THE Accra High Court has fixed November 27, 2007 for the hearing of the case in which Opanin Obeng has sued his elder brother and the executors of his father’s Will to account for their stewardship.
It came to light in court today that the defendants had not been served with the hearing notice and as a result the matter was adjourned.
The plaintiff is seeking the court’s order to compel the defendants to account for their stewardship, pay into court any money they hold in trust for the benefit of the late Rexford Kwasi Obeng’s estate.
He is also seeking an order to compel James Nti, Richard Appiah, and Anani Benifo to complete their duties as executors of his father’s Will and vest the respective interests of the beneficiaries to them.
The fourth defendant, Edmund Obeng is the elder brother of the plaintiff and Managing Director of the deceased’s major investments namely, the Netherlands African Manufacturing Company (NAMCO), Royal Investment Company and Booth Agency.
He is also a beneficiary under the Will.
In his statement of claim, the plaintiff said the probate of the Will of his father was granted to the executors of the Will by the Accra High Court on August 10, 2005.
He said the Testator owned 80 per cent of the shares in NAMCO at the time of his death out of which he bequeathed 45 per cent to all his children in equal moiety and also handed over the management of the company to Edmund Obeng.
Similarly, he said, his father bequeathed to his children 80 per cent of profits accruing from the Booth Agency, which was also under the management of his elder brother.
Opanin Obeng said his father solely owned the shares in the Royal Investment Company Limited, consisting of six houses built or bought by the Testator and leased to tenants. It was also managed by Edmund Obeng.
The plaintiff said the Will provided that 60 per cent of the net income accruing from the rent should be shared equally among the children under the direction of the executors but to date the income from the Royal Investment Company had not been distributed.
According to him, his father in his Will directed the executors to pay dividends accruing from his shares in Unilever (Ghana) Limited, Shell (Ghana) Limited and any monies accruing to the said estate into his personal bank account yet the dividends had since the death of the Testator remained unknown to the beneficiaries.
The shares, he said, had not been distributed under the Will and contended that they were being held in trust by the executors for the benefit of the deceased’s estate.
He said his father bequeathed House No. B 704/10, situated at Kaneshie to him and his sister and even though the first and second defendants executed Vesting Assent in their favour, they had done nothing to ensure that title in the property was conveyed to them.
Opanin Obeng said his elder brother had with the connivance of the executors constituted himself into a trustee exercising control over the investments of their father without being accountable to anyone.
According to him, the financial statement of NAMCO for 2004, 2005 and the half year ended June 30, 2006 presented by his elder brother at a general meeting of shareholders of the company held in December 2006 revealed net losses of ¢156,957,277, ¢581,639,504 and ¢575,548,806 respectively.
He said the executors had not accounted for monies lodged in his late father’s bank accounts and had also failed to fully discharge their duties and responsibilities as executors of his father’s Will, therefore, he had suffered and continue to suffer loss by reason his claims.
In their statement of defence the defendants denied that there was a business entity called Booth Agency and which was under the management of Edmund Obeng but admitted that in his father’s Will, he bequeathed 50 per cent of the profits of that company to his children.
They admitted that the Testator owned Royal Investment Company Limited of which the plaintiff’s elder brother was the managing director and that the net income from the company had not been distributed.
The plaintiff’s elder brother contended that he had no cause of action against him and the executors and that his action was premature and incompetent.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
CHIEF APPEALS AGAINST HIGH COURT RULING
THE Ablekuma Mantse and Sempe Atofo in the Greater Accra Region, Nii Larbi Mensah IV, has appealed against a Kumasi High Court order to the National House of Chiefs (NHC) to delete his name from the register of the house because it was not properly done .
Nii Mensah, known in private life as Francis Nii Aryee Addo-Quaye, is praying the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s decision, given on June 22, 2007, as well as the dismissal of the application for an order of mandamus against him.
He is also asking that costs of ¢20 million awarded against him should be set aside, and rather made in his favour.
The notice of appeal, dated June 27, 2007 was filed on June 26, 2007 by Mr A.A. Somuah-Asamoah, counsel for the interested party/appellant.
The Kumasi court, presided over by Mr Justice Kwame Ansu-Gyeabour also asked the registrar of the Ga Traditional Council to take prompt steps to get a new panel to hear the case, titled, “E.T.A. Nettey Vrs Adjin Tetteh and Seven Others” in connection with the Ablekuma Chieftaincy affair.
The court’s order followed an application for an order of mandamus filed by one Adjin Tetteh praying the court to remove the name of Francis Nii Aryee Addo-Quaye, as Chief of Ablekuma under the stool name, Nii Larbie Mensah IV from the register of the house and instead insert his (Adjin Tetteh’s) name in line with his recognition by the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council in October, 1997.
Adjin Tetteh contended that he was nominated, elected and enstooled as Chief of Ablekuma and that the Ga Traditional Council had recognised him as such by a judgement.
According to him, he became aware that Nii Larbie had been given recognition by the NHC as substantive Chief of Ablekuma through a publication in the Daily Graphic of June 24, 2006.
In a supplementary affidavit that he filed, he declared that since the insertion and deletion of names from the register of the NHC was an administrative act, when it was wrongly effected the court was clothed with authority to enquire into it.
He said it was his name that should have been inserted into the register and not that of Nii Larbie Mensah.
In his affidavit in opposition, Nii Mensah stated that his name was inserted in the NHC register based on the advice of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs.
He also contended that, he was properly nominated, elected and enstooled as the Ablekuma Mantse and Sempe Atofo in accordance with Ga custom.
With regard to the judgement of the Ga Traditional Council judgement mentioned by the applicant, the respondent explained that it was quashed by an Accra High Court on November 11, 1998 and that an appeal filed against the High Court ruling was also dismissed on July 20, 2000 by the Court of Appeal.
He, therefore, stated that the “the allegation by the applicant that the research committee of the Regional House of Chiefs undertook an erroneous administrative act is untenable and misconceived”.
In his ruling, Justice Ansu-Gyeabour said, “I am of the considered view that three main issues are raised for consideration in the facts of the case”.
After considering the arguments of the parties, Justice Ansu-Gyeabour said it was a fact that the court had no power under the Constitution to determine at first instance any matter affecting chieftaincy.
He said it was therefore plain that the court had no power to decide that any of the two parties was properly nominated, elected and enstooled as the Chief of Ablekuma.
The judge, however, indicated that in matters of administration like the case in question the courts had the power to go into them to straighten matters.
Mr Justice Ansu-Gyeabour quoted from Article 23 of the Constitution which stated that “administrative bodies should deal fairly and reasonably with members of the public” and said, “To me it is manifestly clear that by basing its entry in the national register of the house on wrong information from the regional house of chiefs, the officers of the NHC did not act equitably, fairly and in a just manner”.
In his grounds of appeal, Nii Mensah said the High Court judge erred in stating that it was wrong for the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs to have said in their letter dated February 24, 2006 that there was no petition or writ against his enstoolment.
He said the judge erred in holding that the study which the Research Committee of the NHC did was based on a false premise by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs.
The appellant said the judge further erred in holding that then NHC based its entry in the national register of chiefs on wrong information.
He said the judge erred in holding that the method adopted by the authorities of the Ga Traditional Council and the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs in forwarding his name to the NHC for processing and subsequent entry into the national register of chiefs was not correct.
“The learned High Court judge erred in holding that the NHC did not act equitably, fairly and in a just manner”, he said and added that the judge wrongly exercised his discretion in awarding costs against him.
Nii Mensah, known in private life as Francis Nii Aryee Addo-Quaye, is praying the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s decision, given on June 22, 2007, as well as the dismissal of the application for an order of mandamus against him.
He is also asking that costs of ¢20 million awarded against him should be set aside, and rather made in his favour.
The notice of appeal, dated June 27, 2007 was filed on June 26, 2007 by Mr A.A. Somuah-Asamoah, counsel for the interested party/appellant.
The Kumasi court, presided over by Mr Justice Kwame Ansu-Gyeabour also asked the registrar of the Ga Traditional Council to take prompt steps to get a new panel to hear the case, titled, “E.T.A. Nettey Vrs Adjin Tetteh and Seven Others” in connection with the Ablekuma Chieftaincy affair.
The court’s order followed an application for an order of mandamus filed by one Adjin Tetteh praying the court to remove the name of Francis Nii Aryee Addo-Quaye, as Chief of Ablekuma under the stool name, Nii Larbie Mensah IV from the register of the house and instead insert his (Adjin Tetteh’s) name in line with his recognition by the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council in October, 1997.
Adjin Tetteh contended that he was nominated, elected and enstooled as Chief of Ablekuma and that the Ga Traditional Council had recognised him as such by a judgement.
According to him, he became aware that Nii Larbie had been given recognition by the NHC as substantive Chief of Ablekuma through a publication in the Daily Graphic of June 24, 2006.
In a supplementary affidavit that he filed, he declared that since the insertion and deletion of names from the register of the NHC was an administrative act, when it was wrongly effected the court was clothed with authority to enquire into it.
He said it was his name that should have been inserted into the register and not that of Nii Larbie Mensah.
In his affidavit in opposition, Nii Mensah stated that his name was inserted in the NHC register based on the advice of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs.
He also contended that, he was properly nominated, elected and enstooled as the Ablekuma Mantse and Sempe Atofo in accordance with Ga custom.
With regard to the judgement of the Ga Traditional Council judgement mentioned by the applicant, the respondent explained that it was quashed by an Accra High Court on November 11, 1998 and that an appeal filed against the High Court ruling was also dismissed on July 20, 2000 by the Court of Appeal.
He, therefore, stated that the “the allegation by the applicant that the research committee of the Regional House of Chiefs undertook an erroneous administrative act is untenable and misconceived”.
In his ruling, Justice Ansu-Gyeabour said, “I am of the considered view that three main issues are raised for consideration in the facts of the case”.
After considering the arguments of the parties, Justice Ansu-Gyeabour said it was a fact that the court had no power under the Constitution to determine at first instance any matter affecting chieftaincy.
He said it was therefore plain that the court had no power to decide that any of the two parties was properly nominated, elected and enstooled as the Chief of Ablekuma.
The judge, however, indicated that in matters of administration like the case in question the courts had the power to go into them to straighten matters.
Mr Justice Ansu-Gyeabour quoted from Article 23 of the Constitution which stated that “administrative bodies should deal fairly and reasonably with members of the public” and said, “To me it is manifestly clear that by basing its entry in the national register of the house on wrong information from the regional house of chiefs, the officers of the NHC did not act equitably, fairly and in a just manner”.
In his grounds of appeal, Nii Mensah said the High Court judge erred in stating that it was wrong for the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs to have said in their letter dated February 24, 2006 that there was no petition or writ against his enstoolment.
He said the judge erred in holding that the study which the Research Committee of the NHC did was based on a false premise by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs.
The appellant said the judge further erred in holding that then NHC based its entry in the national register of chiefs on wrong information.
He said the judge erred in holding that the method adopted by the authorities of the Ga Traditional Council and the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs in forwarding his name to the NHC for processing and subsequent entry into the national register of chiefs was not correct.
“The learned High Court judge erred in holding that the NHC did not act equitably, fairly and in a just manner”, he said and added that the judge wrongly exercised his discretion in awarding costs against him.
COKE SUSPECTS TO OPEN DEFENCE
THE Accra Fast Track High Court ruled yesterday that Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, and Alhaji Issah Abass have a case to answer in connection with the narcotic charges against them.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the offence of conspiracy described by the defence as unconstitutional was untenable and dismissed it because it was very known and well defined in the Criminal Offence Act 1960, Act 29.
Consequently, the court fixed July 17, 2007 as the day on which the first accused person, Tagor, would open his defence to rebut the case of the prosecution.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Abass faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Initially Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons, but fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
The submissions of “no case” were made after the prosecution had closed its case, after calling 11 witnesses in the case in which Tagor and Alhaji Abass are being tried for their role in the missing 76 parcels of cocaine on board the MV Benjamin.
According to the prosecution, the cocaine was stolen in April last year before the security agencies intercepted the vessel at the Tema Port.
The defence counsel had argued, among others, that the prosecution woefully failed to establish any case for which the accused persons should be called to answer because the charges were all flawed and founded on inaccurate facts and information.
Moreover, they argued that the court should acquit and discharge the accused persons because Section 56 (c) of PNDCL 236, the law under which their clients had been charged, was unconstitutional because it did not define the offences it created.
However, in her reply, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, had argued that the submissions of “no case” were misplaced because the prosecution had dutifully proved beyond the principles for which the submission ought to have been brought.
According to her, it was unnecessary for the defence to have made the submissions because all the prosecution witnesses were steadfast in their evidence and not a single one was shaky during cross-examination to discredit his or her evidence.
In its ruling on the submissions of “no case”, the court said it was of the opinion that the prosecution had been able to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons for which they should be called to answer all the six counts.
Justice Dotse said in order not to create prejudices about the matter, the ruling was not based on disputable facts but he described Inspector Justice Oppong, the fifth prosecution witness, as “elusive and not worth wearing a police uniform”.
Apart from calling the witnesses, he said, the prosecution also tendered various exhibits, such as the statements of the accused persons, the recorded conversation which took place in ACP Kofi Boakye’s house and the transcript of the conversation.
He said ACP Boakye had not been called by the prosecution, although many statements were alluded to him, saying, “I would have been happier if ACP Boakye had been called. It is the case of the prosecution to either call him or not and at this stage it will be premature to call someone material witness or not.”
“I do not know whether they are shielding him or they are going to prosecute him in the future,” Justice Dotse said, and added that for now the bare facts as presented were indisputable and incontrovertible, especially when the police investigator, Inspector Charles Adabah, investigated the ‘underworld’ in the narcotic business to explain certain terminology used during the conversation.
Regarding the conspiracy charge, which both accused persons face, the court was of the view that its essential ingredients had been proven, that there was an agreement between the accused persons to act together and that they did so with a common purpose.
“Even though 11 witnesses were called by the prosecution, the evidence on the whole is on the meeting which took place in ACP Boakye’s house. I do not want to prejudice certain issues but the transcript gives an irresistible conclusion that once the court accepted it for what it is then the accused persons must be taken for what they said at that meeting, during which various agreements were reached,” he said.
He said the enterprise of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics meant there must be somebody who must undertake the activity towards promoting that enterprise unlawfully.
In respect of that offence, the judge made reference to aspects of statements attributed to Abass in the conversation, such as, “I did some business with you (referring to Tagor) and you cheated me .... I don’t want to get angry .... A lot of ‘goods’, about 200 keys ... to your custody”.
The judge said since the police investigator gave some dimensions of the meanings attributed to certain terminology, it was proper to call Abass to explain to the court what kind of ‘business’ he did with Tagor and the ‘key’ as a terminology, since they featured in his conversation, adding that “these pieces of evidence are refutable by the accused persons themselves and so Abass must be asked to answer for them”.
In the case of Tagor, the judge said the same ingredient relating to the enterprise applied to him and similarly referred to aspects of his speech in the conversation, such as, “They asked us to take 100 and another 100 .... We bought 200 and took 100 on credit .... The transaction was not going as expected but the Colombians were putting pressure on me ...”.
“With this, I am of the view that Tagor should be called upon to open his defence in respect of this count,” Justice Dotse said, and added that references used in the transcript of the recorded conversation talked of the supply of ‘goods’ on credit and it was the same evidence that the prosecution used to support its case.
Reacting to arguments by the defence that the prosecution failed to put a time frame on when the alleged offences took place, the judge said a look at certain statements such as “....We have with Mama Tess...” and the use of ‘goods’ did not give a clear picture of what transaction took place between Tagor and the said Mama Tess.
However, he said, the prosecution had proved the essential ingredient of the offence of supply of narcotic drugs and it was the duty of the defence to rebut those claims.
He said a statement by Abass referring to Tagor that “.... You did business with that guy. You made money ... When my goods arrived, Yaw Billah came and I gave him some. If anybody came I gave them some” indicated that Abass was deemed to have confessed to past dealings in narcotic drugs and he was lamenting about how Tagor had cheated him.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the offence of conspiracy described by the defence as unconstitutional was untenable and dismissed it because it was very known and well defined in the Criminal Offence Act 1960, Act 29.
Consequently, the court fixed July 17, 2007 as the day on which the first accused person, Tagor, would open his defence to rebut the case of the prosecution.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Abass faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Initially Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons, but fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
The submissions of “no case” were made after the prosecution had closed its case, after calling 11 witnesses in the case in which Tagor and Alhaji Abass are being tried for their role in the missing 76 parcels of cocaine on board the MV Benjamin.
According to the prosecution, the cocaine was stolen in April last year before the security agencies intercepted the vessel at the Tema Port.
The defence counsel had argued, among others, that the prosecution woefully failed to establish any case for which the accused persons should be called to answer because the charges were all flawed and founded on inaccurate facts and information.
Moreover, they argued that the court should acquit and discharge the accused persons because Section 56 (c) of PNDCL 236, the law under which their clients had been charged, was unconstitutional because it did not define the offences it created.
However, in her reply, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, had argued that the submissions of “no case” were misplaced because the prosecution had dutifully proved beyond the principles for which the submission ought to have been brought.
According to her, it was unnecessary for the defence to have made the submissions because all the prosecution witnesses were steadfast in their evidence and not a single one was shaky during cross-examination to discredit his or her evidence.
In its ruling on the submissions of “no case”, the court said it was of the opinion that the prosecution had been able to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons for which they should be called to answer all the six counts.
Justice Dotse said in order not to create prejudices about the matter, the ruling was not based on disputable facts but he described Inspector Justice Oppong, the fifth prosecution witness, as “elusive and not worth wearing a police uniform”.
Apart from calling the witnesses, he said, the prosecution also tendered various exhibits, such as the statements of the accused persons, the recorded conversation which took place in ACP Kofi Boakye’s house and the transcript of the conversation.
He said ACP Boakye had not been called by the prosecution, although many statements were alluded to him, saying, “I would have been happier if ACP Boakye had been called. It is the case of the prosecution to either call him or not and at this stage it will be premature to call someone material witness or not.”
“I do not know whether they are shielding him or they are going to prosecute him in the future,” Justice Dotse said, and added that for now the bare facts as presented were indisputable and incontrovertible, especially when the police investigator, Inspector Charles Adabah, investigated the ‘underworld’ in the narcotic business to explain certain terminology used during the conversation.
Regarding the conspiracy charge, which both accused persons face, the court was of the view that its essential ingredients had been proven, that there was an agreement between the accused persons to act together and that they did so with a common purpose.
“Even though 11 witnesses were called by the prosecution, the evidence on the whole is on the meeting which took place in ACP Boakye’s house. I do not want to prejudice certain issues but the transcript gives an irresistible conclusion that once the court accepted it for what it is then the accused persons must be taken for what they said at that meeting, during which various agreements were reached,” he said.
He said the enterprise of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics meant there must be somebody who must undertake the activity towards promoting that enterprise unlawfully.
In respect of that offence, the judge made reference to aspects of statements attributed to Abass in the conversation, such as, “I did some business with you (referring to Tagor) and you cheated me .... I don’t want to get angry .... A lot of ‘goods’, about 200 keys ... to your custody”.
The judge said since the police investigator gave some dimensions of the meanings attributed to certain terminology, it was proper to call Abass to explain to the court what kind of ‘business’ he did with Tagor and the ‘key’ as a terminology, since they featured in his conversation, adding that “these pieces of evidence are refutable by the accused persons themselves and so Abass must be asked to answer for them”.
In the case of Tagor, the judge said the same ingredient relating to the enterprise applied to him and similarly referred to aspects of his speech in the conversation, such as, “They asked us to take 100 and another 100 .... We bought 200 and took 100 on credit .... The transaction was not going as expected but the Colombians were putting pressure on me ...”.
“With this, I am of the view that Tagor should be called upon to open his defence in respect of this count,” Justice Dotse said, and added that references used in the transcript of the recorded conversation talked of the supply of ‘goods’ on credit and it was the same evidence that the prosecution used to support its case.
Reacting to arguments by the defence that the prosecution failed to put a time frame on when the alleged offences took place, the judge said a look at certain statements such as “....We have with Mama Tess...” and the use of ‘goods’ did not give a clear picture of what transaction took place between Tagor and the said Mama Tess.
However, he said, the prosecution had proved the essential ingredient of the offence of supply of narcotic drugs and it was the duty of the defence to rebut those claims.
He said a statement by Abass referring to Tagor that “.... You did business with that guy. You made money ... When my goods arrived, Yaw Billah came and I gave him some. If anybody came I gave them some” indicated that Abass was deemed to have confessed to past dealings in narcotic drugs and he was lamenting about how Tagor had cheated him.
COP, ONE OTHER IN COURT FOR COKE
CONSTABLE Ekow Russel of the Accra Regional Police Headquarters, and Maxwell Antwi, a car dealer were yesterday arraigned at the Accra Fast Track High Court on narcotic-related offences.
The policeman is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Their pleas were not taken and they were remanded into police custody to reappear on June 29, 2007, because their lawyers were not in court.
The facts of the case were not read but it is recalled that the policemen and seven other colleagues were earlier arraigned at an Accra Circuit Court on charges relating to the supply of narcotic drugs, stealing narcotic drugs and abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotics.
Two of the accused persons, Sergeant Francis Arthur and Lance Corporal George Akoi, were each granted bail in the sum of ¢300 million with a surety to be justified, while the rest were remanded.
The other policemen are Lance Corporal Isaac Annan, Lance Corporal Dominic Ameza, Constable Collins Ohemeng, Inspector Oppong Kyei, the Station Officer of the Monitors Unit of the Accra Region, and Lance Corporal Tony Adjei.
At the lower court, Antwi pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing narcotic drugs without authority, while Constable Russel pleaded not guilty to one count of supplying narcotic drugs without authority.
The other policemen pleaded not guilty to abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs.
But Daily Graphic learnt that all the accused persons were discharge and rearrested.
The facts of the old case were that on March 27, 2007, personnel from the Organised Crime Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service Headquarters arrested Antwi with cocaine and, during interrogation, he mentioned Constable Russel as his source of supply.
He said on his arrest, Constable Russel admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
Constable Russel said when the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, were arrested by a team comprising the other accused persons, eight slabs of the substance were seized but only one slab was delivered to the office to make a case against the dealers.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to bring the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
Antwi was given the rest of the cocaine to sell and it was during the sale that he was arrested and the rest were also arrested.
The policeman is facing three counts of possession of narcotic drugs, supply of narcotic drugs and dealing in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs while his civilian accomplice faces one count of possession of narcotic drugs without authority.
Their pleas were not taken and they were remanded into police custody to reappear on June 29, 2007, because their lawyers were not in court.
The facts of the case were not read but it is recalled that the policemen and seven other colleagues were earlier arraigned at an Accra Circuit Court on charges relating to the supply of narcotic drugs, stealing narcotic drugs and abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotics.
Two of the accused persons, Sergeant Francis Arthur and Lance Corporal George Akoi, were each granted bail in the sum of ¢300 million with a surety to be justified, while the rest were remanded.
The other policemen are Lance Corporal Isaac Annan, Lance Corporal Dominic Ameza, Constable Collins Ohemeng, Inspector Oppong Kyei, the Station Officer of the Monitors Unit of the Accra Region, and Lance Corporal Tony Adjei.
At the lower court, Antwi pleaded not guilty to one count of possessing narcotic drugs without authority, while Constable Russel pleaded not guilty to one count of supplying narcotic drugs without authority.
The other policemen pleaded not guilty to abetment of crime in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs.
But Daily Graphic learnt that all the accused persons were discharge and rearrested.
The facts of the old case were that on March 27, 2007, personnel from the Organised Crime Unit of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service Headquarters arrested Antwi with cocaine and, during interrogation, he mentioned Constable Russel as his source of supply.
He said on his arrest, Constable Russel admitted the offence and stated that the cocaine had been taken from certain Nigerian dealers in Tema on January 16, 2007.
Constable Russel said when the Nigerians, Sebastian Uba and Matthew Nkumado, were arrested by a team comprising the other accused persons, eight slabs of the substance were seized but only one slab was delivered to the office to make a case against the dealers.
On January 31, 2007, Uba mysteriously escaped from Constable Russel when he had been instructed to bring the Nigerian from the La Police Station to the Regional Police Headquarters.
Antwi was given the rest of the cocaine to sell and it was during the sale that he was arrested and the rest were also arrested.
WOMAN GETS 10 YERAS FOR COKE
THE Greater Accra Regional Tribunal has sentenced a woman to 10 years imprisonment in hard labour for narcotic-related offences.
The woman, Janet Afeme, pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted exportation of narcotics without licence from the Ministry of Health and possession of narcotic drugs and she was convicted and sentenced on her own plea.
According to the facts of the case, Janet was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport at about 9.30 a.m. on November 30, last year when she was going through departure formalities to board a KLM flight to Amsterdam.
Officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) suspected her to be carrying narcotic drugs and a search revealed that she had concealed 48 cake sizes of a whitish substance suspected to be cocaine in her underpants.
She told the NACOB officials that she received the substance from someone she named only as Peter and that it was to be delivered to someone in Amsterdam for a fee of 7,000 Euros.
When the substance was sent to the Ghana Standards Board for test, it proved positive for cocaine, with a net weight of 2.946 grammes.
The woman, Janet Afeme, pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted exportation of narcotics without licence from the Ministry of Health and possession of narcotic drugs and she was convicted and sentenced on her own plea.
According to the facts of the case, Janet was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport at about 9.30 a.m. on November 30, last year when she was going through departure formalities to board a KLM flight to Amsterdam.
Officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) suspected her to be carrying narcotic drugs and a search revealed that she had concealed 48 cake sizes of a whitish substance suspected to be cocaine in her underpants.
She told the NACOB officials that she received the substance from someone she named only as Peter and that it was to be delivered to someone in Amsterdam for a fee of 7,000 Euros.
When the substance was sent to the Ghana Standards Board for test, it proved positive for cocaine, with a net weight of 2.946 grammes.
Friday, June 22, 2007
LAWYER DISCHARGED BY COURT
Dr Kwaku Nsiah, a lawyer and also head pastor of the Prevailing Prayers Ministries International in Accra has been discharged by an Accra circuit court on alleged charges of defrauding a Ghanaian resident in the USA of $16,000, under the pretext of securing US visas for two of his sons in Ghana.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Frank Manu, the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal Chairman, who sat as an additional circuit court judge, however, convicted and sentenced Ekow Davis, the man who was said to have received the money from the lawyer, to five years imprisonment for the offence.
The court said that it could not wait for the convict to locate someone he called Cosmos alleged to have received the money from him and held him responsible and convicted him on his own plea.
Ekow told the court that he should be given time to pay the money in bits since he could not locate Cosmos.
Dr Nsiah, the court said, paid ¢30 million to the complainant.
Dr Nsiah managed to secure a visa for one of sons of the complainant, Prosper Kwabena Agyei, but he was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport by Immigration officials who found the visa to be fake.
According to the facts of the case, Dr Nsiah attended a conference in the USA where he met Anthony Gyamfi, a Ghanaian based in America.
During their conversion, Dr Nsiah was said to have suggested to Mr Gyamfi that he could secure a visa for any of his relatives back in Ghana to join him.
It was agreed that payment would be remitted to the accused person for the necessary documents for the two men.
On December 17, 2005, Mr Gyamfi wired the $16,000 to Dr Nsiah who on January 26, 2006, presented a Ghanaian passport with number H1608933, in which the US visa had been embossed, to Agyei to board a North American Airline flight to the US.
Agyei was, however, arrested at the airport by Immigration officials for possessing forged travel documents.
It was Agyei’s father who authorised one Immigration official, Kyei Asiedu, to lodge a complaint for Dr Nsiah to be invited to the criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters for interrogation.
In his explanation to the court, Dr Nsiah said after the agreement with Agyei’s mother in the USA, Davis who was a member of his church could procure the visa.
He said the arrangement was the payment would not be remitted until the deal had gone through and within one week Davis brought the visa, a photocopy of which was sent to the USA, before he purchased a ticket for Agyei.
According to him, he did not know that the visa was fake and, therefore, he even accompanied Agyei to the airport.
He said that since the incident, Davis stopped attending church and also vacated where he lived. He was later arrested from his hideout
*Picture of Dr Nsiah
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Frank Manu, the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal Chairman, who sat as an additional circuit court judge, however, convicted and sentenced Ekow Davis, the man who was said to have received the money from the lawyer, to five years imprisonment for the offence.
The court said that it could not wait for the convict to locate someone he called Cosmos alleged to have received the money from him and held him responsible and convicted him on his own plea.
Ekow told the court that he should be given time to pay the money in bits since he could not locate Cosmos.
Dr Nsiah, the court said, paid ¢30 million to the complainant.
Dr Nsiah managed to secure a visa for one of sons of the complainant, Prosper Kwabena Agyei, but he was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport by Immigration officials who found the visa to be fake.
According to the facts of the case, Dr Nsiah attended a conference in the USA where he met Anthony Gyamfi, a Ghanaian based in America.
During their conversion, Dr Nsiah was said to have suggested to Mr Gyamfi that he could secure a visa for any of his relatives back in Ghana to join him.
It was agreed that payment would be remitted to the accused person for the necessary documents for the two men.
On December 17, 2005, Mr Gyamfi wired the $16,000 to Dr Nsiah who on January 26, 2006, presented a Ghanaian passport with number H1608933, in which the US visa had been embossed, to Agyei to board a North American Airline flight to the US.
Agyei was, however, arrested at the airport by Immigration officials for possessing forged travel documents.
It was Agyei’s father who authorised one Immigration official, Kyei Asiedu, to lodge a complaint for Dr Nsiah to be invited to the criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters for interrogation.
In his explanation to the court, Dr Nsiah said after the agreement with Agyei’s mother in the USA, Davis who was a member of his church could procure the visa.
He said the arrangement was the payment would not be remitted until the deal had gone through and within one week Davis brought the visa, a photocopy of which was sent to the USA, before he purchased a ticket for Agyei.
According to him, he did not know that the visa was fake and, therefore, he even accompanied Agyei to the airport.
He said that since the incident, Davis stopped attending church and also vacated where he lived. He was later arrested from his hideout
*Picture of Dr Nsiah
COP TESTIFIES UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION
POLICE Inspector Charles Adabah, the investigator in the case involving the owner of the MV Benjamin and the five crew members who are being tried for their roles in the importation of 77 slabs of cocaine has said the driver of the fugitive cocaine baron, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, jumped bail and is on the run.
He said all efforts to arrest the said driver had proved futile but no attempt had been made to arrest his surety.
The investigator was testifying under cross-examination by counsel for the vessel owner, Mr D.K. Ameley, at the Accra Fast Track High Court.
According to the prosecution, the 77 slabs were imported into the country through the MV Benjamin but before the security agencies got wind of its dock at the Tema Port, all but one parcel containing 25 slabs had been stolen.
Following that, the owner of the vessel, Joseph Kojo Dawson; Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who were alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the substance, are being tried.
They have been charged with various counts of using a property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
The witness disagreed with counsel that Dawson voluntarily led security officials to Sheriff’s house to effect his arrest after the vessel had been arrested at the Tema Port.
Mr Ameley suggested to the witness that his client volunteered to lead the security men to Sheriff’s house so that he could be arrested but they prevented him at a point, for which reason Sheriff could not be arrested.
Inspector Adabah said according to the Charter Agreement, the vessel was chartered by Atico Fisheries Limited, a company owned by Sheriff, to tow a distressed vessel from Conakry, Guinea, to Ghana.
He, however, disagreed with counsel that Dawson did not know what Sheriff was going to use the vessel for, adding that Dawson had been totally aware that it was going to be used to cart cocaine.
When Mr James Agalga, counsel for the Korean, put it to the witness that the vessel docked in Takoradi in order to undergo repairs, he agreed, but maintained that the accused person was not contracted to do any repairs but that he was among those who organised the voyage to import the cocaine.
Meanwhile, the case involving three policemen who are being tried for allegedly aiding the fugitive Sheriff to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine was adjourned to enable a defence witness to be called to testify.
The court said that if by the next sitting the witness was not present, the case would go on according to law.
The accused persons are Sgt David Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson and General Lance Corporal Peter Bondorin, while a fourth accomplice, Detective Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah, is on the run.
The accused persons are alleged to have received an unspecified amount in dollars from the fugitive cocaine owner and allowed him to flee.
They have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer and have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
He said all efforts to arrest the said driver had proved futile but no attempt had been made to arrest his surety.
The investigator was testifying under cross-examination by counsel for the vessel owner, Mr D.K. Ameley, at the Accra Fast Track High Court.
According to the prosecution, the 77 slabs were imported into the country through the MV Benjamin but before the security agencies got wind of its dock at the Tema Port, all but one parcel containing 25 slabs had been stolen.
Following that, the owner of the vessel, Joseph Kojo Dawson; Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who were alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the substance, are being tried.
They have been charged with various counts of using a property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
The witness disagreed with counsel that Dawson voluntarily led security officials to Sheriff’s house to effect his arrest after the vessel had been arrested at the Tema Port.
Mr Ameley suggested to the witness that his client volunteered to lead the security men to Sheriff’s house so that he could be arrested but they prevented him at a point, for which reason Sheriff could not be arrested.
Inspector Adabah said according to the Charter Agreement, the vessel was chartered by Atico Fisheries Limited, a company owned by Sheriff, to tow a distressed vessel from Conakry, Guinea, to Ghana.
He, however, disagreed with counsel that Dawson did not know what Sheriff was going to use the vessel for, adding that Dawson had been totally aware that it was going to be used to cart cocaine.
When Mr James Agalga, counsel for the Korean, put it to the witness that the vessel docked in Takoradi in order to undergo repairs, he agreed, but maintained that the accused person was not contracted to do any repairs but that he was among those who organised the voyage to import the cocaine.
Meanwhile, the case involving three policemen who are being tried for allegedly aiding the fugitive Sheriff to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine was adjourned to enable a defence witness to be called to testify.
The court said that if by the next sitting the witness was not present, the case would go on according to law.
The accused persons are Sgt David Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson and General Lance Corporal Peter Bondorin, while a fourth accomplice, Detective Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah, is on the run.
The accused persons are alleged to have received an unspecified amount in dollars from the fugitive cocaine owner and allowed him to flee.
They have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer and have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
COPS GET BAIL IN COKE TRIAL
IT was all jubilation and excitement on the premises of the Regional Tribunal yesterday when the circuit court granted bail to the nine police officers and six suspected drug barons busted in the Western Region for allegedly going to retrieve some parcels of cocaine which had been washed ashore near Axim and Half Assini.
The excitement started from the packed courtroom as soon as the judge announced that each of the accused persons had been granted bail in the sum of ¢500 million with a surety.
The large crowd, some of whom stood on the veranda, spontaneously heaved sighs of relief and carried their excitement outside where they joyfully hugged and kissed loved ones among the accused persons as they boarded a police vehicle for the bail documents to be executed.
The pleas of the accused person were not taken but the court, after listening to arguments by the a team of defence lawyers, upheld the bail applications.
According to the court, it had not been confirmed that any of the alleged substances was seen at the time of arrest.
Defence lawyers argued that the case was not one in which bail should be refused, especially when the alleged treasure hunting could not be linked to any particular offence.
According to them, the conduct of the policemen was administrative, which could be taken care of by the Police Administration.
They said the case was based on mere rumours that some substances had been jettisoned into the ocean and were likely to be washed ashore but at the time of the arrests those substances had not been found with the accused persons.
The policemen are G/Constable Cudjoe Mensah, L/Cpl Gideon Sakabito and G/Constable Dennis Agyeman, all of the La Police Station in Accra, where Constable Agyeman is the Armourer; G/Cpl George Obuobi of the Darkuman Police Station and G/L/Cpl Ebenezer Quao Afatsao of the Armoured Car Squadron but currently attached to the VVIPU at the Castle, Osu.
The others are L/Cpl Ben Somuah of the Armoured Car Squadron but currently on interdiction, L/Cpl Daniel Kagya of the Accra Central Police Station, Evans Asare Yeboah of the Armoured Car Squadron in Accra and G/Constable John Mensah-Gray of the Service Workshop attached to the Regional Headquarters, Accra.
The suspected drug dealers are Eric Asamoah, 35, Kwadwo Annim, alias Olympio, 35, Alex Addo, 36, Kwasi Kumeke, 27, Kwame Attah Yeboah, 33, and James Ofori, all businessmen in Accra.
The facts of the case were that in recent times the security agencies had been monitoring information that a vessel from an unidentified origin had discharged some parcels of substances suspected to be cocaine into the Atlantic Ocean which were expected to be washed ashore at the Gulf of Guinea, near Axim and Half Assini in the Western Region.
The prosecution said in their desire to make money from the floating fortune, the accused persons decided among themselves in Accra to go to the area to hunt for the treasure.
Consequently, on May 31, 2007 the accused persons set off from Accra at dawn in various cars for the area, ostensibly to retrieve the parcels of cocaine.
The Western Regional Security Council (REGSEC) got wind of the activities of the accused persons and put security men at the various checkpoints on high alert.
The security officials at the Apremdo Police Checkpoint near Takoradi spotted a BMW 4X4 with a DVLA number plate, a VW Golf, with registration number GE 9487 X, a Nissan Sentra, with registration number GW 6309 X, and a Geo Prism saloon car, with registration number GE 4501 W, and intercepted them while they were in a convoy.
After their arrest, the accused persons were later sent to the Police Headquarters in Accra for further investigations where it was established that all them left their duty posts in Accra without permission from their various commanders.
According to the prosecution, G/CPL Obuobi and L/CPL Afatsao, at the time of the operation, were in uniform and carried a pistol and an AK 47 assault rifle with three rounds of ammunition, respectively.
It said L/CPL Somuah was also armed with a pistol with five rounds of ammunition, while L/CPL Kagya was armed with an AK 47 assault rifle with 10 rounds of ammunition.
The rest of the policemen, it said, were in mufti and stated that all of them refused to give statements to the police unless their lawyers were present.
The excitement started from the packed courtroom as soon as the judge announced that each of the accused persons had been granted bail in the sum of ¢500 million with a surety.
The large crowd, some of whom stood on the veranda, spontaneously heaved sighs of relief and carried their excitement outside where they joyfully hugged and kissed loved ones among the accused persons as they boarded a police vehicle for the bail documents to be executed.
The pleas of the accused person were not taken but the court, after listening to arguments by the a team of defence lawyers, upheld the bail applications.
According to the court, it had not been confirmed that any of the alleged substances was seen at the time of arrest.
Defence lawyers argued that the case was not one in which bail should be refused, especially when the alleged treasure hunting could not be linked to any particular offence.
According to them, the conduct of the policemen was administrative, which could be taken care of by the Police Administration.
They said the case was based on mere rumours that some substances had been jettisoned into the ocean and were likely to be washed ashore but at the time of the arrests those substances had not been found with the accused persons.
The policemen are G/Constable Cudjoe Mensah, L/Cpl Gideon Sakabito and G/Constable Dennis Agyeman, all of the La Police Station in Accra, where Constable Agyeman is the Armourer; G/Cpl George Obuobi of the Darkuman Police Station and G/L/Cpl Ebenezer Quao Afatsao of the Armoured Car Squadron but currently attached to the VVIPU at the Castle, Osu.
The others are L/Cpl Ben Somuah of the Armoured Car Squadron but currently on interdiction, L/Cpl Daniel Kagya of the Accra Central Police Station, Evans Asare Yeboah of the Armoured Car Squadron in Accra and G/Constable John Mensah-Gray of the Service Workshop attached to the Regional Headquarters, Accra.
The suspected drug dealers are Eric Asamoah, 35, Kwadwo Annim, alias Olympio, 35, Alex Addo, 36, Kwasi Kumeke, 27, Kwame Attah Yeboah, 33, and James Ofori, all businessmen in Accra.
The facts of the case were that in recent times the security agencies had been monitoring information that a vessel from an unidentified origin had discharged some parcels of substances suspected to be cocaine into the Atlantic Ocean which were expected to be washed ashore at the Gulf of Guinea, near Axim and Half Assini in the Western Region.
The prosecution said in their desire to make money from the floating fortune, the accused persons decided among themselves in Accra to go to the area to hunt for the treasure.
Consequently, on May 31, 2007 the accused persons set off from Accra at dawn in various cars for the area, ostensibly to retrieve the parcels of cocaine.
The Western Regional Security Council (REGSEC) got wind of the activities of the accused persons and put security men at the various checkpoints on high alert.
The security officials at the Apremdo Police Checkpoint near Takoradi spotted a BMW 4X4 with a DVLA number plate, a VW Golf, with registration number GE 9487 X, a Nissan Sentra, with registration number GW 6309 X, and a Geo Prism saloon car, with registration number GE 4501 W, and intercepted them while they were in a convoy.
After their arrest, the accused persons were later sent to the Police Headquarters in Accra for further investigations where it was established that all them left their duty posts in Accra without permission from their various commanders.
According to the prosecution, G/CPL Obuobi and L/CPL Afatsao, at the time of the operation, were in uniform and carried a pistol and an AK 47 assault rifle with three rounds of ammunition, respectively.
It said L/CPL Somuah was also armed with a pistol with five rounds of ammunition, while L/CPL Kagya was armed with an AK 47 assault rifle with 10 rounds of ammunition.
The rest of the policemen, it said, were in mufti and stated that all of them refused to give statements to the police unless their lawyers were present.
ACUIT MY CLIENT, PLEADS COUNSEL
COUNSEL for Alhaji Abass last Thursday urged the Accra Fast Track High Court to acquit and discharge his client of the narcotic charges because the law under which he has been charged is unconstitutional.
According to Mr Osafo Buaben, the counsel, Section 56 (c) of PNDCL 236, the law under which his client had been charged, was unconstitutional because it did not define the offences it created.
The law, he said, states that “Any person who abets or engages in a criminal conspiracy to commit any offence under this law ... is guilty and liable to punishment.”
In his submission of “no case”, Mr Buaben cited Section 173 of Act 30, which called for the acquittal of accused persons if insufficient proof of wrongdoing was established against them and stated that the prosecution woefully failed to establish any case for which the accused person should be called to answer.
He said in effect the law created an offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy but did not define what those were.
“That is in contravention of Article 19 (11) of the Constitution that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty(ies) of which is/are prescribed. The evidence is unreliable and has been so discredited during cross-examination that no tribunal will sustain it to convict,” counsel said.
The prosecution closed the case after calling 11 witnesses in the case in which Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, and Alhaji Abass are being tried for their role in the missing 76 parcels of cocaine on board the MV Benjamin.
It said, however, that the cocaine was stolen in April last year before the security agencies intercepted the vessel at the Tema Port.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Issah Abass faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Initially Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Issah Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons, but fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Buaben stated that the case could be distinguished from the various cases of wilfully causing financial loss to the state in which the authorities were certain that the word ‘wilful’ was not defined.
Counsel argued that quite apart from that law, the case was based on a recorded conversation that took place in ACP Boakye’s house in which there was no shred of evidence that the accused persons said they were going to look for the missing cocaine and enjoy the benefits.
He said Kwabena Acheampong, who participated in the said conversation and also testified for the prosecution, had said that during the conversation ACP Boakye had told them to put their ears on the ground.
Moreover, counsel said the other prosecution witnesses did not lead evidence on the particulars of the offence that the accused persons agreed to enjoy the benefits of the missing cocaine.
According to him, the police investigator, Inspector Charles Adabah, for instance, told the court that he relied on the recorded conversation to conduct his investigations but he never led evidence on the sort of co-operation among the accused persons for them to enjoy the benefits from the cocaine.
“The prosecution has no faith in this conspiracy charge and that is why ACP Boakye and the others who took part in the conversation were not charged,” counsel said, and added that nowhere in that conversation did the accused persons agree that they were going to co-operate to find the missing cocaine and then jointly enjoy it.
Counsel said further that PNDCL 236 stated that there must be a person who had undertaken an activity, the purpose of which was to establish either an enterprise or promote an enterprise relating to narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
He said what constituted narcotic drugs was defined in the law, saying that in the instant case a prosecution witness had told the court that for something to qualify to be called cocaine it must have been scientifically tested and proven, which was lacking in the case.
Mr Buaben said the framers of the law envisaged that problem and that was why they did what they did, arguing that none of the 11 witnesses called by the prosecution said the accused persons promoted narcotic drugs or engaged in that activity as prescribed by the law.
He said the charge was also based on the accused person having admitted to engaging in narcotic drugs and said there was no shred of evidence to the effect that the accused persons promoted an enterprise relating to narcotic drugs and that the recorded conversation and its transcript referred to the word ‘goods’ and not cocaine, as the prosecution was making the court to believe.
Counsel said it was not for anyone to say that ‘goods’ referred to cocaine because that would amount to speculation and, therefore, it would not be proper to sustain a conviction on the basis of a statement by the investigator that those in the narcotics business referred to cocaine as ‘goods’.
He said the accused could not be charged on the basis of admitting having supplied cocaine because a confession evidence could not sustain a conviction unless it was corroborated by an independent witness.
Mr Buaben said the charges were based on the recorded conversation, arguing that that was not enough for a conviction unless the prosecution went beyond that to call other material witnesses to corroborate that evidence.
Hearing is adjourned to June 21 for the prosecution to reply to the submissions made by the defence.
According to Mr Osafo Buaben, the counsel, Section 56 (c) of PNDCL 236, the law under which his client had been charged, was unconstitutional because it did not define the offences it created.
The law, he said, states that “Any person who abets or engages in a criminal conspiracy to commit any offence under this law ... is guilty and liable to punishment.”
In his submission of “no case”, Mr Buaben cited Section 173 of Act 30, which called for the acquittal of accused persons if insufficient proof of wrongdoing was established against them and stated that the prosecution woefully failed to establish any case for which the accused person should be called to answer.
He said in effect the law created an offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy but did not define what those were.
“That is in contravention of Article 19 (11) of the Constitution that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty(ies) of which is/are prescribed. The evidence is unreliable and has been so discredited during cross-examination that no tribunal will sustain it to convict,” counsel said.
The prosecution closed the case after calling 11 witnesses in the case in which Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, and Alhaji Abass are being tried for their role in the missing 76 parcels of cocaine on board the MV Benjamin.
It said, however, that the cocaine was stolen in April last year before the security agencies intercepted the vessel at the Tema Port.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Issah Abass faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Initially Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Issah Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons, but fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Buaben stated that the case could be distinguished from the various cases of wilfully causing financial loss to the state in which the authorities were certain that the word ‘wilful’ was not defined.
Counsel argued that quite apart from that law, the case was based on a recorded conversation that took place in ACP Boakye’s house in which there was no shred of evidence that the accused persons said they were going to look for the missing cocaine and enjoy the benefits.
He said Kwabena Acheampong, who participated in the said conversation and also testified for the prosecution, had said that during the conversation ACP Boakye had told them to put their ears on the ground.
Moreover, counsel said the other prosecution witnesses did not lead evidence on the particulars of the offence that the accused persons agreed to enjoy the benefits of the missing cocaine.
According to him, the police investigator, Inspector Charles Adabah, for instance, told the court that he relied on the recorded conversation to conduct his investigations but he never led evidence on the sort of co-operation among the accused persons for them to enjoy the benefits from the cocaine.
“The prosecution has no faith in this conspiracy charge and that is why ACP Boakye and the others who took part in the conversation were not charged,” counsel said, and added that nowhere in that conversation did the accused persons agree that they were going to co-operate to find the missing cocaine and then jointly enjoy it.
Counsel said further that PNDCL 236 stated that there must be a person who had undertaken an activity, the purpose of which was to establish either an enterprise or promote an enterprise relating to narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
He said what constituted narcotic drugs was defined in the law, saying that in the instant case a prosecution witness had told the court that for something to qualify to be called cocaine it must have been scientifically tested and proven, which was lacking in the case.
Mr Buaben said the framers of the law envisaged that problem and that was why they did what they did, arguing that none of the 11 witnesses called by the prosecution said the accused persons promoted narcotic drugs or engaged in that activity as prescribed by the law.
He said the charge was also based on the accused person having admitted to engaging in narcotic drugs and said there was no shred of evidence to the effect that the accused persons promoted an enterprise relating to narcotic drugs and that the recorded conversation and its transcript referred to the word ‘goods’ and not cocaine, as the prosecution was making the court to believe.
Counsel said it was not for anyone to say that ‘goods’ referred to cocaine because that would amount to speculation and, therefore, it would not be proper to sustain a conviction on the basis of a statement by the investigator that those in the narcotics business referred to cocaine as ‘goods’.
He said the accused could not be charged on the basis of admitting having supplied cocaine because a confession evidence could not sustain a conviction unless it was corroborated by an independent witness.
Mr Buaben said the charges were based on the recorded conversation, arguing that that was not enough for a conviction unless the prosecution went beyond that to call other material witnesses to corroborate that evidence.
Hearing is adjourned to June 21 for the prosecution to reply to the submissions made by the defence.
COKE TRAFFICKERS JAILED
THREE men were yesterday sentenced to a total of 34 years imprisonment by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal for various narcotic offences.
They are Joseph Arthur Aggrey, who was jailed 14 years, and Albert Acquah and Emmanuel Asante, who were jailed 10 years each.
All the convicts were charged with two counts each of attempted exportation of narcotic drugs and possession of narcotic drugs.
Aggrey pleaded not guilty but at the end of the trial the court found him guilty on both counts and convicted him.
In the case of Acquah and Asante, they pleaded guilty to the two counts and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced on their own pleas.
According to the facts of the case, as narrated by the prosecution, Aggrey was a native of Ajumako Besease in the Central Region but was domiciled in Spain.
He was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport at about 8.30 p.m. on January 3, this year when he was going through departure formalities to board a flight to Spain.
Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) officials at the airport arrested Aggrey on suspicion of carrying narcotics and he was sent to the 37 Military Hospital where he expelled 85 pellets of the substance, weighing 955.45 grammes.
Aggrey was said to have told NACOB officials that he bought the substance from some Nigerians at the Christian Village, near Legon in Accra, for 8,000 Euros.
In the case of Acquah, he was arrested at the airport on November 26, last year when he was also going through departure formalities to board a flight to Spain.
He expelled 29 pellets of the substance, weighing 406.86 grammes, at the 37 Military Hospital after telling NACOB officials that he swallowed the pellets with okro soup.
Asante was arrested at the airport on February 10, this year while going through departure formalities to board a flight to Amsterdam.
He expelled 87 pellets of the substance, weighing 786.87 grammes.
They are Joseph Arthur Aggrey, who was jailed 14 years, and Albert Acquah and Emmanuel Asante, who were jailed 10 years each.
All the convicts were charged with two counts each of attempted exportation of narcotic drugs and possession of narcotic drugs.
Aggrey pleaded not guilty but at the end of the trial the court found him guilty on both counts and convicted him.
In the case of Acquah and Asante, they pleaded guilty to the two counts and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced on their own pleas.
According to the facts of the case, as narrated by the prosecution, Aggrey was a native of Ajumako Besease in the Central Region but was domiciled in Spain.
He was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport at about 8.30 p.m. on January 3, this year when he was going through departure formalities to board a flight to Spain.
Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) officials at the airport arrested Aggrey on suspicion of carrying narcotics and he was sent to the 37 Military Hospital where he expelled 85 pellets of the substance, weighing 955.45 grammes.
Aggrey was said to have told NACOB officials that he bought the substance from some Nigerians at the Christian Village, near Legon in Accra, for 8,000 Euros.
In the case of Acquah, he was arrested at the airport on November 26, last year when he was also going through departure formalities to board a flight to Spain.
He expelled 29 pellets of the substance, weighing 406.86 grammes, at the 37 Military Hospital after telling NACOB officials that he swallowed the pellets with okro soup.
Asante was arrested at the airport on February 10, this year while going through departure formalities to board a flight to Amsterdam.
He expelled 87 pellets of the substance, weighing 786.87 grammes.
NEWSPAPER RESTRAINED FROM PUBLICATION
THE Accra High Court has restrained Concord Media Ltd, publishers of Gye Nyame Concord newspaper and Mr Alfred Ogbame, the managing editor from the publication of stories of an alleged scandal at the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority and its Director General until the determination of a suit against them.
The court's order was contained in its ruling on June 11, 2007, in an application for an order of interlocutory injunction made by Mr Atta Akyea on behalf of the GPHA and Mr Ben Owusu Mensah, the Director General.
The plaintiffs have sued the defendants claiming general damages for what it described as very offensive and defamatory publications in the Wednesday, November 29 -Tuesday, December 5, 2006 and Wednesday, December 6 -Tuesday, December 13, 2006 edition of the Gye Nyame Concord.
They also claimed an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further publishing similar words defamatory of them.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs stated that the GPHA was a statutory body mandated by law to plan, build, develop, manage, maintain, operate and control ports in Ghana while Mr Owusu Mensah was a transport consultant with impeccable pedigree.
According to them, the defendants in the Wednesday, November 29 - Tuesday, December 5, 2006 edition of the newspaper published a defamatory story under the headline " A $16 million scandal at GPHA what went wrong? How did a contract of $14 million jump to over $16 million."
They said that the newspaper had a teaser that "We arranged to pad it up with $2 million to be shared among us. Now they have cheated me and I will talk" ,claims a Whistleblower. No, we did not do what he is alleging ...charged the GPHA Chief Executive Ben Owusu Mensah" and informed its readers to watch out for the amazing story soon.
"This rather terse defamatory publication was calculated to whet the appetite of the reading public and to enhance the future circulation of the Gye Nyame Concord", they stated.
They said that further in the Wednesday, December 6 - Tuesday, December 13, 2006, the defendants published that "Ogbame dares GPHA boss over $16 million scandal at GPHA" and quoted the managing editor of the newspaper as challenging Mr Owusu Mensah on Radio Gold to go to court if he had nothing to hide in the alleged $2 million scandal at GPHA.
"He has bitten more than he can chew. We haven't done the story yet and the man is running wild threatening all over the place", they quoted Mr Ogbame as having told Radio Gold.
In the second story, the plaintiffs said the defendants adorned the front page of the newspaper with a picture of Mr Owusu Mensah in order to secure the highest embarrassment for him and in their natural and ordinary meaning, the words meant and were understood to mean that the GPHA was a corrupt corporate body run by corrupt officers.
They said the GPHA Director General who was in charge of the day-to-day running of the authority, was particularly singled out for vilification that he was strenuously seeking to hide a corrupt transaction by the authority.
Furthermore, they said the managing editor in that sleazy publication portrayed the GPHA Director General as the beneficiary of a fraudulent transaction with a mark-up of $2 million.
The defendants, the plaintiffs stated were bent on peddling falsehood about them against the backdrop that the transaction was above board although it was sanctioned by the Board of Directors of GPHA.
In their statement of defence, Mr Ogbame denied that the said publications were intended to defame the plaintiffs and counter claimed that the conduct of Mr Owusu Mensah was actuated by malice and had caused him pain, embarrassment, ridicule and injured his reputation as an award winning journalist as well as his professional career as a journalist.
Therefore, Mr Ogbame is also claiming damages for defamation and costs.
They said the said publication was an accurate representation of the essentials of the various interviews granted by Mr Ogbame and that the story as told by an informant, which source they viewed as a Whistleblower.
The defendants said that the informant was at all material times to the execution of the contract between the GPHA and Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd (ZPMC), a member and or Director of KF 94 Ltd, which acted as local representatives of ZPMC.
According to the defendants, the original source of the publication was a Radio Gold programme in which Mr Owusu Mensah appeared to justify and or respond to the defendants'' publication dated November 29, 2006 to December 5, 2006.
They said it was during the Radio Gold programme that Mr Owusu Mensah made scurrilous allegations and defamatory statements about the defendants and in order to authenticate and or verify the said allegations, Mr Ogbame was put on air to respond to the unfounded allegations.
The defendants said Mr Owusu Mensah on December 4, 2006 organised a press conference in which he made defamatory statements concerning and about Mr Ogbame, that he was a rogue journalist and unprofessional as well as an extortionist and blackmailer.
They maintained that the contract sum was $14.7 million but the actual sum paid by the GPHA was $16.7 million and that the various publications were as accurate and fair reflection of what transpired during and after the execution of the contract between GPHA and ZPMC.
They said that it was rather Mr Owusu Mensah who had injured their reputation by the various statements made against them during the December 4, 2006, press conference and a further advertiser’s announcement in the Daily Graphic, the Crusading Guide and the Daily Guide newspapers.
The defendants are represented by Mr Charles Puozuing.
The court's order was contained in its ruling on June 11, 2007, in an application for an order of interlocutory injunction made by Mr Atta Akyea on behalf of the GPHA and Mr Ben Owusu Mensah, the Director General.
The plaintiffs have sued the defendants claiming general damages for what it described as very offensive and defamatory publications in the Wednesday, November 29 -Tuesday, December 5, 2006 and Wednesday, December 6 -Tuesday, December 13, 2006 edition of the Gye Nyame Concord.
They also claimed an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further publishing similar words defamatory of them.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs stated that the GPHA was a statutory body mandated by law to plan, build, develop, manage, maintain, operate and control ports in Ghana while Mr Owusu Mensah was a transport consultant with impeccable pedigree.
According to them, the defendants in the Wednesday, November 29 - Tuesday, December 5, 2006 edition of the newspaper published a defamatory story under the headline " A $16 million scandal at GPHA what went wrong? How did a contract of $14 million jump to over $16 million."
They said that the newspaper had a teaser that "We arranged to pad it up with $2 million to be shared among us. Now they have cheated me and I will talk" ,claims a Whistleblower. No, we did not do what he is alleging ...charged the GPHA Chief Executive Ben Owusu Mensah" and informed its readers to watch out for the amazing story soon.
"This rather terse defamatory publication was calculated to whet the appetite of the reading public and to enhance the future circulation of the Gye Nyame Concord", they stated.
They said that further in the Wednesday, December 6 - Tuesday, December 13, 2006, the defendants published that "Ogbame dares GPHA boss over $16 million scandal at GPHA" and quoted the managing editor of the newspaper as challenging Mr Owusu Mensah on Radio Gold to go to court if he had nothing to hide in the alleged $2 million scandal at GPHA.
"He has bitten more than he can chew. We haven't done the story yet and the man is running wild threatening all over the place", they quoted Mr Ogbame as having told Radio Gold.
In the second story, the plaintiffs said the defendants adorned the front page of the newspaper with a picture of Mr Owusu Mensah in order to secure the highest embarrassment for him and in their natural and ordinary meaning, the words meant and were understood to mean that the GPHA was a corrupt corporate body run by corrupt officers.
They said the GPHA Director General who was in charge of the day-to-day running of the authority, was particularly singled out for vilification that he was strenuously seeking to hide a corrupt transaction by the authority.
Furthermore, they said the managing editor in that sleazy publication portrayed the GPHA Director General as the beneficiary of a fraudulent transaction with a mark-up of $2 million.
The defendants, the plaintiffs stated were bent on peddling falsehood about them against the backdrop that the transaction was above board although it was sanctioned by the Board of Directors of GPHA.
In their statement of defence, Mr Ogbame denied that the said publications were intended to defame the plaintiffs and counter claimed that the conduct of Mr Owusu Mensah was actuated by malice and had caused him pain, embarrassment, ridicule and injured his reputation as an award winning journalist as well as his professional career as a journalist.
Therefore, Mr Ogbame is also claiming damages for defamation and costs.
They said the said publication was an accurate representation of the essentials of the various interviews granted by Mr Ogbame and that the story as told by an informant, which source they viewed as a Whistleblower.
The defendants said that the informant was at all material times to the execution of the contract between the GPHA and Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd (ZPMC), a member and or Director of KF 94 Ltd, which acted as local representatives of ZPMC.
According to the defendants, the original source of the publication was a Radio Gold programme in which Mr Owusu Mensah appeared to justify and or respond to the defendants'' publication dated November 29, 2006 to December 5, 2006.
They said it was during the Radio Gold programme that Mr Owusu Mensah made scurrilous allegations and defamatory statements about the defendants and in order to authenticate and or verify the said allegations, Mr Ogbame was put on air to respond to the unfounded allegations.
The defendants said Mr Owusu Mensah on December 4, 2006 organised a press conference in which he made defamatory statements concerning and about Mr Ogbame, that he was a rogue journalist and unprofessional as well as an extortionist and blackmailer.
They maintained that the contract sum was $14.7 million but the actual sum paid by the GPHA was $16.7 million and that the various publications were as accurate and fair reflection of what transpired during and after the execution of the contract between GPHA and ZPMC.
They said that it was rather Mr Owusu Mensah who had injured their reputation by the various statements made against them during the December 4, 2006, press conference and a further advertiser’s announcement in the Daily Graphic, the Crusading Guide and the Daily Guide newspapers.
The defendants are represented by Mr Charles Puozuing.
COURT TO RULE ON SUBMISSION OF NO CASE IN COKE TRIAL
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed June 27, 2007 to determine whether or not Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, and Alhaji Issah Abass have a case to answer in connection with the narcotic charges against them.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, fixed the date for the ruling after the prosecution had replied to the submissions of “no case” made by the defence counsel.
The submissions followed the close of the case after the prosecution had called 11 witnesses in the case in which Tagor and Alhaji Abass are being tried for their role in the missing 76 parcels of cocaine on board the MV Benjamin.
It said, however, that the cocaine was stolen in April last year before the security agencies intercepted the vessel at the Tema Port.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Abass faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Initially Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons, but fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
The defence argued, among others, that the prosecution woefully failed to establish any case for which the accused persons should be called to answer because the charges were all flawed and founded on inaccurate facts and information.
Moreover, they argued that the court should acquit and discharge the accused persons because Section 56 (c) of PNDCL 236, the law under which their clients had been charged, was unconstitutional because it did not define the offences it created.
However, in her reply, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, argued that the submissions of “no case” were misplaced because the prosecution had dutifully proved beyond the principles for which the submission ought to have been brought.
According to her, it was unnecessary for the defence to have made the submissions because all the prosecution witnesses were steadfast in their evidence and not a single one was shaky during cross-examination to discredit his or her evidence.
She said ample evidence had been led to establish the conspiracy charges against the accused persons and that reference was made to the transcript of the recorded conversation which took place in ACP Kofi Boakye’s house.
For instance, she stated that during the said conversation, ACP Boakye addressed the participants at the meeting as “brothers” and as such the meeting was held in that spirit, while a prosecution witness, Yaw Billah, said that the meeting was held because they needed details about the ship.
“The meeting was a brotherhood meeting because it began as such and ended as such,” she maintained, and added that ACP Boakye even said “we are not friends but brothers and all of us have to be one and find an amicable way of finding it”.
Ms Aikins wondered if the participants at the meeting were not going to find the missing cocaine because the accused persons, in their statements to the police, indicated that the meeting was to look for the missing cocaine.
She made reference to statements by Tagor and Alhaji Abass to the effect that a great deal of money had been spent and, therefore, they had to be serious, since the ‘goods’ were enough for only one person to enjoy.
“By the time the meeting closed, they left with a clearly defined strategy and co-operation for the common purpose of recovering the missing cocaine from the MV Benjamin,” she stated, and added that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence of conspiracy.
She said the argument by the defence that the charge was in contravention of Article 19 (11) of the Constitution that no person should be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence was defined and the penalty(ies) of which was/were prescribed was untenable because conspiracy was defined.
Ms Aikins said four of the charges were based on the confessions of the accused persons, which the court could solely rely on to sustain a conviction.
That, she explained, was because the conversation took place in a natural environment and was voluntary, not staged, adding that “a confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent witnesses”.
According to her, the prosecution was not under any obligation to provide any further independent proof, which was why ACP Boakye was not brought to testify.
The defence, she said, could not, in their desire, force a material witness on the prosecution, adding that as far as the prosecution was concerned, ACP Boakye was not a material witness and that it had sufficient witnesses to prove its case.
Besides, she said the meeting in ACP Boakye’s house was unofficial because of the way and manner it was held, for instance, its subject matter, the vile language used, among other things
She said what constituted narcotic drugs was defined in the law and the fact that the cocaine was not brought to court did not matter because oral evidence had been led to that effect, while a statement by the accused persons that the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) impounded some ‘goods’ from some of them meant that they dealt in cocaine.
Ms Aikins said that was relevant, in view of the fact that NACOB only dealt with issues relating to narcotic drugs and not any other drug.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, fixed the date for the ruling after the prosecution had replied to the submissions of “no case” made by the defence counsel.
The submissions followed the close of the case after the prosecution had called 11 witnesses in the case in which Tagor and Alhaji Abass are being tried for their role in the missing 76 parcels of cocaine on board the MV Benjamin.
It said, however, that the cocaine was stolen in April last year before the security agencies intercepted the vessel at the Tema Port.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Abass faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Initially Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons, but fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
The defence argued, among others, that the prosecution woefully failed to establish any case for which the accused persons should be called to answer because the charges were all flawed and founded on inaccurate facts and information.
Moreover, they argued that the court should acquit and discharge the accused persons because Section 56 (c) of PNDCL 236, the law under which their clients had been charged, was unconstitutional because it did not define the offences it created.
However, in her reply, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, argued that the submissions of “no case” were misplaced because the prosecution had dutifully proved beyond the principles for which the submission ought to have been brought.
According to her, it was unnecessary for the defence to have made the submissions because all the prosecution witnesses were steadfast in their evidence and not a single one was shaky during cross-examination to discredit his or her evidence.
She said ample evidence had been led to establish the conspiracy charges against the accused persons and that reference was made to the transcript of the recorded conversation which took place in ACP Kofi Boakye’s house.
For instance, she stated that during the said conversation, ACP Boakye addressed the participants at the meeting as “brothers” and as such the meeting was held in that spirit, while a prosecution witness, Yaw Billah, said that the meeting was held because they needed details about the ship.
“The meeting was a brotherhood meeting because it began as such and ended as such,” she maintained, and added that ACP Boakye even said “we are not friends but brothers and all of us have to be one and find an amicable way of finding it”.
Ms Aikins wondered if the participants at the meeting were not going to find the missing cocaine because the accused persons, in their statements to the police, indicated that the meeting was to look for the missing cocaine.
She made reference to statements by Tagor and Alhaji Abass to the effect that a great deal of money had been spent and, therefore, they had to be serious, since the ‘goods’ were enough for only one person to enjoy.
“By the time the meeting closed, they left with a clearly defined strategy and co-operation for the common purpose of recovering the missing cocaine from the MV Benjamin,” she stated, and added that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence of conspiracy.
She said the argument by the defence that the charge was in contravention of Article 19 (11) of the Constitution that no person should be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence was defined and the penalty(ies) of which was/were prescribed was untenable because conspiracy was defined.
Ms Aikins said four of the charges were based on the confessions of the accused persons, which the court could solely rely on to sustain a conviction.
That, she explained, was because the conversation took place in a natural environment and was voluntary, not staged, adding that “a confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent witnesses”.
According to her, the prosecution was not under any obligation to provide any further independent proof, which was why ACP Boakye was not brought to testify.
The defence, she said, could not, in their desire, force a material witness on the prosecution, adding that as far as the prosecution was concerned, ACP Boakye was not a material witness and that it had sufficient witnesses to prove its case.
Besides, she said the meeting in ACP Boakye’s house was unofficial because of the way and manner it was held, for instance, its subject matter, the vile language used, among other things
She said what constituted narcotic drugs was defined in the law and the fact that the cocaine was not brought to court did not matter because oral evidence had been led to that effect, while a statement by the accused persons that the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) impounded some ‘goods’ from some of them meant that they dealt in cocaine.
Ms Aikins said that was relevant, in view of the fact that NACOB only dealt with issues relating to narcotic drugs and not any other drug.
GBESE RIOTERS GRANTED BAIL
TEN people, including a woman, were each granted bail in the sum of ¢20 million with a surety yesterday by an Accra circuit court for rioting with weapons and causing unlawful damage to a police vehicle.
The accused persons, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, were alleged to have caused the offence during a ceremony to lift the ban on drumming and noise-making in Accra on June 6, this year.
They are alleged to have smeared the Gbese Palace with human excreta and also vandalised a police vehicle, with registration number GP 1421, belonging to the James Town District Police in their attempt to disrupt the ceremony.
They are Daniel Nii Armah Tagoe, a hairdresser, Obodai Torgbor and Daniel Klottey, both fishermen, Samuel Pappoe, a trader, Amos Afful and Isaac Addo, both students, and Otu Kometey, a toll collector.
The rest are Armah Tagoe, a fisherman, Kofi Kamaradeen, a tailor, and Emelia Nii Quaye, a trader.
The accused persons were remanded on their first appearance in court.
According to the facts of the case, as narrated by DSP Eric Amoako, on June 6, this year, the Accra District Police Commander, Superintendent Nana Afful, led a team of policemen to provide security at the ceremonial grounds at Gbese in connection with the lifting of the ban on drumming and noise-making in Accra.
On arrival, he said, the police observed that human excreta had been sprinkled all over the Gbese Palace and assistance was sought from the Ghana National Fire Service to clean the mess.
DSP Amoako said not quite long after that, a faction opposed to the incumbent Gbese Mantse arrived at the durbar grounds and hurled stones, broken bottles, human excreta, among other missiles, at the police and, in the process, the rioters caused damage to the police vehicle.
He said Kometey, who was a conservancy labourer at the Gbese main toilet, supplied the rioters with human excreta to smear the chief’s palace and other public places, while Pappoe was found to have concealed a kitchen knife and stones on his body.
The accused persons, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, were alleged to have caused the offence during a ceremony to lift the ban on drumming and noise-making in Accra on June 6, this year.
They are alleged to have smeared the Gbese Palace with human excreta and also vandalised a police vehicle, with registration number GP 1421, belonging to the James Town District Police in their attempt to disrupt the ceremony.
They are Daniel Nii Armah Tagoe, a hairdresser, Obodai Torgbor and Daniel Klottey, both fishermen, Samuel Pappoe, a trader, Amos Afful and Isaac Addo, both students, and Otu Kometey, a toll collector.
The rest are Armah Tagoe, a fisherman, Kofi Kamaradeen, a tailor, and Emelia Nii Quaye, a trader.
The accused persons were remanded on their first appearance in court.
According to the facts of the case, as narrated by DSP Eric Amoako, on June 6, this year, the Accra District Police Commander, Superintendent Nana Afful, led a team of policemen to provide security at the ceremonial grounds at Gbese in connection with the lifting of the ban on drumming and noise-making in Accra.
On arrival, he said, the police observed that human excreta had been sprinkled all over the Gbese Palace and assistance was sought from the Ghana National Fire Service to clean the mess.
DSP Amoako said not quite long after that, a faction opposed to the incumbent Gbese Mantse arrived at the durbar grounds and hurled stones, broken bottles, human excreta, among other missiles, at the police and, in the process, the rioters caused damage to the police vehicle.
He said Kometey, who was a conservancy labourer at the Gbese main toilet, supplied the rioters with human excreta to smear the chief’s palace and other public places, while Pappoe was found to have concealed a kitchen knife and stones on his body.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
MV BENJAMIN COCAINE DESTROYED ON COURT ORDER
THE 25 kilogrammes of cocaine found aboard the MV Benjamin was destroyed today on the orders of an Accra Fast Track High Court.
That was after the prosecution had tendered the 25 slabs of the substance through the police investigator, Inspector Charles Adabah, who continued his evidence-in-chief in the case in which the vessel owner and five crew members are being tried for their roles in the importation of the substance.
To make sure that the substance was cocaine, officials from the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) appeared in court to field-test a sample and declared that it was cocaine, after which sitting was suspended and the court moved to the site where the cocaine was burnt in the presence of the judge, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge.
Also present were other officials, including those from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The 25 slabs of cocaine were part of 77 slabs which the prosecution say were imported into the country through the MV Benjamin but before the security agencies got wind of its dock at the Tema Port, all but one parcel containing the 25 slabs had been stolen.
Following that, the owner of the vessel, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who are alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the substance are being tried.
They have been charged with various counts of using a property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mrs Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa, a Senior State Attorney, the police investigator said when he took over the case from his predecessor, the docket, as well as the parcel containing the cocaine, was handed over to him.
He said initially the parcel contained 30 slabs of cocaine, each weighing one kilogramme, but five slabs got missing in the custody of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB), in whose custody the substance was.
After the cocaine was tendered, the judge declared, “Let the exhibits be destroyed in the full view of the court” and subsequently suspended sitting for some time.
On resumption of the court, Inspector Adabah concluded his evidence-in-chief and was cross-examined by Mr D.K. Ameley, counsel for the vessel owner.
The witness said when he took over the case a statement by the vessel owner, dated May 5, 2006, was on the docket and he did not believe that the accused person gave a caution statement to the NACOB officials who invited him after the other accused persons had been arrested.
When counsel wanted to find out from the witness whether he knew the circumstance under which the statement was given by the vessel owner, Inspector Adabah said since the accused person was only invited by NACOB, naturally he gave an ordinary statement, since he had not been arrested then.
The witness disagreed with counsel that the accused person wrote his statement based on a questionnaire that was given to him by the NACOB officials and explained that that was the case when a suspect or anyone was invited or even arrested.
“The accused person went to NACOB as a witness and not as a suspect,” the witness stated.
He said it was Arhin who signed the vessel’s movement card in his capacity as an employee of Dashment Company Ltd, although he did not know his contract agreement.
Inspector Adabah, however, disagreed with counsel that Arhin was put on the vessel by a Korean called Mr Bae and indicated that even if the accused person was employed by the said Mr Bae, it did not make any difference, since he was a part owner of Dashment Company Ltd, owners of the vessel.
The witness did not agree with counsel that the vessel stayed at the Takoradi Harbour anchorage for at least four months because it was faulty but stated that he was aware the vessel docked at the port on November 10, 2005.
According to him, as of April 20, 2000, the vessel was owned by Dashment Company Ltd and he did not investigate how it was acquired by the company, while he did not see a copy of the hire purchase agreement on the vessel.
Inspector Adabah agreed with counsel that under the charter agreement between Atico Fisheries and Dashment Company Ltd, it was the charterer who was responsible for the recruitment of crew and supplies and it was in that respect that Sheriff, on December 21, 2005, took a loan of ¢250 million from the Unique Trust Financial Services Limited to purchase marine fuel which was used for the vessel to embark on its ill-fated voyage.
He also said it was Arhin who invited Bruce to join the crew, after Bruce had been laid off in 2004 and had been unemployed.
Meanwhile, General Sergeant David Nyarko, one of the three policemen being tried for allegedly aiding the fugitive Sheriff to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine, concluded his evidence-in-chief yesterday after he was briefly cross-examined by his two colleagues who are on trial with him.
Sgt Nyarko is standing trial with General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson and General Lance Corporal Peter Bondorin, while a fourth accomplice, Detective Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah, is on the run.
The accused persons are alleged to have received an unspecified amount in dollars from the fugitive cocaine owner and allowed him to flee.
They have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer and have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
When General Lance Corporal Yabson asked Sgt Nyarko whether he knew him prior to the incident, the latter replied in the negative. He also said he did not see the Lance Corporal in the Toyota Land Cruiser which was spotted at the Kpone Beach during their operation, nor did he see its occupants.
When it was the turn of Lance Corporal Bondorin, he also asked the accused person whether he knew him prior to the operation, to which Sgt Nyarko replied in the negative.
The accused person further said he did not see Lance Corporal Bondorin stop any car during the operation at the Kpone Beach.
That was after the prosecution had tendered the 25 slabs of the substance through the police investigator, Inspector Charles Adabah, who continued his evidence-in-chief in the case in which the vessel owner and five crew members are being tried for their roles in the importation of the substance.
To make sure that the substance was cocaine, officials from the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) appeared in court to field-test a sample and declared that it was cocaine, after which sitting was suspended and the court moved to the site where the cocaine was burnt in the presence of the judge, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge.
Also present were other officials, including those from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The 25 slabs of cocaine were part of 77 slabs which the prosecution say were imported into the country through the MV Benjamin but before the security agencies got wind of its dock at the Tema Port, all but one parcel containing the 25 slabs had been stolen.
Following that, the owner of the vessel, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who are alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the substance are being tried.
They have been charged with various counts of using a property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mrs Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa, a Senior State Attorney, the police investigator said when he took over the case from his predecessor, the docket, as well as the parcel containing the cocaine, was handed over to him.
He said initially the parcel contained 30 slabs of cocaine, each weighing one kilogramme, but five slabs got missing in the custody of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB), in whose custody the substance was.
After the cocaine was tendered, the judge declared, “Let the exhibits be destroyed in the full view of the court” and subsequently suspended sitting for some time.
On resumption of the court, Inspector Adabah concluded his evidence-in-chief and was cross-examined by Mr D.K. Ameley, counsel for the vessel owner.
The witness said when he took over the case a statement by the vessel owner, dated May 5, 2006, was on the docket and he did not believe that the accused person gave a caution statement to the NACOB officials who invited him after the other accused persons had been arrested.
When counsel wanted to find out from the witness whether he knew the circumstance under which the statement was given by the vessel owner, Inspector Adabah said since the accused person was only invited by NACOB, naturally he gave an ordinary statement, since he had not been arrested then.
The witness disagreed with counsel that the accused person wrote his statement based on a questionnaire that was given to him by the NACOB officials and explained that that was the case when a suspect or anyone was invited or even arrested.
“The accused person went to NACOB as a witness and not as a suspect,” the witness stated.
He said it was Arhin who signed the vessel’s movement card in his capacity as an employee of Dashment Company Ltd, although he did not know his contract agreement.
Inspector Adabah, however, disagreed with counsel that Arhin was put on the vessel by a Korean called Mr Bae and indicated that even if the accused person was employed by the said Mr Bae, it did not make any difference, since he was a part owner of Dashment Company Ltd, owners of the vessel.
The witness did not agree with counsel that the vessel stayed at the Takoradi Harbour anchorage for at least four months because it was faulty but stated that he was aware the vessel docked at the port on November 10, 2005.
According to him, as of April 20, 2000, the vessel was owned by Dashment Company Ltd and he did not investigate how it was acquired by the company, while he did not see a copy of the hire purchase agreement on the vessel.
Inspector Adabah agreed with counsel that under the charter agreement between Atico Fisheries and Dashment Company Ltd, it was the charterer who was responsible for the recruitment of crew and supplies and it was in that respect that Sheriff, on December 21, 2005, took a loan of ¢250 million from the Unique Trust Financial Services Limited to purchase marine fuel which was used for the vessel to embark on its ill-fated voyage.
He also said it was Arhin who invited Bruce to join the crew, after Bruce had been laid off in 2004 and had been unemployed.
Meanwhile, General Sergeant David Nyarko, one of the three policemen being tried for allegedly aiding the fugitive Sheriff to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine, concluded his evidence-in-chief yesterday after he was briefly cross-examined by his two colleagues who are on trial with him.
Sgt Nyarko is standing trial with General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson and General Lance Corporal Peter Bondorin, while a fourth accomplice, Detective Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah, is on the run.
The accused persons are alleged to have received an unspecified amount in dollars from the fugitive cocaine owner and allowed him to flee.
They have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer and have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
When General Lance Corporal Yabson asked Sgt Nyarko whether he knew him prior to the incident, the latter replied in the negative. He also said he did not see the Lance Corporal in the Toyota Land Cruiser which was spotted at the Kpone Beach during their operation, nor did he see its occupants.
When it was the turn of Lance Corporal Bondorin, he also asked the accused person whether he knew him prior to the operation, to which Sgt Nyarko replied in the negative.
The accused person further said he did not see Lance Corporal Bondorin stop any car during the operation at the Kpone Beach.
SHIPPING MAGNATE'S SON ARRESTED FOR CLUB BRAWL
HALIM Banda, the 28-year-old man who was being sought by the police for an alleged nightclub brawl, was arrested yesterday at the Cocoa Affairs Court premises in Accra.
He was arrested after he appeared in a circuit court to answer similar charges for an offence which the prosecution said he committed with his brother at the same nightclub on December 9, last year against the club owner and one other person.
At exactly 11:45 a.m. when the suspect walked out of the courtroom, he was handcuffed by plain-clothed policemen who told him that he was under arrest and whisked him away to the Police Headquarters.
In the instant case, Halim, the managing director of a company in Tema and said to be the son of Alhaji Asuma Banda, the shipping magnate, was said to have, on Sunday, stormed the Cinderella Nightclub and allegedly attacked its owner, Mr Kiki Banson, and assaulted a radio presenter, Kofi Okyere Darko (KOD) of Radio Gold.
In court yesterday, Mr Dominic Dagbanje, a prosecutor from the Attorney-General’s (A-G) Department, told the court that the A-G had taken over the case and that the old charge had been withdrawn and was being substituted with a new one.
Halim and his brother Sidik pleaded not guilty to two counts of intentionally causing harm and causing damage to property worth $9,000.
The prosecution wanted the court to remand Halim because of the latest incident but the court ruled that since the accused person dutifully obeyed the old bail granted to him, he should remain on that because the new incident was not known to the court.
According to the facts of the case, the accused persons were regular patrons at the Cinderella Nightclub and on December 9, 2006, a misunderstanding arose at the VIP section of the club, during which a fight ensued.
The prosecutor said during the fight, the accused persons allegedly vandalised property worth $9,000, while Sidik threw a bottle at Reginald Eldo Bannerman, a patron of the club, injuring him in the palm.
He said Reginald, after receiving initial treatment at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, sought further treatment abroad.
In his evidence-in-chief, Reginald told the court that he did not know the accused persons but remember meeting them at the nightclub on the day of the incident.
He said while at the nightclub, he received a call on his mobile set but because of the noisy nature of the area, he decided to walk out to take the call, saying it was at the entrance that he saw bottles and glasses being hurled in his direction.
According to him, in order to protect himself, he raised his hands but he was hit in the palm by one of the ‘missiles’, adding that he was assisted by some patrons and employees of the club and rushed to the 37 Military Hospital, from where he was referred to the Korle-Bu Plastic Surgery Unit.
The witness identified Sidik as the person who injured him and the court overruled an attempt to tender a photograph of his injured palm because it did not show that the photograph was taken of him.
During cross-examination, Reginald disagreed with counsel for the accused persons that the bottles were not specifically directed at him because they were directed at another individual at the entrance of the club.
He said he did not know whether another person was hit by some of the ‘missiles’ or not and he did not see Sidik in the club prior to the incident.
He agreed with counsel that the decision to seek further treatment elsewhere was personal and not a referral from the Korle-Bu Plastic Surgery Unit.
The case was adjourned to June 26, 2007.
He was arrested after he appeared in a circuit court to answer similar charges for an offence which the prosecution said he committed with his brother at the same nightclub on December 9, last year against the club owner and one other person.
At exactly 11:45 a.m. when the suspect walked out of the courtroom, he was handcuffed by plain-clothed policemen who told him that he was under arrest and whisked him away to the Police Headquarters.
In the instant case, Halim, the managing director of a company in Tema and said to be the son of Alhaji Asuma Banda, the shipping magnate, was said to have, on Sunday, stormed the Cinderella Nightclub and allegedly attacked its owner, Mr Kiki Banson, and assaulted a radio presenter, Kofi Okyere Darko (KOD) of Radio Gold.
In court yesterday, Mr Dominic Dagbanje, a prosecutor from the Attorney-General’s (A-G) Department, told the court that the A-G had taken over the case and that the old charge had been withdrawn and was being substituted with a new one.
Halim and his brother Sidik pleaded not guilty to two counts of intentionally causing harm and causing damage to property worth $9,000.
The prosecution wanted the court to remand Halim because of the latest incident but the court ruled that since the accused person dutifully obeyed the old bail granted to him, he should remain on that because the new incident was not known to the court.
According to the facts of the case, the accused persons were regular patrons at the Cinderella Nightclub and on December 9, 2006, a misunderstanding arose at the VIP section of the club, during which a fight ensued.
The prosecutor said during the fight, the accused persons allegedly vandalised property worth $9,000, while Sidik threw a bottle at Reginald Eldo Bannerman, a patron of the club, injuring him in the palm.
He said Reginald, after receiving initial treatment at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, sought further treatment abroad.
In his evidence-in-chief, Reginald told the court that he did not know the accused persons but remember meeting them at the nightclub on the day of the incident.
He said while at the nightclub, he received a call on his mobile set but because of the noisy nature of the area, he decided to walk out to take the call, saying it was at the entrance that he saw bottles and glasses being hurled in his direction.
According to him, in order to protect himself, he raised his hands but he was hit in the palm by one of the ‘missiles’, adding that he was assisted by some patrons and employees of the club and rushed to the 37 Military Hospital, from where he was referred to the Korle-Bu Plastic Surgery Unit.
The witness identified Sidik as the person who injured him and the court overruled an attempt to tender a photograph of his injured palm because it did not show that the photograph was taken of him.
During cross-examination, Reginald disagreed with counsel for the accused persons that the bottles were not specifically directed at him because they were directed at another individual at the entrance of the club.
He said he did not know whether another person was hit by some of the ‘missiles’ or not and he did not see Sidik in the club prior to the incident.
He agreed with counsel that the decision to seek further treatment elsewhere was personal and not a referral from the Korle-Bu Plastic Surgery Unit.
The case was adjourned to June 26, 2007.
GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION TO SUPPORT NEW CHIEF JUSTICE
THE Ghana Bar Association (GBA) has presented Chief Justice Georgina Wood with her first package of expectations and pledged its fullest support towards the efficient delivery of justice.
Speaking to the Daily Graphic on the GBA’s expectations and how it could help fashion out an efficient justice delivery system, the GBA President, Mr S. K. Tetteh, stated that a synergy between the Bar and the Bench ensured a sudden and brightened transformation, adding that it was in that spirit that the GBA was going to offer its fullest support to the new Chief Justice.
Mr Tetteh said the association looked to the new Chief Justice for reforms towards the prompt, fair and efficient delivery of justice and called for the periodic review of the performance records of the Judiciary in order to identify the real challenges and formulate programmes to overcome its perennial problems.
It said reforms should aim at the administration of justice delivery in terms of the execution of the assignment of duty that the Constitution allocated to the Judiciary.
“At the Bar, there is no gender and I give the Chief Justice all the respect as the person holding the post of Chief Justice. She deserves it and so I will not say the President gave it to her because of her sex but because she is very capable.
“The new Chief Justice is known to have a firm hand on whatever she sets out to do and I am confident that, with the encouragement and support of the Bar, the good image of the Judiciary will be restored,” he said.
He said the reforms should make judges and other judicial staff who hitherto engaged in wrongdoing to see the new era as an one for change.
Mr Tetteh said very soon the National Council of the Bar would meet with the new Chief Justice to discuss with her the various grievances of litigants against judicial officers, mainly in the court registries, on missing files, omission to list cases and suspected cases of corruption in order to find ways of curbing those practices.
“Corrupt persons will always resist attempts to correct the system and will change their modus operandi to frustrate reform, but the remedy lies in the mutual trust between the Bar the Chief Justice and constant consultations and formulation of strategies to meet the challenges,” he stated.
Asked how the Bar could effectively assist in the effective administration of justice, the GBA President said it intended to make concrete proposals to the Chief Justice at the sitting of the Judicial Council on the administration of justice and at the sitting of the General Legal Council on the regulation of the legal profession and the running of the Law School.
Mr Tetteh said since reforms entailed infrastructural provisions, it was prudent that the Executive became a bit more generous in its budget allocation to the Judiciary because, as he put it, “We still have the sorry situation in which judges, for instance, do not have efficient libraries for their work.”
“Some senior judges also continue to share chambers, thus creating an impediment to the efficient delivery of justice,” he added.
Speaking to the Daily Graphic on the GBA’s expectations and how it could help fashion out an efficient justice delivery system, the GBA President, Mr S. K. Tetteh, stated that a synergy between the Bar and the Bench ensured a sudden and brightened transformation, adding that it was in that spirit that the GBA was going to offer its fullest support to the new Chief Justice.
Mr Tetteh said the association looked to the new Chief Justice for reforms towards the prompt, fair and efficient delivery of justice and called for the periodic review of the performance records of the Judiciary in order to identify the real challenges and formulate programmes to overcome its perennial problems.
It said reforms should aim at the administration of justice delivery in terms of the execution of the assignment of duty that the Constitution allocated to the Judiciary.
“At the Bar, there is no gender and I give the Chief Justice all the respect as the person holding the post of Chief Justice. She deserves it and so I will not say the President gave it to her because of her sex but because she is very capable.
“The new Chief Justice is known to have a firm hand on whatever she sets out to do and I am confident that, with the encouragement and support of the Bar, the good image of the Judiciary will be restored,” he said.
He said the reforms should make judges and other judicial staff who hitherto engaged in wrongdoing to see the new era as an one for change.
Mr Tetteh said very soon the National Council of the Bar would meet with the new Chief Justice to discuss with her the various grievances of litigants against judicial officers, mainly in the court registries, on missing files, omission to list cases and suspected cases of corruption in order to find ways of curbing those practices.
“Corrupt persons will always resist attempts to correct the system and will change their modus operandi to frustrate reform, but the remedy lies in the mutual trust between the Bar the Chief Justice and constant consultations and formulation of strategies to meet the challenges,” he stated.
Asked how the Bar could effectively assist in the effective administration of justice, the GBA President said it intended to make concrete proposals to the Chief Justice at the sitting of the Judicial Council on the administration of justice and at the sitting of the General Legal Council on the regulation of the legal profession and the running of the Law School.
Mr Tetteh said since reforms entailed infrastructural provisions, it was prudent that the Executive became a bit more generous in its budget allocation to the Judiciary because, as he put it, “We still have the sorry situation in which judges, for instance, do not have efficient libraries for their work.”
“Some senior judges also continue to share chambers, thus creating an impediment to the efficient delivery of justice,” he added.
THREE ARMED ROBBERS JAILED 53 YEARS
THREE armed robbers were have been sentenced to a total of 53 years imprisonment by the Accra Fast Track High Court for robbery.
All the convicts, namely, Adjetey Sowah, alias Sheriff, 20, Nii Aryee Michael Kwasi, alias Daddy Lumba, 23, and Aryeetey Aryee Emmanuel, alias Kokote, 19, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and robbery and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced on their own pleas.
The sentence was adjourned at the last sitting until yesterday because the judge asked the prosecution to investigate the backgrounds of the convicts to ascertain whether or not they had had any brush with the law.
After the investigations, it came out that in 1999 Sheriff was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy and stealing, under the name Paa Kwasi.
Following that revelation, the judge considered robbery to be a more serious offence and convicted Sheriff and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
Lumba and Kokote, who are first offenders, were sentenced to 18 years and 15 years, respectively. In Kokote’s case, the court took his age into consideration.
According to the facts of the case, at about 12.30 a.m. on January 27, this year, Lumba stopped a taxi, with registration number GW 8524 W, near the Kinbu Gardens in Accra and asked the driver to take him to the grounds where the funeral of the late Ga Mantse was being held.
The prosecution said on their way, Lumba removed the ignition key of the car, pulled out a machete which was hidden in his trousers and attacked the driver.
In the course of the struggle, Sheriff and Kokote emerged from their hideout and joined the fray. They inflicted wounds on the driver and took the car away from him, together with his Nokia mobile phone.
The driver reported the incident to the police and luck ran out for Lumba and Kokote when they were arrested on the same day during a second robbery operation.
They led the police to Sheriff’s hideout where he was also arrested.
When counsel for Lumba prayed the court for leniency, the judge replied that Lumba was the mastermind of the robbery and could not be treated leniently.
All the convicts, namely, Adjetey Sowah, alias Sheriff, 20, Nii Aryee Michael Kwasi, alias Daddy Lumba, 23, and Aryeetey Aryee Emmanuel, alias Kokote, 19, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and robbery and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced on their own pleas.
The sentence was adjourned at the last sitting until yesterday because the judge asked the prosecution to investigate the backgrounds of the convicts to ascertain whether or not they had had any brush with the law.
After the investigations, it came out that in 1999 Sheriff was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy and stealing, under the name Paa Kwasi.
Following that revelation, the judge considered robbery to be a more serious offence and convicted Sheriff and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
Lumba and Kokote, who are first offenders, were sentenced to 18 years and 15 years, respectively. In Kokote’s case, the court took his age into consideration.
According to the facts of the case, at about 12.30 a.m. on January 27, this year, Lumba stopped a taxi, with registration number GW 8524 W, near the Kinbu Gardens in Accra and asked the driver to take him to the grounds where the funeral of the late Ga Mantse was being held.
The prosecution said on their way, Lumba removed the ignition key of the car, pulled out a machete which was hidden in his trousers and attacked the driver.
In the course of the struggle, Sheriff and Kokote emerged from their hideout and joined the fray. They inflicted wounds on the driver and took the car away from him, together with his Nokia mobile phone.
The driver reported the incident to the police and luck ran out for Lumba and Kokote when they were arrested on the same day during a second robbery operation.
They led the police to Sheriff’s hideout where he was also arrested.
When counsel for Lumba prayed the court for leniency, the judge replied that Lumba was the mastermind of the robbery and could not be treated leniently.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
COCAINE TREASURE HUNT LANDS COPS IN TROUBLE
NINE police officers and six suspected drug barons who were busted in the Western Region for allegedly going to retrieve some parcels of cocaine that had been washed ashore near Axim and Half Assini have been remanded by an Accra circuit court.
Their pleas were not taken and they were remanded into police custody to re-appear on June 14, 2007, to face two counts of conspiracy and engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics.
The policemen are G/Constable Cudjoe Mensah, L/Cpl Gideon Sakabito and G/Constable Dennis Agyeman, all of the La Police Station in Accra where Constable Agyeman is the Armourer, G/Cpl. George Obuobi of the Darkuman Police Station and G/L/Cpl. Ebenezer Quao Afatsao of the Armoured Car Squadron but currently attached to the VVIPU at the Castle, Osu.
The others are L/Cpl. Ben Somuah of the Armoured Car Squadron but currently on interdiction, L/Cpl Daniel Kagya of the Accra Central Police station, Evans Asare Yeboah of the Armoured Car Squadron in Accra and G/Constable John Mensah-Gray of the Service Workshop attached to the Regional Headquarters, Accra.
The suspected drug dealers are Eric Asamoah, 35, Kwadwo Annim alias Olympio, 35, Alex Addo, 36, Kwasi Kumeke, 27, Kwame Attah Yeboah, 33, and James Ofori, all businessmen in Accra.
Narrating the facts of the case to the court, the prosecutor, DSP Kofi Abraham, said in recent times the security forces had been monitoring information that a vessel from an unidentified origin had discharged some parcels of substances suspected to be cocaine into the Atlantic Ocean and were expected to wash ashore at the Gulf of Guinea near Axim and Half Assini in the Western Region.
He said in their desire to make money from the floating fortune, the accused persons decided among themselves in Accra to go to the area to hunt for the treasure.
Consequently, DSP Abraham said on May 31, 2007, the accused persons set off from Accra at dawn in various cars to the area ostensibly to retrieve the parcels of cocaine.
He said the Western Regional Security Council got wind of the activities of the accused persons and put security personnel at the various checkpoints on high alert.
The security personnel at the Apremdo Police Checkpoint near Takoradi spotted a BMW 4X4 with a DVLA number plate, a VW Golf with registration number GE 9487 X, a Nissan Sentra with registration number GW 6309 X and Geo Prism saloon car with registration number GE 4501 W and intercepted them while in a convoy.
DSP Abraham said after their arrest, the accused persons were later sent to the Police Headquarters in Accra for further investigations but it had been established that all the policemen left their duty posts in Accra without permission from their various commanders.
According to him, G/CPL Obuobi and L/CPL Afatsao at the time of the operation were in uniform and held a pistol and AK 47 assault riffle with three rounds of ammunition, respectively.
He said L/CPL Somuah was also armed with a pistol with five rounds of ammunition while L/CPL Kagya was armed with an AK 47 assault riffle with 10 rounds of ammunition.
The rest of the policemen, he said, were in mufti and stated that all the policemen refused to give statements to the police unless their lawyers were present.
Their pleas were not taken and they were remanded into police custody to re-appear on June 14, 2007, to face two counts of conspiracy and engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics.
The policemen are G/Constable Cudjoe Mensah, L/Cpl Gideon Sakabito and G/Constable Dennis Agyeman, all of the La Police Station in Accra where Constable Agyeman is the Armourer, G/Cpl. George Obuobi of the Darkuman Police Station and G/L/Cpl. Ebenezer Quao Afatsao of the Armoured Car Squadron but currently attached to the VVIPU at the Castle, Osu.
The others are L/Cpl. Ben Somuah of the Armoured Car Squadron but currently on interdiction, L/Cpl Daniel Kagya of the Accra Central Police station, Evans Asare Yeboah of the Armoured Car Squadron in Accra and G/Constable John Mensah-Gray of the Service Workshop attached to the Regional Headquarters, Accra.
The suspected drug dealers are Eric Asamoah, 35, Kwadwo Annim alias Olympio, 35, Alex Addo, 36, Kwasi Kumeke, 27, Kwame Attah Yeboah, 33, and James Ofori, all businessmen in Accra.
Narrating the facts of the case to the court, the prosecutor, DSP Kofi Abraham, said in recent times the security forces had been monitoring information that a vessel from an unidentified origin had discharged some parcels of substances suspected to be cocaine into the Atlantic Ocean and were expected to wash ashore at the Gulf of Guinea near Axim and Half Assini in the Western Region.
He said in their desire to make money from the floating fortune, the accused persons decided among themselves in Accra to go to the area to hunt for the treasure.
Consequently, DSP Abraham said on May 31, 2007, the accused persons set off from Accra at dawn in various cars to the area ostensibly to retrieve the parcels of cocaine.
He said the Western Regional Security Council got wind of the activities of the accused persons and put security personnel at the various checkpoints on high alert.
The security personnel at the Apremdo Police Checkpoint near Takoradi spotted a BMW 4X4 with a DVLA number plate, a VW Golf with registration number GE 9487 X, a Nissan Sentra with registration number GW 6309 X and Geo Prism saloon car with registration number GE 4501 W and intercepted them while in a convoy.
DSP Abraham said after their arrest, the accused persons were later sent to the Police Headquarters in Accra for further investigations but it had been established that all the policemen left their duty posts in Accra without permission from their various commanders.
According to him, G/CPL Obuobi and L/CPL Afatsao at the time of the operation were in uniform and held a pistol and AK 47 assault riffle with three rounds of ammunition, respectively.
He said L/CPL Somuah was also armed with a pistol with five rounds of ammunition while L/CPL Kagya was armed with an AK 47 assault riffle with 10 rounds of ammunition.
The rest of the policemen, he said, were in mufti and stated that all the policemen refused to give statements to the police unless their lawyers were present.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
GA KINGMAKERS BONDED TO BE OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR
IN the interest of peace and to prevent further tension relating to the Gbese stool affairs in Accra, the Accra High Court has bonded the acting Gbese Dzaasetse Nii Adama Thompson and five kingmakers to be of good behaviour for two years.
The court bonded them in the sum of ¢50 million each or six months imprisonment in default and also cautioned them to respect the orders of all the Chieftaincy tribunals and the courts of competent jurisdiction.
It also awarded costs of ¢1 million jointly and severally against the respondents.
The court order followed a contempt case brought against the respondents for failing to comply with the Greater Accra Regional House of Chief (GARHC) judgement that they should deliver the stool and all regalia to the head of Akote (Akwetey) Krobo Saki We and all factions who were the right persons to install a chief.
According to the court, the order did not state that the handing over should be done to the applicant in person and moreover the applicant brought the action in his representative capacity for the Akwetey Krobo Saki ruling House of Gbese.
The court, however, found them guilty, taking into consideration that the compliance took place belatedly.
It said the protracted Chieftaincy dispute within the Ga, Gbese division went before the GARHC and in the judgement by its Judicial Committee, the respondents were ordered to deliver the stool and all regalia to the applicant and other people.
But the respondents, it said, defied the order thus compelling the instant action by the applicant and in the course of the proceedings other respondents applied to join as co-respondents and implicitly in their affidavit in support of their motion showed their awareness of the defiance by the original respondents and had chosen to associate them with the defiance.
It said after all processes had been filed and the matter ripped for hearing, counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the trial on the grounds that he had strong information that the applicant had died and was in the morgue and that should terminate the proceedings.
The court said it overruled the objection and stated that the contempt was against the GARHC Judicial Committee which was a recognised lower tribunal and, therefore, the death of the applicant as a complainant did not terminate the proceedings.
It said an exhibit stated that some persons of the Gbese stool on Sunday, September 10, 2006 witnessed the handing over ceremony to the Third Royal Ruling House, Nii Akwetey Krobo Saki Royal Ruling House at the Gbese Mantse Palace and included a list of witnesses.
Another exhibit, the court said was a publication in the Daily Graphic of Thursday, September 14, 2006 at page 41 captioned “Gbese Division resolves 40 years dispute” in which the acting Gbese Dzaasetse handed over the royal regalia to Ni Akwetey Krobo Saki III, head of the family, as well as some elders of the stool.
The court said the exhibits showed that there had been a handing over of the Gbese stool and the paraphenerlia to the Akwetey Krobo Saki We but the issue was whether that satisfied the order by the GARHC.
It said the respondents had purged themselves of the contempt before they were committed, though after a long delay, which had occasioned a delay and caused anxiety, fear and bitterness among the people of Gbese.
“Even if time was not stated in the order they were obliged to comply within a reasonable time”, the court ruled.
The court bonded them in the sum of ¢50 million each or six months imprisonment in default and also cautioned them to respect the orders of all the Chieftaincy tribunals and the courts of competent jurisdiction.
It also awarded costs of ¢1 million jointly and severally against the respondents.
The court order followed a contempt case brought against the respondents for failing to comply with the Greater Accra Regional House of Chief (GARHC) judgement that they should deliver the stool and all regalia to the head of Akote (Akwetey) Krobo Saki We and all factions who were the right persons to install a chief.
According to the court, the order did not state that the handing over should be done to the applicant in person and moreover the applicant brought the action in his representative capacity for the Akwetey Krobo Saki ruling House of Gbese.
The court, however, found them guilty, taking into consideration that the compliance took place belatedly.
It said the protracted Chieftaincy dispute within the Ga, Gbese division went before the GARHC and in the judgement by its Judicial Committee, the respondents were ordered to deliver the stool and all regalia to the applicant and other people.
But the respondents, it said, defied the order thus compelling the instant action by the applicant and in the course of the proceedings other respondents applied to join as co-respondents and implicitly in their affidavit in support of their motion showed their awareness of the defiance by the original respondents and had chosen to associate them with the defiance.
It said after all processes had been filed and the matter ripped for hearing, counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the trial on the grounds that he had strong information that the applicant had died and was in the morgue and that should terminate the proceedings.
The court said it overruled the objection and stated that the contempt was against the GARHC Judicial Committee which was a recognised lower tribunal and, therefore, the death of the applicant as a complainant did not terminate the proceedings.
It said an exhibit stated that some persons of the Gbese stool on Sunday, September 10, 2006 witnessed the handing over ceremony to the Third Royal Ruling House, Nii Akwetey Krobo Saki Royal Ruling House at the Gbese Mantse Palace and included a list of witnesses.
Another exhibit, the court said was a publication in the Daily Graphic of Thursday, September 14, 2006 at page 41 captioned “Gbese Division resolves 40 years dispute” in which the acting Gbese Dzaasetse handed over the royal regalia to Ni Akwetey Krobo Saki III, head of the family, as well as some elders of the stool.
The court said the exhibits showed that there had been a handing over of the Gbese stool and the paraphenerlia to the Akwetey Krobo Saki We but the issue was whether that satisfied the order by the GARHC.
It said the respondents had purged themselves of the contempt before they were committed, though after a long delay, which had occasioned a delay and caused anxiety, fear and bitterness among the people of Gbese.
“Even if time was not stated in the order they were obliged to comply within a reasonable time”, the court ruled.
COKE SUSPECT'S COUNSEL MAKES SUBMISSION OF NO CASE
COUNSEL for Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor today made a submission of no case and stated that the prosecution woefully failed to establish any case for which the accused person should be called to answer.
“The charges are all flawed and flawed basically because they were founded on inaccurate facts and information”, Mr Ellis Owusu Fordjour, the counsel, said and added that the prosecution, for instance, failed to prove when and where the alleged offence took place.
Moreover, counsel said ACP Kofi Boakye in whose house the accused person participated in a meeting, the subject matter of which was the trial, was a material witness in the case and failure to call him to testify was fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution closed the case at the last sitting after calling 11 witnesses in the case in which Tagor and Alhaji Abass are being tried for their roles in the missing 76 parcels of cocaine on board MV Benjamin.
It said, however, that the cocaine was stolen in April last year before the security agencies intercepted the vessel at the Tema Port.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Issah Abass faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Initially Kwabena Acheampong, Kwabena Amaning (Tagor), Alhaji Issah Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation in the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye relating to the missing cocaine, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons but fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
According to Mr Fordjour, in criminal trials, the prosecution ought to prove the guilt of any accused person beyond reasonable doubt since Article 19 (2) (c) of the Constitution stipulated that an accused person was presumed innocent until found guilty by a court.
He said the evidence adduced so far, was not that which any reasonable tribunal could rely on to convict the accused person.
Counsel said the charges were flawed because they were filed on November 24, 2006 when the recorded conversation, which took place in ACP Boakye’s house had not been scientifically transmitted.
He said Professor J. P French, a forensic and voice expert who was flown from the United Kingdom to testify told the court that the transcript of the conversation was completed in May 2007.
“My Lord, when the transcript was produced, this trial had began and, therefore, the facts which the prosecution relied on to frame the charges were not authentic”, counsel stated.
Regarding the charge of conspiracy with which the accused had been charged, Mr Fordjour said that charge was created by Section 23 of the Criminal Code Act 29 while Section 56 (c) was explicit that criminal conspiracy must be an act engaged in by an accused person.
According to counsel, all but one of the charges against his client had the important word “admitted”, to be at the centre of the crime and that a crime would have been committed if the accused person engaged in a physical activity of making or preparing cocaine.
He said the charge of engaging in a prohibited business related to narcotic drugs without lawful authority and that of anybody who without authority supplied narcotic drugs were clear and did not say that anybody who admitted engaging in the business.
Furthermore, counsel argued that the charges as they were did not link the period within which the alleged offences were committed saying that “ the particulars of offence should show the dates within which the offences were committed”.
He said the prosecution ought to have indicated where the alleged offences took place, for example say Iceland, to bring the issue of jurisdiction into play and show that if they were committed in a particular country, then it must be shown whether laws in that country had a corresponding law which was applicable to Ghana.
Mr Fordjour said no where in the transcript of the recorded conversation did the accused person admit having dealt in cocaine and because the constitution was explicit on cocaine it did not lie in the mouth of anybody to speculate or conjecture that the ‘goods’ referred to in the conversation meant cocaine since the court dealt with facts and solid evidence.
“Even if the word cocaine was used and even if a person admits to having dealt in cocaine, the most important thing is that the cocaine should be subjected to a scientific test that it is indeed cocaine”, counsel stated.
He said although extra judicial confessions were admissible when voluntarily given that was not sufficient ground for a conviction since there was no evidence to show that at one particular time or the other the accused person dealt in cocaine.
Counsel said there was no evidence to show conspiracy between the accused persons and even during the conversation in ACP Boakye’s house, it was ACP Boakye who instructed them to put their ears on the ground and get him informed about the whereabouts of the missing cocaine.
Mr Fordjour said even the word cocaine was not used during the conversation and it was the police investigator who speculated that investigations revealed that those in the cocaine business referred to cocaine as ‘goods’, a statement which was not scientifically proven.
“There is no indication that the accused person had engaged in business with a particular person and if the prosecution said so then the onus is on them to prove that”, counsel stated.
He said ACP Boakye was a material witness by virtue of his being a public officer and a police officer and it would have been necessary for him to tell the court in what capacity he called the meeting and if he did not ask the accused persons to go and look for the missing cocaine.
Counsel said ACP Boakye’s statements during the conversation suggested that he was investigating the missing cocaine and since he asked the accused persons to look for the missing cocaine it meant they did not conspire.
At the next adjourned date counsel for Abass would also make a submission of no case after which the prosecution would reply to them.
“The charges are all flawed and flawed basically because they were founded on inaccurate facts and information”, Mr Ellis Owusu Fordjour, the counsel, said and added that the prosecution, for instance, failed to prove when and where the alleged offence took place.
Moreover, counsel said ACP Kofi Boakye in whose house the accused person participated in a meeting, the subject matter of which was the trial, was a material witness in the case and failure to call him to testify was fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution closed the case at the last sitting after calling 11 witnesses in the case in which Tagor and Alhaji Abass are being tried for their roles in the missing 76 parcels of cocaine on board MV Benjamin.
It said, however, that the cocaine was stolen in April last year before the security agencies intercepted the vessel at the Tema Port.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Issah Abass faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Initially Kwabena Acheampong, Kwabena Amaning (Tagor), Alhaji Issah Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation in the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye relating to the missing cocaine, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons but fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
According to Mr Fordjour, in criminal trials, the prosecution ought to prove the guilt of any accused person beyond reasonable doubt since Article 19 (2) (c) of the Constitution stipulated that an accused person was presumed innocent until found guilty by a court.
He said the evidence adduced so far, was not that which any reasonable tribunal could rely on to convict the accused person.
Counsel said the charges were flawed because they were filed on November 24, 2006 when the recorded conversation, which took place in ACP Boakye’s house had not been scientifically transmitted.
He said Professor J. P French, a forensic and voice expert who was flown from the United Kingdom to testify told the court that the transcript of the conversation was completed in May 2007.
“My Lord, when the transcript was produced, this trial had began and, therefore, the facts which the prosecution relied on to frame the charges were not authentic”, counsel stated.
Regarding the charge of conspiracy with which the accused had been charged, Mr Fordjour said that charge was created by Section 23 of the Criminal Code Act 29 while Section 56 (c) was explicit that criminal conspiracy must be an act engaged in by an accused person.
According to counsel, all but one of the charges against his client had the important word “admitted”, to be at the centre of the crime and that a crime would have been committed if the accused person engaged in a physical activity of making or preparing cocaine.
He said the charge of engaging in a prohibited business related to narcotic drugs without lawful authority and that of anybody who without authority supplied narcotic drugs were clear and did not say that anybody who admitted engaging in the business.
Furthermore, counsel argued that the charges as they were did not link the period within which the alleged offences were committed saying that “ the particulars of offence should show the dates within which the offences were committed”.
He said the prosecution ought to have indicated where the alleged offences took place, for example say Iceland, to bring the issue of jurisdiction into play and show that if they were committed in a particular country, then it must be shown whether laws in that country had a corresponding law which was applicable to Ghana.
Mr Fordjour said no where in the transcript of the recorded conversation did the accused person admit having dealt in cocaine and because the constitution was explicit on cocaine it did not lie in the mouth of anybody to speculate or conjecture that the ‘goods’ referred to in the conversation meant cocaine since the court dealt with facts and solid evidence.
“Even if the word cocaine was used and even if a person admits to having dealt in cocaine, the most important thing is that the cocaine should be subjected to a scientific test that it is indeed cocaine”, counsel stated.
He said although extra judicial confessions were admissible when voluntarily given that was not sufficient ground for a conviction since there was no evidence to show that at one particular time or the other the accused person dealt in cocaine.
Counsel said there was no evidence to show conspiracy between the accused persons and even during the conversation in ACP Boakye’s house, it was ACP Boakye who instructed them to put their ears on the ground and get him informed about the whereabouts of the missing cocaine.
Mr Fordjour said even the word cocaine was not used during the conversation and it was the police investigator who speculated that investigations revealed that those in the cocaine business referred to cocaine as ‘goods’, a statement which was not scientifically proven.
“There is no indication that the accused person had engaged in business with a particular person and if the prosecution said so then the onus is on them to prove that”, counsel stated.
He said ACP Boakye was a material witness by virtue of his being a public officer and a police officer and it would have been necessary for him to tell the court in what capacity he called the meeting and if he did not ask the accused persons to go and look for the missing cocaine.
Counsel said ACP Boakye’s statements during the conversation suggested that he was investigating the missing cocaine and since he asked the accused persons to look for the missing cocaine it meant they did not conspire.
At the next adjourned date counsel for Abass would also make a submission of no case after which the prosecution would reply to them.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
STANCHART WINS LANDMARK CASE
THE Supreme Court has overruled the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal and said the Standard Chartered Bank has no liability in the case in which Victoria Island Properties Ltd has sued for the recovery of $82,000.
The money belonged to the Nigerian company but was authorised through a 419 scam by a Nigerian in September 1997 and transferred from the Anz Grindlays Bank Ltd of Switzerland via New York to Ghana.
Victoria Island Properties earned judgement at both the High Court and the Appeal Court but the Supreme Court ruled by a unanimous decision that Standard Chartered Bank Ghana Limited was not liable for the fraudulent transfer of the money from the Swiss bank into an account at its Liberia Road Branch in Accra.
The Nigerian fraudster, E.O. Effiong, pretended to be the owner of the money, forged the signature of the chairman of Victoria Island Properties and fraudulently instructed the Swiss bank to transfer $12,000 and $70,000, respectively, into his account at the Liberia Road Branch of Standard Chartered, from where it was paid to him.
When Victoria Island Properties Ltd sued Stanchart at the Accra High Court for negligence and not complying with the Swiss bank’s payment instructions, judgement was given in its favour in May 2001. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on November 12, 2004 that Stanchart was liable for the loss of the $82,000.
Victoria Island Properties argued, among others, that Stanchart, which had held itself as an international bank, negligently, and without complying with the originator bank’s payment instructions, paid the money to Effiong through its Liberia Road Branch, even though Effiong did not have any foreign account with the bank.
It said Stanchart and Effiong conspired together for the common purpose of injuring the company financially to suffer loss and damage.
The company said it had not been aware of the fraud until January 1998 when it requested a statement of accounts from the Swiss bank and that the negligence occurred because Stanchart failed to make any proper preliminary enquiries about Effiong at the time he opened the account.
According to the company, Stanchart failed to check or validate the reference given by Effiong to reasonably ascertain his identity, integrity and reliability before agreeing to deal with him as an account holder.
Stanchart, however, denied any knowledge of the fraudulent nature of Effiong’s instructions to the Swiss bank, saying that there was no way it could have known until it had been informed by the bank.
It denied that it had been negligent in complying with the Swiss bank’s instructions and claimed that it carried them out, while there was no evidence that Effiong’s account with the bank was fictitious.
The Supreme Court’s decision, which was read by Dr Justice Seth Twum, said the conspiracy allegation was scandalous and vexatious and an abuse of the court process, since no iota of evidence was led in support of it.
It said the so-called forged instruction allegedly issued by Effiong was said to have been by two telex messages which were not tendered in evidence by the plaintiff so it was difficult to assess how the company’s chairman’s signature was forged in the telex messages.
“But whatever form the telex messages took, it is quite clear to me that there was nothing wrong with the mechanism for the actual transfer of the money from Switzerland to Ghana via New York,” he said, and added that what happened was no different from what would have happened if Effiong had not swindled the plaintiff’s account with the co-plaintiff.
According to the court, communication between the ANZ Grindlays Bank and Stanchart for the payment of the money to Effiong was by SWIFT, an organisation maintained by banks and financial institutions throughout the world for money transfers.
The court held that by the legal nature of electronic transfer, the SWIFT system did not involve negotiable instruments and at any rate the recorded acknowledgements were not bills of exchange, as in the case of cheques which were drawn on a bank and payable on demand.
It said the plaintiff was the supposed originator, with ANZ Grindlays Bank, the co-plaintiff, as its bank but it was not clear which of the bank’s officers sent the telex messages to Stanchart, since the co-plaintiff owed a duty of care and skill to the plaintiff.
“The overwhelming evidence is that the co-plaintiff dismally failed in its duty of care and skill to the plaintiff,” the court held, and stated that failing that, the plaintiff was entitled to sue the co-plaintiff for breach of contract and claim appropriate damages to the value of the $82,000 transferred.
It said in the ordinary course of business, the beneficiary bank credited the beneficiary’s account in reliance on the instruction given to it by the originator bank and once that was done, the beneficiary bank held the funds to the customer’s order.
On negligence, the Supreme Court held that what officials at the head office of Stanchart did by looking at Effiong’s passport before paying the money to him across the counter was a legitimate practice for cashing travellers’ cheques abroad.
The court was presided over by Mr Justice W.A. Atuguba, with Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Dr Justice Seth Twum, Mrs Justice S.O. Adinyira and Mr Justice S.K. Asiamah as the other members, while Mr Ace Anan Ankomah and Atta Akyea represented the plaintiff and Stanchart respectively.
The money belonged to the Nigerian company but was authorised through a 419 scam by a Nigerian in September 1997 and transferred from the Anz Grindlays Bank Ltd of Switzerland via New York to Ghana.
Victoria Island Properties earned judgement at both the High Court and the Appeal Court but the Supreme Court ruled by a unanimous decision that Standard Chartered Bank Ghana Limited was not liable for the fraudulent transfer of the money from the Swiss bank into an account at its Liberia Road Branch in Accra.
The Nigerian fraudster, E.O. Effiong, pretended to be the owner of the money, forged the signature of the chairman of Victoria Island Properties and fraudulently instructed the Swiss bank to transfer $12,000 and $70,000, respectively, into his account at the Liberia Road Branch of Standard Chartered, from where it was paid to him.
When Victoria Island Properties Ltd sued Stanchart at the Accra High Court for negligence and not complying with the Swiss bank’s payment instructions, judgement was given in its favour in May 2001. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on November 12, 2004 that Stanchart was liable for the loss of the $82,000.
Victoria Island Properties argued, among others, that Stanchart, which had held itself as an international bank, negligently, and without complying with the originator bank’s payment instructions, paid the money to Effiong through its Liberia Road Branch, even though Effiong did not have any foreign account with the bank.
It said Stanchart and Effiong conspired together for the common purpose of injuring the company financially to suffer loss and damage.
The company said it had not been aware of the fraud until January 1998 when it requested a statement of accounts from the Swiss bank and that the negligence occurred because Stanchart failed to make any proper preliminary enquiries about Effiong at the time he opened the account.
According to the company, Stanchart failed to check or validate the reference given by Effiong to reasonably ascertain his identity, integrity and reliability before agreeing to deal with him as an account holder.
Stanchart, however, denied any knowledge of the fraudulent nature of Effiong’s instructions to the Swiss bank, saying that there was no way it could have known until it had been informed by the bank.
It denied that it had been negligent in complying with the Swiss bank’s instructions and claimed that it carried them out, while there was no evidence that Effiong’s account with the bank was fictitious.
The Supreme Court’s decision, which was read by Dr Justice Seth Twum, said the conspiracy allegation was scandalous and vexatious and an abuse of the court process, since no iota of evidence was led in support of it.
It said the so-called forged instruction allegedly issued by Effiong was said to have been by two telex messages which were not tendered in evidence by the plaintiff so it was difficult to assess how the company’s chairman’s signature was forged in the telex messages.
“But whatever form the telex messages took, it is quite clear to me that there was nothing wrong with the mechanism for the actual transfer of the money from Switzerland to Ghana via New York,” he said, and added that what happened was no different from what would have happened if Effiong had not swindled the plaintiff’s account with the co-plaintiff.
According to the court, communication between the ANZ Grindlays Bank and Stanchart for the payment of the money to Effiong was by SWIFT, an organisation maintained by banks and financial institutions throughout the world for money transfers.
The court held that by the legal nature of electronic transfer, the SWIFT system did not involve negotiable instruments and at any rate the recorded acknowledgements were not bills of exchange, as in the case of cheques which were drawn on a bank and payable on demand.
It said the plaintiff was the supposed originator, with ANZ Grindlays Bank, the co-plaintiff, as its bank but it was not clear which of the bank’s officers sent the telex messages to Stanchart, since the co-plaintiff owed a duty of care and skill to the plaintiff.
“The overwhelming evidence is that the co-plaintiff dismally failed in its duty of care and skill to the plaintiff,” the court held, and stated that failing that, the plaintiff was entitled to sue the co-plaintiff for breach of contract and claim appropriate damages to the value of the $82,000 transferred.
It said in the ordinary course of business, the beneficiary bank credited the beneficiary’s account in reliance on the instruction given to it by the originator bank and once that was done, the beneficiary bank held the funds to the customer’s order.
On negligence, the Supreme Court held that what officials at the head office of Stanchart did by looking at Effiong’s passport before paying the money to him across the counter was a legitimate practice for cashing travellers’ cheques abroad.
The court was presided over by Mr Justice W.A. Atuguba, with Mr Justice S.A. Brobbey, Dr Justice Seth Twum, Mrs Justice S.O. Adinyira and Mr Justice S.K. Asiamah as the other members, while Mr Ace Anan Ankomah and Atta Akyea represented the plaintiff and Stanchart respectively.
I AINT ALIAR SAYS COP
GENERAL Sergeant David Nyarko, one of the three policemen being tried for allegedly aiding the fugitive, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine today denied that he was a liar.
Rather, he blamed a police investigator for the inconsistencies in his evidence in court and his statement to the police.
According to him, the police investigator attributed certain statements to him without his consent and he became aware of the inconsistencies in court.
Sgt Nyarko was continuing his evidence under cross-examination by Mrs Stella Badu, a Senior State Attorney.
Sgt Nyarko is standing trial with General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson and General Lance Corporal Peter Bondorin.
A fourth accomplice, Detective Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah, is on the run.
The accused persons are alleged to have received an unspecified amount in dollars from the fugitive cocaine owner and allowed him to flee.
They have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer and have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
The accused person spoke Twi which was translated into English.
He explained that those statements attributed to him were made by Sgt Amoah and were put to him as questions by the investigator so he did not know that they were included in his statement.
Sgt Nyarko said the two statements he gave to the police after his arrest were written by the investigator and since the handwriting was not legible he asked that the statements be read to him but the investigator told him that it was what he told him that had been put down.
Mrs Badu suggested to the accused person that he was not being truthful to the court because in his evidence-in-chief he indicated that on April 26, 2006, he closed from duty at the Dangme Rural Bank at Tema New Town at about 5.45 a.m. but in a statement to the police on September 3 and 11, 2006, he did say that he closed from duty at 5 a.m..
Sgt Nyarko replied that he stood by his evidence in court and explaining the inconsistencies, he said that in the Police Service there were occasions that time was adjusted.
Sgt Nyarko denied ever going to the house of Sheriff in a Toyota Land Cruiser that belonged to Sheriff.
He maintained that he did not receive any money from the Kpone operation and that the Opel Astra taxi that he bought was a family property, which he together with his siblings decided should be registered in his name since he was the eldest.
Rather, he blamed a police investigator for the inconsistencies in his evidence in court and his statement to the police.
According to him, the police investigator attributed certain statements to him without his consent and he became aware of the inconsistencies in court.
Sgt Nyarko was continuing his evidence under cross-examination by Mrs Stella Badu, a Senior State Attorney.
Sgt Nyarko is standing trial with General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson and General Lance Corporal Peter Bondorin.
A fourth accomplice, Detective Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah, is on the run.
The accused persons are alleged to have received an unspecified amount in dollars from the fugitive cocaine owner and allowed him to flee.
They have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer and have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
The accused person spoke Twi which was translated into English.
He explained that those statements attributed to him were made by Sgt Amoah and were put to him as questions by the investigator so he did not know that they were included in his statement.
Sgt Nyarko said the two statements he gave to the police after his arrest were written by the investigator and since the handwriting was not legible he asked that the statements be read to him but the investigator told him that it was what he told him that had been put down.
Mrs Badu suggested to the accused person that he was not being truthful to the court because in his evidence-in-chief he indicated that on April 26, 2006, he closed from duty at the Dangme Rural Bank at Tema New Town at about 5.45 a.m. but in a statement to the police on September 3 and 11, 2006, he did say that he closed from duty at 5 a.m..
Sgt Nyarko replied that he stood by his evidence in court and explaining the inconsistencies, he said that in the Police Service there were occasions that time was adjusted.
Sgt Nyarko denied ever going to the house of Sheriff in a Toyota Land Cruiser that belonged to Sheriff.
He maintained that he did not receive any money from the Kpone operation and that the Opel Astra taxi that he bought was a family property, which he together with his siblings decided should be registered in his name since he was the eldest.
TWO JAILED FOUR YEARS FOR CAR THEFT
TWO residents of Accra who stole an Opel Astra “caravan” taxi and attempted to sell it in Kumasi have been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by an Accra circuit court.
The convicts — Kwame Asare, a driver, and Kwadwo Nketia, a hawker, both 23 — pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and stealing and were convicted and sentenced on their own pleas to four years’ imprisonment each.
Prosecuting, Police Chief Inspector J.K. Annim told the court that the complainant was a trader resident at Odorkor while the accused persons also lived at Achimota and Apenkwa, both suburbs of Accra.
He said the complainant gave the taxi, with registration number GT 33912 S, to his driver and after the close of work everyday the driver parked the car in his (the driver’s) house at Akweteman.
Chief Inspector Annim said the driver after close of work on May 4, 2007, as usual, parked the car in his house but on the following morning when he went for the car he realised it had been stolen.
The driver, the prosecutor said, reported the matter to his car owner, who made a report to the Tesano police in Accra.
He said on May 6, 2007, the complainant had a call from Kumasi that his car had been found in the possession of the two men in Kumasi.
According to the prosecutor, the two men attempted to sell the car but the purchaser suspected foul play when he demanded the original documents from the sellers.
The buyer alerted the police who arrested the two men and transferred them to the Tesano Police Station where the case was originally reported.
Chief Inspector Annim said the two men confessed during interrogation that they stole the car and that it was driven to Kumasi by Asare.
The convicts — Kwame Asare, a driver, and Kwadwo Nketia, a hawker, both 23 — pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and stealing and were convicted and sentenced on their own pleas to four years’ imprisonment each.
Prosecuting, Police Chief Inspector J.K. Annim told the court that the complainant was a trader resident at Odorkor while the accused persons also lived at Achimota and Apenkwa, both suburbs of Accra.
He said the complainant gave the taxi, with registration number GT 33912 S, to his driver and after the close of work everyday the driver parked the car in his (the driver’s) house at Akweteman.
Chief Inspector Annim said the driver after close of work on May 4, 2007, as usual, parked the car in his house but on the following morning when he went for the car he realised it had been stolen.
The driver, the prosecutor said, reported the matter to his car owner, who made a report to the Tesano police in Accra.
He said on May 6, 2007, the complainant had a call from Kumasi that his car had been found in the possession of the two men in Kumasi.
According to the prosecutor, the two men attempted to sell the car but the purchaser suspected foul play when he demanded the original documents from the sellers.
The buyer alerted the police who arrested the two men and transferred them to the Tesano Police Station where the case was originally reported.
Chief Inspector Annim said the two men confessed during interrogation that they stole the car and that it was driven to Kumasi by Asare.
Friday, June 01, 2007
PROSECUTION TENDERS GUN ET AL IN CKE TRIAL
THE prosecution in the case involving the owner of the MV Benjamin and five crew members in connection with the missing cocaine on board the vessel today tendered in evidence a single barrel shot gun with 55 AAA cartridges, 90 rounds of 9MM ammunition seized from the residence of the fugitive cocaine baron, Sheriff Asem Dakeh.
Also tendered in court were a red life jacket, a car number plate with registration number GE 12 19 W and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) number plate and the vessel whose picture was accepted because it could not be moved.
The items, which were seized in the Tema Community Five house of Sheriff were tendered when police Inspector Charles Adabah continued his evidence-in-chief in the case in which the owner of the vessel, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians; and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, are alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the substance.
They have been charged with various counts of using a property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and have been remanded in prison custody.
Inspector Adabah said Sheriff was one of the people behind the importation of the 77 parcels of cocaine into the country using MV Benjamin.
He said investigations revealed that Sheriff on December 21, 2005 took a loan of ¢250 million from the Unique Trust Financial Services Limited to purchase marine fuel, which was used for the vessel to embark on its voyage.
A photocopy of the loan agreement was tendered and it was signed by Sheriff as the General Manager of Atici Fisheries and according to the witness, the signature was similar to the one found on the charter agreement, which Sheriff signed with Dashment Shipping Limited, owners of the vessel using his brother’s name as Managing Director of the company.
The witness said when the vessel docked at the Tema breakwaters on April 26, 2006, its Chief Engineer and Captain as well as Kwak Yeo Sing, alias Killer, a Korean, after offloading the cocaine left the vessel and efforts to trace them had proved futile.
However, he said, the Daewoo vehicle with registration number GW 2932 V was found in the residence of Killer’s brother and was impounded.
Similarly, Inspector Adabah said when Bok Sil was arrested, his Ashaiman house was searched and $2850, ¢3,473,000 were retrieved and he believed the money was part of the money Bok Sil said was given to him to pay the crew in preparation of the voyage.
He said Bok Sil’s Korean passport and those of the crew members were retrieved and were tendered in court as well as their charge statements.
Also tendered in court were a red life jacket, a car number plate with registration number GE 12 19 W and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) number plate and the vessel whose picture was accepted because it could not be moved.
The items, which were seized in the Tema Community Five house of Sheriff were tendered when police Inspector Charles Adabah continued his evidence-in-chief in the case in which the owner of the vessel, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians; and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, are alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the substance.
They have been charged with various counts of using a property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and have been remanded in prison custody.
Inspector Adabah said Sheriff was one of the people behind the importation of the 77 parcels of cocaine into the country using MV Benjamin.
He said investigations revealed that Sheriff on December 21, 2005 took a loan of ¢250 million from the Unique Trust Financial Services Limited to purchase marine fuel, which was used for the vessel to embark on its voyage.
A photocopy of the loan agreement was tendered and it was signed by Sheriff as the General Manager of Atici Fisheries and according to the witness, the signature was similar to the one found on the charter agreement, which Sheriff signed with Dashment Shipping Limited, owners of the vessel using his brother’s name as Managing Director of the company.
The witness said when the vessel docked at the Tema breakwaters on April 26, 2006, its Chief Engineer and Captain as well as Kwak Yeo Sing, alias Killer, a Korean, after offloading the cocaine left the vessel and efforts to trace them had proved futile.
However, he said, the Daewoo vehicle with registration number GW 2932 V was found in the residence of Killer’s brother and was impounded.
Similarly, Inspector Adabah said when Bok Sil was arrested, his Ashaiman house was searched and $2850, ¢3,473,000 were retrieved and he believed the money was part of the money Bok Sil said was given to him to pay the crew in preparation of the voyage.
He said Bok Sil’s Korean passport and those of the crew members were retrieved and were tendered in court as well as their charge statements.
COURT ADJOURNES FORMER FIRST LADY'S CASE
THE Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the former First Lady, Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings, and five others accused of causing financial loss to the state in the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam has adjourned to July 9, 2007.
That was after the court turned down a request by the prosecution, which had indicated at the last sitting to substitute the charge sheet, that it was ready to call its first witness.
The acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, who was apparently frustrated by what she described as the media trial of the case, said she wanted hearing to commence to put to rest speculations on the matter.
“My Lord, at the last date I indicated a course of action (referring to substituting the charge sheet) but there have been all kinds of accusations on the FM stations. There is nothing against compressing charges,” she said, and added that she was ready to call the first witness to put the speculations to rest.
But the trial judge, Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, replied that the trial was taking place in the court and not outside because the court was not supposed to be influenced by what went on in the media or elsewhere.
Mr Tony Lithur, counsel for Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings, objected to the hearing of the case and stated that he felt ambushed by the prosecution because the agreement at the last date was for the charges to be substituted and the records indicated that.
The court said it was within the right of the prosecution to proceed with the case, whether with the old charge sheet or a new one, and it was in the best interest of the bar that the acting DPP hinted to substitute the charge sheet, saying, “It is also within your right to say so but you cannot object.”
Mr Lithur then informed the court of his intention to file an application for stay of proceedings which he had discussed with the prosecution and stated that the application to commence the case was in bad taste because of discussions both counsel had had.
Meanwhile, there was commotion at the court premises as numerous sympathisers of the former First Lady, who was accompanied by her husband, former President J.J. Rawlings, to the court hurled invectives amidst shouting.
Security, both inside and outside the court premises, was so loose that even some foreign media practitioners were able to enter to film proceedings until the attention of the cameraman was drawn to the fact that it was not allowed.
Some of the people who wanted to forcibly enter the courtroom made noise which attracted the presiding judge to ask whether there was no policeman to ensure that peace prevailed.
As if that was not enough, some of the former President’s security men demanded identity cards from journalists before they were allowed to enter the courtroom.
After the court had adjourned, the sympathisers of the Rawlingses, who held placards, some of which read, “Stop peddling lies, NPP Ministers”, “Stop selective justice”, “Nana Konadu, Champion of African women”, “Give account of Hotel de Kufuor waa waa”, went on a procession before leaving the court.
Substituting the charge sheet has become necessary because the names of three persons, namely, Georgina Okaiteye, a Director/General Manager of Caridem Development Company Limited, Larry Adjetey, a Director/Secretary of Caridem, and George Mould, a Director of Caridem, were still on the charge sheet, although they had been discharged.
They were discharged when the prosecution withdrew the charges against them, leaving the former First Lady and five others, namely, Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, the former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), Thomas Benson Owusu, a former accountant of the DIC, Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of Caridem Development Company Limited, and Caridem as an entity.
All the accused persons, except Owusu, were in court and following that the court adjourned to enable him to appear at the next adjourned date.
The accused persons are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement and obtaining public property by false statement.
All of them have pleaded not guilty to all the charges and are on self-recognisance bail.
They were alleged to have caused financial loss to the state running into billions of cedis in respect of a public property following the acquisition of GIHOC Cannery, a government cannery, by Caridem Limited, which was owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM), in 1995 when the cannery was divested.
The accused persons, together with their counsel, were in court and the former First Lady, who was dressed in a white top with trousers, was, as usual, followed by some women sympathisers who were held behind the court fence amidst singing.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons failed to complete interest payments which accrued on the purchase price of the cannery and as a result had caused financial loss to the state.
The prosecution said the accused persons failed to pay interest which accrued on an outstanding balance of ¢7,069,640,664.86, amounting to ¢2,191,588,606.11, to the DIC in respect of the sale of GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
That was after the court turned down a request by the prosecution, which had indicated at the last sitting to substitute the charge sheet, that it was ready to call its first witness.
The acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, who was apparently frustrated by what she described as the media trial of the case, said she wanted hearing to commence to put to rest speculations on the matter.
“My Lord, at the last date I indicated a course of action (referring to substituting the charge sheet) but there have been all kinds of accusations on the FM stations. There is nothing against compressing charges,” she said, and added that she was ready to call the first witness to put the speculations to rest.
But the trial judge, Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, replied that the trial was taking place in the court and not outside because the court was not supposed to be influenced by what went on in the media or elsewhere.
Mr Tony Lithur, counsel for Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings, objected to the hearing of the case and stated that he felt ambushed by the prosecution because the agreement at the last date was for the charges to be substituted and the records indicated that.
The court said it was within the right of the prosecution to proceed with the case, whether with the old charge sheet or a new one, and it was in the best interest of the bar that the acting DPP hinted to substitute the charge sheet, saying, “It is also within your right to say so but you cannot object.”
Mr Lithur then informed the court of his intention to file an application for stay of proceedings which he had discussed with the prosecution and stated that the application to commence the case was in bad taste because of discussions both counsel had had.
Meanwhile, there was commotion at the court premises as numerous sympathisers of the former First Lady, who was accompanied by her husband, former President J.J. Rawlings, to the court hurled invectives amidst shouting.
Security, both inside and outside the court premises, was so loose that even some foreign media practitioners were able to enter to film proceedings until the attention of the cameraman was drawn to the fact that it was not allowed.
Some of the people who wanted to forcibly enter the courtroom made noise which attracted the presiding judge to ask whether there was no policeman to ensure that peace prevailed.
As if that was not enough, some of the former President’s security men demanded identity cards from journalists before they were allowed to enter the courtroom.
After the court had adjourned, the sympathisers of the Rawlingses, who held placards, some of which read, “Stop peddling lies, NPP Ministers”, “Stop selective justice”, “Nana Konadu, Champion of African women”, “Give account of Hotel de Kufuor waa waa”, went on a procession before leaving the court.
Substituting the charge sheet has become necessary because the names of three persons, namely, Georgina Okaiteye, a Director/General Manager of Caridem Development Company Limited, Larry Adjetey, a Director/Secretary of Caridem, and George Mould, a Director of Caridem, were still on the charge sheet, although they had been discharged.
They were discharged when the prosecution withdrew the charges against them, leaving the former First Lady and five others, namely, Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, the former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), Thomas Benson Owusu, a former accountant of the DIC, Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of Caridem Development Company Limited, and Caridem as an entity.
All the accused persons, except Owusu, were in court and following that the court adjourned to enable him to appear at the next adjourned date.
The accused persons are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement and obtaining public property by false statement.
All of them have pleaded not guilty to all the charges and are on self-recognisance bail.
They were alleged to have caused financial loss to the state running into billions of cedis in respect of a public property following the acquisition of GIHOC Cannery, a government cannery, by Caridem Limited, which was owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM), in 1995 when the cannery was divested.
The accused persons, together with their counsel, were in court and the former First Lady, who was dressed in a white top with trousers, was, as usual, followed by some women sympathisers who were held behind the court fence amidst singing.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons failed to complete interest payments which accrued on the purchase price of the cannery and as a result had caused financial loss to the state.
The prosecution said the accused persons failed to pay interest which accrued on an outstanding balance of ¢7,069,640,664.86, amounting to ¢2,191,588,606.11, to the DIC in respect of the sale of GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)