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.