky Train project.
The Attorney-General alleges that the investment was made without approval from the GIIF Board and that the money was effectively lost because the rail project was never constructed.
The state subsequently charged the former CEO and Board Chairman with multiple offences, including conspiracy to cause financial loss to the state and dissipation of public funds.
However, the defence argues that the prosecution has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the transaction.
“The Money Was Invested, Not Lost”
According to the defence, the prosecution has consistently portrayed the transaction as a payment for a project that never materialized, creating the impression that public funds disappeared. The lawyers argue that the evidence before the court demonstrates otherwise.
They maintain that the $2 million was not intended to finance the construction of the Sky Train itself, a project estimated to cost approximately $2.6 billion. Instead, GIIF acquired a 10 percent equity stake in the project company, making it an investor rather than a builder.
The defence points to a series of corporate documents already admitted into evidence, including the company’s certificate of incorporation, share transfer documents, directors’ resolutions and GIIF’s share certificate, all of which confirm that the Fund received ownership interests in exchange for the investment.
In their submission, the lawyers argue that once GIIF paid for the shares, ownership of the money legally transferred to the company, just as payment for a house or vehicle transfers ownership of the purchase price to the seller.
“The transaction was an investment, not an expenditure,” the defence argues, insisting that GIIF cannot simultaneously claim ownership of both the shares and the purchase price.
Defence Challenges Claim of Financial Loss
A major pillar of the prosecution’s case is the allegation that the state suffered financial loss because the railway project was never built.
The defence, however, argues that no credible evidence has been presented to support that assertion.
Lawyers cited evidence from the state’s own witnesses and independent auditors, noting that neither the Auditor-General nor external auditors ever declared the investment lost or unrecoverable.
Instead, they point to recommendations from auditors that GIIF continue monitoring the investment and make provisions only if future circumstances rendered recovery impossible.
The defence further references findings by Deloitte in 2023, which reportedly stated that the investment “may not be recoverable” only if the project failed to obtain the necessary approvals.
According to the defence, such language demonstrates that the investment continued to exist and retained potential value, contradicting claims that the money had already been lost.
Board Approval at the Centre of Legal Battle
Perhaps the most fiercely contested issue in the trial remains whether the GIIF Board approved the investment.
The prosecution has built its case around allegations that the transaction was undertaken without board authorization.
The defence counters that extensive documentary evidence proves otherwise.
Central to this argument are minutes of a GIIF Board meeting held on October 24, 2018, which the defence says clearly record board approval for the proposed investment.
The lawyers further note that the project subsequently appeared in GIIF records as an approved and ongoing investment, while audited financial statements repeatedly disclosed the transaction.
The defence also points out that successive audits conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Deloitte and the Auditor-General never flagged the investment as unauthorized or improperly approved.
Witness Testimony Comes Under Scrutiny
A substantial portion of the defence submissions focuses on what lawyers describe as serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s witness testimony.
The prosecution relied primarily on evidence from former GIIF Board members Yaw Odame-Darkwa and Kofi Boakye, as well as National Intelligence Bureau investigator Francis Aboagye.
Throughout cross-examination, however, defence lawyers highlighted several contradictions.
Odame-Darkwa initially claimed the Sky Train project was introduced at only one board meeting. Yet during cross-examination, he acknowledged being shown at least eight separate board meeting minutes referencing the project.
He also admitted that he had signed audited financial statements that identified the Sky Train investment as part of GIIF’s portfolio.
Similarly, Boakye’s testimony evolved during the proceedings. According to the defence, his position shifted from claiming there was “no approval” for the project, to asserting there was “no final approval,” before later acknowledging that some form of approval existed.
The defence also criticized the testimony of lead investigator Francis Aboagye, arguing that he admitted under cross-examination that he had never seen an official GIIF board approval document and had relied on assumptions when reaching conclusions during his investigation.
At one point, the investigator reportedly conceded that some aspects of his findings were based on inference rather than direct evidence.
COVID-19 and Policy Reversal Blamed for Project Delays
Beyond the approval issue, the defence argues that external events—not misconduct by the accused—prevented the project from progressing.
Lawyers point to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which disrupted infrastructure financing and investment projects across the world.
According to the defence, the pandemic created severe economic pressures that significantly affected the viability and timeline of the Sky Train project.
They also note that in 2021, a new Minister for Railways Development revised government policy regarding the project and suspended further progress until economic conditions improved.
