COUNSEL MAKES SUBMISSION OF NO CASE

COUNSEL for the four crew members of MV Benjamin, the vessel which was allegedly used to import 77 slabs of cocaine, yesterday urged the Fast Track High Court to acquit and discharge the accused persons because the prosecution woefully failed to establish a prima facie case against them.
The lawyers described the trial of the suspects as “panic prosecution” in their submissions of no case because according to them, the police knew that Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, was the one who imported the cocaine.
According to them, since Sheriff was allowed to escape, their clients were being prosecuted as a face saving effort because of the defect or default of the Narcotic Control Board.
“There is no doubt about who imported or did business relating to narcotics. The prosecution know. These are people who found themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time”, said Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons.
They are standing trial with the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who were alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
They have been charged with various counts of using 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 Arhin brothers are facing two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
In his argument, Mr Osei Owusu said the prosecution failed to establish a clear case of possession against his clients because the legal meaning of the offence meant his clients should have acted physically to control the object.
According to him, possession in its legal meaning connoted to “ own, control or occupy or monopolise an object and also exercise power or influence over an object”.
Counsel said the prosecution’s evidence should have told the court that the accused persons had the power to control and authority to use and manage the object to the exclusion of others and when the evidence did not give that indication, then there was no case for which his clients should be called upon to answer.
Mr Osei Owusu said the ingredient of the offence required that the accused persons should have knowledge of the nature and quality of the object and a prosecution devoid of that was fatal.
He said of all the 13 witnesses who testified for the prosecution, none of them indicated that his clients had knowledge of the nature and quality of the cocaine and that they had no exclusive control or access to it or it belonged to them.
According to the counsel, evidence adduced before the court indicated that his clients had no access to the locked hatch of the vessel where the cocaine was concealed in a locked black bag, therefore, they could not be held for having a mental knowledge of the cocaine.
“Even in the hatch the cocaine had been locked under seal in a black bag and no evidence was led to link my clients to it so for that reason no case has been made against them since the Captain and Chief Engineer of the vessel, who were owners of the cocaine, locked it in the hatch and kept the key to themselves,” Mr Osei Owusu said.
Regarding the charge of engaging in a prohibited business related to narcotics, counsel argued that no evidence was led to that effect since the Internal Revenue Service Act defined business as a trade, profession, or vocation, all of which the prosecution failed to link the accused persons to.
He said the prosecution should have linked his clients to the act of promoting narcotics business and their modus operandi, their business associates, among other things but it failed and rather tendered the business certificates of Sheriff.
Counsel said even when the accused persons were recruited as sailors and when they realised that they had spent so much time in arriving at Tema as they had been informed, they challenged the Captain who asked them to shut up.
He said the Captain pulled a gun when the accused persons challenged him on the high seas so they kept quiet in order not to change the course of the journey but to obey instructions for fear of their lives because they had been informed that the vessel was going to Tema or to tow a distressed vessel, among other reasons for the journey.
Mr Solomon Korli, counsel for the two Chinese, associated himself with the submission of his colleague and stated that the prosecution’s evidence was contradictory since Yin Xing was not a regular crew member of the vessel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah adjourned the case to August 9, 2007, to enable the prosecution to reply to the submissions of the defence team.