Sky Train Case: You ignore details – defense lawyer exposes AG witness

The lawyer representing the first accused person in the case of the Republic versus Solomon Asamoah and another (Sky Train Case) has accused the first prosecution witness of the State of being a person who ignores details, as he went ahead and signed his witness statement despite his name being incorrectly spelled.

State Prosecutors, led by the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, today, 10 November 2025, called their first prosecution witness, Yaw Odame-Darkwa.

Additionally, when asked about his highest level of educational qualification? Yaw Odame-Darkwa stated that he read Law and Sociology at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), but the presiding judge, Justice Audrey Kokuvi-Tay, corrected him, saying that he (Yaw Odame-Darkwa) read social science.

The witness identified his witness statement, and it was adopted by the court as his evidence in chief, paving the way for the lawyer of the first accused, Dominic Brenya-Otchere, to commence his cross-examination.

Witness statement

According to the witness statement filed by the witness on 27 May 2025, he indicated as follows:

“My name is Yaw Odame Darkwa.

“I am a native of Wench, Bono, and I reside in Tema. I am a businessman.

“I served as a member of the Board of the Chama Infrastructure Investment Fund (IF) from 2017 to 2020.

“I became aware of the payment of Two Million United States Dollars (US52,000,000) only through the Auditor-General’s report.

“In accordance with proper procedure, a due diligence report should have been presented to the Board [before] any approval for disbursement.

“I have recently been made aware of certain minutes from the GIIF Board meetings referencing the Sky Train project.

“The minutes referred to as evidence of the meeting do not accurately reflect the Board’s deliberations or decisions concerning the Sky Train project at any time.

“I have always acted in the best interest of the Republic of Chana and would not have granted approval for any disbursement without proper due diligence.

“The minutes of previous GIF project meetings, in which I participated, demonstrate that I consistently acted in good faith, in accordance with due process, and in the national interest.

“During my tenure, the Board approved funding for several infrastructure projects.

“I wish to state that the Sky Train concept was only introduced at one of our Board meetings.

“The Board did not receive any substantive proposal on the Sky Train project, and hence we did not deliberate or take any decision on the project.

Additionally, the Investment Committee did not recommend the Sky Project to the Board for approval.

“To the best of my knowledge, the Sky Train project has not been tabled for consideration at any Board Meeting.

“To the best of my recollection, the Board did not approve any funding for the Sky Train project during the period of my service.

“To be specific, there was no proposal discussed at any meeting I attended regarding the disbursement of funds to the project,” the witness statement of Yaw Odame-Dankwa read.

Cross-examination

Question: You are very kind of particular about your name, is that not so?

Answer: Yes

Question: And you read your witness statement before appending your signature. Is that not so?

Answer Yes

Question: Check the witness statement. The first paragraph, is that how you write your name?

Answer: No, the dash is missing.

Question: Yet you overlooked and signed, is that not so?

Answer: Yes

Question: Is it the case that you don’t read documents presented to you diligently before signing?

Answer: No

Question: As a board member between 2017 and 2025, you attended most of the board meetings, if not all. Is that not so?

Answer: Yes.

Question: In fact, you also served on board sub-committees.

Answer: Yes

Question: How many of the subcommittees did you serve on?

Answer: Two

Question: You were the chair of the audit sub-committee. Is that correct

Answer: Yes

Question: You attended or participated in several training sessions for board members. Is that correct?

Answer: Yes

Question: Those training sessions that you attended were not free. Is that not so?

Answer: They were not free.

Question: The payments were made by GIIF. Is that correct?

Answer: Yes

After this question, the witness’s mouth was sealed, and Justice Audrey Kokuvie-Tay adjourned the sitting to Wednesday, 12 November 2025, for the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness to continue.

Background

In 2019, the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF) invested US$2 million for a 10% stake in Africa Investor Skytrain Consortium Holdings (“Ai Skytrain”), the company developing Accra’s Skytrain light railway project.

The Africa Investor Group (the “Sponsors”) was selected and granted the rights to develop the project by the Government of Ghana (“GoG”) through the Ministry of Railways Development (“MORD”).

At the time, the Chairman of GIIF was Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was Mr Solomon Asamoah. The Chairman had previously been a member of the GoG. Mr. Asamoah was an international development banker who had been head-hunted into the position from a UK recruitment agency.

Following a change of government in Ghana in December 2024, the GoG, through the office of the Attorney General of Ghana, now alleges that this action was taken without Board approval, resulting in a willful financial loss to the state, as there is as yet “no railway built”.

It should be noted that there are no allegations of personal gain or diversion of funds in the charges, and the state has not charged anyone from MORD or the GoG-selected sponsors; only the GIIF Chairman and CEO have been charged.

The state witnesses who initially faced charges of causing financial loss to the state themselves dropped these charges after stating they did not approve the project, casting significant doubt on the reliability of their statements.

The prosecution’s case is built almost entirely on these statements to show that a legitimate transaction was “unauthorized”, without which there would be no case to answer.

“The prosecution’s case appears to be politically motivated, intended to fulfill a campaign promise to prosecute members of the previous government. It is unsupported by the facts, relying on demonstrably false witness statements,” a lawyer familiar with the case stated on condition of anonymity.