News:
April 7, 2011
Lawyer for the 15 persons who were last Tuesday acquitted and discharged by a Fast Track High Court in connection with the murder of Ya-Na Yakubu Andani II, Mr Samuel Atta Akyea, has said comments on the ruling by a retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Francis Kpegah are mischievous, ambivalent, inconsistent and politically motivated.
He said Justice Kpegah, had, through his public utterances and conduct, demonstrated clearly his sympathies for the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) and his belief that anything and everything concerning the party must be worshiped.
Following the ruling by the court presided over by Justice E. K. Ayebi, the retired Supreme Court impugned the integrity of the presiding judge, arguing the ruling which freed the 15 was nothing but a travesty.
Describing Justice Ayebi’s decision as a “bad ruling,” Justice Kpegah, speaking on Metro TV’s Good Evening Ghana Programme Tuesday, said there was enough evidence to warrant the conviction of the suspects and yet the presiding judge let them walk free.
“They should not have been acquitted…someone must be held accountable for this [murder of Ya-Na]. …there is enough evidence against them,” he asserted.
But Mr Atta Akyea said Justice Kpegah’s arguments flew in the face of the law and ought not to come from a retired Supreme Court Judge.
Quoting from Justice Kpegah’s own 1993 ruling on a case, the Republic versus Adu-Boahene, the lawyer said the retired judge “discussed the burden on the prosecution [to] prove beyond all reasonable doubt,” its case against the accused, but was now seeking to lower this legal bar simply because the case involves the NDC government.
Mr Atta Akyea, who is also the NPP Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South, told Joy News’ Israel Layea that if a prosecution parades before a court of law, witnesses who have given testimonies on three different cases – Wuaku Commission, Yidana trial and the trial of Mbadugu and others – and their testimonies are as contradictory as they are inconsistent, how can anybody expect that the evidence given by such witnesses can be reliable, credible and honest and based on which the court can reach a verdict that favours the prosecution.
“The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were so discredited and manifestly unreliable, that, according to law, it will not even be safe for you to leave such discredited evidence to the jury to pronounce on it. So what is he (Justice Kpegah) talking about? Has he actually read the decision? he asked.
Responding to Justice Kpegah’s call for a commission of inquiry to be set up to conduct fresh investigations into the 2002 incident that lead to the killing of the Overlord of Dagbon, Mr Atta Akyea said that call by itself was a tacit admission on the part of Justice Kpegah that the evidence presented by the prosecution in court was insufficient to convict the suspects.
He said the fact that prosecution, after closing its case, came back to court asking to be allowed to introduce fresh evidence into the case demonstrated clearly the lack of diligence and the shoddiness of the entire prosecution process.
In his opinion, the 15 accused received resounding justice and politicians who wish to exploit the unfortunate murder of the Ya-Na for parochial electoral purposes are entitled to do so, but they must remember that justice is dispensed by judges in accordance with law and due process and not at the behest of politicians.
Joy News