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.