Tagor, four others refused bail again
Gilbert Boyefio
22/09/2006
An Accra Circuit Court has again refused bail for Tagor alias Kwabena Amaning, Victor Kisseh also known as Yaw Billa, Alhaji Issah Abass, Kwabena Acheampong and Kojo Ababio, who were allegedly involved in the saga of the missing cocaine from the vessel MV Benjamin.
The Chief State Attorney, Gertrude Aikins who was in court for the first time since the case started, failed to provide new evidence to the court. She pleaded with the court for more time to allow further investigations into the case.
She told the court that looking at the nature and circumstances surrounding the case, the AG's office needed to wait for the Georgina Wood Committee report and review it in line with the charges against the accused persons. This, she noted, together with evidence available to the prosecution, will form a stronger docket with which to provide the evidence the court will need to convict accused persons.
She informed the court of Prosecution's intention to take the case to the Fast Tract Court. She said this decision has been taken in view of the Circuit Court not being automated, thereby delaying proceedings. She asked therefore asked the court for a date that will coincide with the opening of the High Court.
Counsel for the first accused, Nana Asante Badiatuo, protested that he was not happy with the way proceedings were going, describing the process as 'very disturbing'. He said the request by the State Attorney for more time to be given them shows that they do not have a case, and needed time to build one. He noted that what is going on at the Georgina Wood Committee was only a fact finding process that has nothing to do with the case on hand.
Nana Bediatuo told the court that no where in the police's previous investigations have the accused persons' name been mentioned, and therefore the court should be looking somewhere else for the people responsible for the crime.
He said since the prosecution has nothing new to offer to the court, their clients should be released. He referred the court to its earlier warning that if prosecution did not have anything new they should let the accused persons go.
He noted that the continued holding of their clients in custody without bail is a clear violation of their human rights, lamenting that the court had, up till date, not made available the fact sheets to him and his team.
He submitted that the tenets of the Constitution do not support the continued holding of their clients without, especially when prosecution has failed to provide any evidence of criminality on the part his clients.
He therefore appealed to the court to exercise its discretion and grant the accused persons bail.
Counsel for the second accused, Osafo Boahene, said he agreed with the position taken by the counsel for the first accused. He intimated that the slow pace of the processes is slowly killing his client, Alhaji Issah Abass, who he claims is hypertensive and diabetic.
When asked where his client was, Mr. Boahene replied "He cannot come, and he will not come." The court was told that Alhaji Abass was sick and has been sent to hospital for medical attention.
Reacting to attempt by the prosecution to take the case to the High Court, Counsel said section 43 of the Amendment of the Court Act gives the court the right to hear the case before it. He therefore submitted that the court should grant the accused persons bail.
"Anytime the court wants them, they will be available", he added.
On his part, counsel for the third accused, Mohammed Sanu, said the submission by the Chief State Attorney indicates that the charges against the accused persons are fabricated. He said if up till date Police have not been able to come out with anything new, then the accused persons should be discharged.
He was of the view that it would be against the principles of fair trial to hold the accused persons without bail in the absence of any substantive evidence. He said in line with the Constitution, the court ought to secure the freedom of the accused persons.
Counsels for the fourth and fifth accused persons, Agyei Mensah and Robert Blay respectively, added their voice to the plea by the previous counsels. According to Robert Blay, counsel for Ababio, his client does not qualify to be a drug dealer, and for whom bail should be required. To buttress this point, he told the court that when they (he and his client) attended the Georgina Wood Committee, they were thrown out because their presence was thought unnecessary.
He further submitted that his client had not been mentioned anywhere in the committee hearing.
When the court asked him who qualified to be a drug dealer, he quoted section 1 (1) and 3 (2) of the Narcotic Law.
He said the prosecution should have credible evidence, and not one based on rumours and allegations.
In a quick reaction to the pleading by counsel for the accused persons, Gertrude Aikins pointed out that prosecution has been sincere and fair to the accused persons. She said the accused persons are not before the court for persecution. "In cases such as this, the first step is to arrest and that is exactly what we have done", she added.
She said Article 13(4) provides that a person arrested for cocaine offence should be brought before the court within 48 hours of arrest. He said the lack of evidence at the moment is due to the fact that in such cases it is difficult to get witnesses. She, however, pointed out that if counsel wants to see the evidence currently available they should apply for it.
The Judge ruled that looking at the charges preferred against the accused persons, the application for bail is premature.
Sitting was adjourned to October 9, 2006.
22/09/2006
An Accra Circuit Court has again refused bail for Tagor alias Kwabena Amaning, Victor Kisseh also known as Yaw Billa, Alhaji Issah Abass, Kwabena Acheampong and Kojo Ababio, who were allegedly involved in the saga of the missing cocaine from the vessel MV Benjamin.
The Chief State Attorney, Gertrude Aikins who was in court for the first time since the case started, failed to provide new evidence to the court. She pleaded with the court for more time to allow further investigations into the case.
She told the court that looking at the nature and circumstances surrounding the case, the AG's office needed to wait for the Georgina Wood Committee report and review it in line with the charges against the accused persons. This, she noted, together with evidence available to the prosecution, will form a stronger docket with which to provide the evidence the court will need to convict accused persons.
She informed the court of Prosecution's intention to take the case to the Fast Tract Court. She said this decision has been taken in view of the Circuit Court not being automated, thereby delaying proceedings. She asked therefore asked the court for a date that will coincide with the opening of the High Court.
Counsel for the first accused, Nana Asante Badiatuo, protested that he was not happy with the way proceedings were going, describing the process as 'very disturbing'. He said the request by the State Attorney for more time to be given them shows that they do not have a case, and needed time to build one. He noted that what is going on at the Georgina Wood Committee was only a fact finding process that has nothing to do with the case on hand.
Nana Bediatuo told the court that no where in the police's previous investigations have the accused persons' name been mentioned, and therefore the court should be looking somewhere else for the people responsible for the crime.
He said since the prosecution has nothing new to offer to the court, their clients should be released. He referred the court to its earlier warning that if prosecution did not have anything new they should let the accused persons go.
He noted that the continued holding of their clients in custody without bail is a clear violation of their human rights, lamenting that the court had, up till date, not made available the fact sheets to him and his team.
He submitted that the tenets of the Constitution do not support the continued holding of their clients without, especially when prosecution has failed to provide any evidence of criminality on the part his clients.
He therefore appealed to the court to exercise its discretion and grant the accused persons bail.
Counsel for the second accused, Osafo Boahene, said he agreed with the position taken by the counsel for the first accused. He intimated that the slow pace of the processes is slowly killing his client, Alhaji Issah Abass, who he claims is hypertensive and diabetic.
When asked where his client was, Mr. Boahene replied "He cannot come, and he will not come." The court was told that Alhaji Abass was sick and has been sent to hospital for medical attention.
Reacting to attempt by the prosecution to take the case to the High Court, Counsel said section 43 of the Amendment of the Court Act gives the court the right to hear the case before it. He therefore submitted that the court should grant the accused persons bail.
"Anytime the court wants them, they will be available", he added.
On his part, counsel for the third accused, Mohammed Sanu, said the submission by the Chief State Attorney indicates that the charges against the accused persons are fabricated. He said if up till date Police have not been able to come out with anything new, then the accused persons should be discharged.
He was of the view that it would be against the principles of fair trial to hold the accused persons without bail in the absence of any substantive evidence. He said in line with the Constitution, the court ought to secure the freedom of the accused persons.
Counsels for the fourth and fifth accused persons, Agyei Mensah and Robert Blay respectively, added their voice to the plea by the previous counsels. According to Robert Blay, counsel for Ababio, his client does not qualify to be a drug dealer, and for whom bail should be required. To buttress this point, he told the court that when they (he and his client) attended the Georgina Wood Committee, they were thrown out because their presence was thought unnecessary.
He further submitted that his client had not been mentioned anywhere in the committee hearing.
When the court asked him who qualified to be a drug dealer, he quoted section 1 (1) and 3 (2) of the Narcotic Law.
He said the prosecution should have credible evidence, and not one based on rumours and allegations.
In a quick reaction to the pleading by counsel for the accused persons, Gertrude Aikins pointed out that prosecution has been sincere and fair to the accused persons. She said the accused persons are not before the court for persecution. "In cases such as this, the first step is to arrest and that is exactly what we have done", she added.
She said Article 13(4) provides that a person arrested for cocaine offence should be brought before the court within 48 hours of arrest. He said the lack of evidence at the moment is due to the fact that in such cases it is difficult to get witnesses. She, however, pointed out that if counsel wants to see the evidence currently available they should apply for it.
The Judge ruled that looking at the charges preferred against the accused persons, the application for bail is premature.
Sitting was adjourned to October 9, 2006.
Comments
Post a Comment