The SkyTrain trial has highlighted the critical importance of documentary evidence within legal proceedings, redirecting focus from abstract discussions to tangible records. The prosecution’s case contends that the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (“GIIF”) Board approval was not secured for the 2018 investment, substantiating this claim with witness statements from Board members asserting the project was neither approved nor even presented at the Board level. In contrast, the former CEO, Solomon Asamoah, asserts adherence to standard investment protocols, referencing subcommittee meetings, a fully quorate Board session where approval was granted, and accompanying signed minutes as evidence. He further asserts that subsequent Board meeting minutes detailing project updates, further support this position, countering claims of absent Board consent. All these documents were distributed by email and so form part of the official record. Both the prosecution and defence positions cannot be correct, so courtroom attention has gravitated towards foundational evidentiary matters: what was formally recorded, circulated, approved, and retrievable years later. The most pivotal moments have thus hinged on concrete documentation—emails, board documents, minutes and witness testimonies—rather than rhetorical exchanges.
For Solomon Asamoah, this evidentiary emphasis is significant, reframing the trial around governance procedures rather than individual character assessments or memories. Recent reporting chronicles cross-examination exchanges, wherein a prosecution witness conceded reliance on memory for segments of testimony and requested time to consult specific emails and references to Investment Committee meetings, which he subsequently confirmed were accurate. These developments highlight the rigorous scrutiny of official records as a means of corroborating or challenging previous assertions.
In public investment, such intensive examination of process and documentation is routine. Infrastructure decisions frequently involve extended timelines and multi-layered approvals by committees and boards whose membership evolves over time. The primary concern remains whether institutions maintain an unambiguous audit trail; absent such a record, recollections inevitably fill the void, introducing risk. Extensive commentary stresses that robust governance and effective long-term capital allocation are predicated on organisational discipline, not improvisation. The judicial process amplifies this principle by privileging demonstrable evidence over conjecture.
The Critical Role of Minutes
Coverage of the trial has repeatedly emphasised the importance of meeting minutes. In one instance, defence counsel introduced Investment Committee minutes documenting member support for the project. Additional evidence included signed Board documents, contemporaneous minutes, and records of subsequent project updates. These documents are valued for their immediacy and accuracy, serving as real-time accounts of deliberations and action items. Notably, the CEO institutionalized a process whereby all Board communications and documents were disseminated via email, thereby reducing reliance on hard copies and creating a verifiable communication trail. Emails continue to serve as formal records of distribution and receipt to this day.
In high-performing investment organisations, minutes constitute the organisation’s official memory. They should accurately reflect presentations, articulate concerns, identify information gaps, and summarise all decisions, including deferrals and the rationale behind them. The integrity and comprehensiveness of these records become crucial when judicial proceedings hinge on whether recommendations were made or substantive deliberations occurred.
Email Trails as Governing Records
Another significant aspect is the prominence of email correspondence as part of the governance record. A recent report describes the court instructing a witness to retrieve and produce specific emails following initial hesitancy to access older messages; the witness voiced anxiety about the implications of AI and asked for time to access emails—even though he had his own smartphone on hand. This incident illustrates the essential function of email in contemporary governance with the witness subsequently retrieving and confirming the authenticity of the said emails.
For investment bodies, the implication is clear: unless board packs and committee documents are systematically archived and accessible via institutional repositories, email trails effectively become the authoritative timeline. A more secure strategy positions email solely as a distribution mechanism, with archival responsibility assigned to a central secretariat responsible for maintaining comprehensive, searchable, and tamper-evident records. In this case the prosecution did not make available full access to the company archives, so emails had to provide the definitive backup, which was ultimately accepted by the Board member prosecution witness and entered into evidence.
While public profiles offer a limited perspective on the complexities involved, Mr. Asamoah’s extensive experience in development and investment finance made him ensure there were electronic records of all Board interactions, which underscores the critical importance of institutional discipline as a foundation for effective leadership.
Procedural Details and Public Perception
Trials also produce quieter moments that still carry reputational weight. When a witness does not appear and the court adjourns, the public does not always distinguish between procedure and substance. In one report, the prosecution witness, after a difficult day on the witness stand, called in sick the following day causing the trial to be adjourned to a later date, after several days of cross examination in the trial involving Solomon Asamoah. Should he or any other prosecution witness continue to be absent, that kind of interruption becomes part of the story and people will put their own interpretation on the reasons behind such events.
Lessons for Public Investment Bodies
The SkyTrain trial serves as a timely reminder that robust governance extends beyond checklists to encompass integrated systems. Effective governance frameworks include clearly defined stage gates, explicit delegations of authority, and an empowered secretariat capable of producing complete records efficiently. Organisational culture must recognise minutes and documentation as core assets rather than mere administrative obligations. However, the broader lesson applies universally: wherever public resources intersect with major infrastructure investments, institutional trust is built upon transparent and accessible records.
Designing systems for efficient retrieval is fundamental. Whether approached by auditors, parliamentary committees, or courts, strong organisations can readily provide agendas, board packs, minutes, resolutions, and any attached conditions. Any existing gaps should be explicitly identified rather than informally supplemented. Achieving this capability requires diligent practices such as standardized naming conventions, robust retention policies, centralised storage with appropriate access controls, and prompt finalisation of minutes. Leadership plays a pivotal role in embedding these practices as integral components of performance management. Institutions that invest in these foundations typically achieve greater operational efficiency, expending less effort reconstructing past events and more time focusing on future objectives.
The defence asserts that all these processes were present in this case and has provided to the court’s documentary evidence of the same. The trial will no doubt come down to a close scrutiny of the distribution and repository of the official documents submitted by the defence and whether the prosecution can successfully challenge their authenticity. The first witness, however, has fully confirmed receipt of such documents by contemporaneous emails which were also distributed to the whole Board.
