The High Court hearing the Republic versus Solomon Asamoah and another—popularly known as the Sky Train Case—has ordered the first prosecution witness, Mr. Yaw Odame-Darkwa, to retrieve and submit 16 emails allegedly sent to him by the former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Mr. Solomon Asamoah.
The order was issued by Justice Audrey Kokuvie-Tay, who presides over the case, after a tense exchange during cross-examination on Wednesday, 10 December 2025.
The court directed that the emails be produced at its next sitting on Tuesday, 16 December 2025.
The request for the emails emerged during cross-examination by counsel for the first accused, Ms. Victoria Barth, who sought to establish whether the prosecution witness indeed received a series of correspondence about the Sky Train project during his tenure as a GIIF board member.
Ms. Barth insisted that the emails existed, were accessible, and contradicted the witness’s claim that he had never encountered any substantive Sky Train-related documentation while serving on the board.
She argued that because the emails were sent to Mr. Odame-Darkwa’s Yahoo and Gmail accounts, they could be retrieved instantly from his smartphone using the internet connectivity available within the courtroom.
The witness, however, expressed discomfort with using the court-provided internet, remarking that “in this age of AI, anything is possible,” and insisted he preferred accessing his email only through his personal devices and internet connection.
His refusal set the stage for a courtroom clash over digital access, evidentiary authenticity, and the credibility of the witness’s earlier statements.
According to paragraphs 10 to 14 of his 16-paragraph witness statement, Mr. Odame-Darkwa asserted that the Sky Train concept was merely mentioned at one board meeting, but no proposal was ever submitted for review.
He claimed the Board had never deliberated on the project, the Investment Committee never recommended it, and the project “has not been tabled for consideration at any Board Meeting.”
If the defence successfully proves that he received multiple email briefings on the project, his testimony could be significantly undermined—especially his assertion that he only became aware of the Sky Train discussions after the publication of the Auditor-General’s report.
The courtroom atmosphere grew more charged as Ms. Barth took the witness through a series of questions during cross-examination.
She began by establishing the customary workflow at GIIF: that before any board meeting, the Investment Committee (IC)—of which Mr. Odame-Darkwa was a member—would typically meet to consider project documents.
The witness confirmed that the IC frequently received email notices containing agendas and meeting documents from the acting secretary, the CEO, or the substantive company secretary.
She then confronted him with email correspondence from July 2018 concerning an IC meeting scheduled for 31 July.
The prosecution witness acknowledged that the documents “looked” like emails he received, but requested more time to verify them.
When asked whether he had deleted any emails he received during his tenure, he said no.
Yet when pressed to retrieve them immediately, he insisted he could not access the account on his phone at that moment, despite admitting he had internet access and used both Yahoo and Gmail.
Ms. Barth argued that retrieving the emails immediately was not only technically possible but necessary for the “sincerity” and authenticity of the evidence.
Mr. Odame-Darkwa repeatedly maintained that instant retrieval was impossible, adding that he preferred to check using his own devices for security reasons.
His stance prompted the defence to ask the court to compel him to access the emails using a device provided in the courtroom.
Principal State Attorney Sefakor Batse opposed the request, arguing that the witness should be allowed to retrieve the emails independently and present them at the next adjourned date.
She maintained that this approach would better safeguard the integrity of the evidence.
After hearing both sides, Justice Kokuvie-Tay ruled that the witness must verify and retrieve the emails and provide them on the next court date.
“Flowing from the cross-examination and submission of learned counsels, it is my considered view that the witness should be given time to verify and confirm, and if possible, also produce that which requires an evaluation,” the judge stated.
The court subsequently ordered the production of the emails on 16 December 2025.
The latest development adds another layer of complexity to a case that has drawn significant public and political attention.
In 2019, GIIF invested $2 million for a 10% stake in Africa Investor Skytrain Consortium Holdings, the special purpose vehicle developing Accra’s proposed Sky Train light rail system.
The project, which was granted development rights by the Ministry of Railways Development, was championed by the then-government as a transformative solution to Accra’s transport challenges.
At the time of the investment, the GIIF Board was chaired by Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi, while Mr. Asamoah served as CEO, having been recruited internationally for the role.
Following the change of government in 2024, state prosecutors charged the former CEO and Chairman with willful financial loss, alleging the investment was made without board approval.
However, no official from the Ministry of Railways Development—the body that selected and empowered the project sponsors—has been charged.
Nor are there any accusations of personal gain or diversion of funds.
The prosecution’s case hinges largely on testimony from state witnesses who previously faced similar charges but had them withdrawn after denying they approved any investment in the project.
Critics argue this weakens the reliability of their statements and casts doubt on the strength of the prosecution’s claims.
Legal analysts observing the case suggest that the email dispute could prove pivotal.
If the emails show that board members, including the prosecution’s own witness, received Sky Train project documents and correspondence, it may contradict the central argument that the investment was unauthorised and unknown to the Board.
A lawyer familiar with the case, speaking anonymously, described the prosecution’s theory as “politically motivated” and reliant on “demonstrably false witness statements.”
With the witness now under court order to retrieve potentially decisive evidence, the next hearing on 16 December 2025 is expected to be a critical moment in a high-profile trial that continues to raise questions about governance, political accountability, and the integrity of state-led prosecutions in Ghana.
