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.