Witness;"Kofi Boakye's tape"authentic
Gilbert Boyefio
21/02/2007
Yaw Baah, Member of Parliament for Kumawu and a member of the Georgina Wood Committee that investigated, among other things, the circumstances under which 77 parcels of cocaine got missing in the care of the Narcotics Control Board and the extent of the drug trade in the country, has told an Accra Fast Track High Court in the trial of Kwabena "Tagor? Amaning and Issah Abass that a taped recording of a conversation allegedly held at suspended senior police officer Kofi Boakye's residence, which is at the centre of the case, is authentic.
He said although media reports indicate that there is more than one version of the tape recording, the one the committee had was the original. He indicated that this was so because the time frame of the tape corresponds with the time stipulated by the accused persons.
Mr Baah further told the court that with the help of technicians the voices of ACP Kofi Boakye, Kwabena Acheampong, Kwabena Amaning, Alhaji Moro and Issah Abass were identified, and they also admitted to the Committee that they were the people speaking on the tape, a claim that was hotly disputed by Counsel for the accused persons.
Earlier, he told the court that the mandate of the Georgina Wood Committee was to investigate the quantities of cocaine seized at a house in East Legon, investigate the missing 77 parcels of cocaine on board the MV Benjamin also known as Adede 2 and to make recommendations to Government on it.
He noted that although the Committee was not able to find the missing cocaine, they were able to establish those who were involved in the issue and therefore recommended their prosecution.
There was drama when Mr Baah was asked to identify the tape. The Kumawu MP insisted he could only the tape by its contents. Chief State Attorney, Gertrude Aikins requested the court to have the tape played for identification by the witness, but lead Counsel for Tagor, Ellis Owusu Fordjour, contended that the tape had not been tendered to the court as evidence and therefore cannot be played. He asserted that since the ownership of the tape was still in doubt, there was no legal foundation for the admission of the tape as evidence.
"Who authorised the recording and what law allows a person to record the private conversation of individuals?, he queried, adding, ?This is against fundamental human right as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution?.
Mohammed Attah, Counsel for Issah Abass, associated himself with Mr Owusu Fordjour"s statement.
Chief State Attorney Gertrude Aikins counter argued however that the witness was not tendering the tape as evidence but was just being asked to identify its content.
The court overruled the defense?s objections.
During cross-examination, Mr Baah said he could not remember if ACP Kofi Boakye ever complained that some part of the tape had been edited. ?During the Committee sitting, there were a series of questions asked but I cannot recollect all,? he added. He admitted that the sound quality of the tape was bad.
When asked if he was able to recognise the voice of ACP Kofi Boakye or Tagor because he had spoken with them before the Committee sitting, he replied in the negative. He told the court that the committee sought the assistance of technicians to determine the owners of the voices. The tape was later transcribed into English and Akan.
He asserted that the name ?Manhyia? was not mentioned in the purported tape recording at ACP Kofi Boakye?s residence; it only came up during the committee?s sittings when Alhaji Moro was asked if he had any connections with Manhyia, the seat of the Asantehene. Alhaji Moro?s answer, according to Mr Baah, was that ?Otumfuo does not tolerate criminal activities and if he is aware about this cocaine issue he would apprehend the person and hand him over to the police.?
The seventh prosecution witness was the investigator handling the case, Detective Inspector Charles Adaba of the CID headquarters. He told the court that when he was given the mandate to investigate the case, he contacted the Attorney General, Joe Ghartey, who gave him a transcript of the tape, but he could not identify the person(s) who made the recording.
?I went to Joy FM because they claimed they have a copy of the tape which they have pasted on their website, but they refused to give the source of their tape. I then went to Daily Guide because they have also been serialising a copy of the tape in their paper, but they claimed they got it from the Joy FM website?, he added.
He tendered in evidence the tape at the centre of the controversy. However, defense counsel objected to this on the grounds that the witness had not been able to properly identify the tape. According to Mr Owusu-Fordjour, it was standard police practice in criminal cases that an officer uses a peculiar mark to identify any object or evidence found relating to the case and document, which had not been done in this case. He said since the witness did not know how the tape got to the AG?s office he is not in a position to answer questions related to it.
At this point, both parties cited different case laws to support their arguments.
The trial judge adjourned the case to March 14, 2006, for ruling on the objection.
21/02/2007
Yaw Baah, Member of Parliament for Kumawu and a member of the Georgina Wood Committee that investigated, among other things, the circumstances under which 77 parcels of cocaine got missing in the care of the Narcotics Control Board and the extent of the drug trade in the country, has told an Accra Fast Track High Court in the trial of Kwabena "Tagor? Amaning and Issah Abass that a taped recording of a conversation allegedly held at suspended senior police officer Kofi Boakye's residence, which is at the centre of the case, is authentic.
He said although media reports indicate that there is more than one version of the tape recording, the one the committee had was the original. He indicated that this was so because the time frame of the tape corresponds with the time stipulated by the accused persons.
Mr Baah further told the court that with the help of technicians the voices of ACP Kofi Boakye, Kwabena Acheampong, Kwabena Amaning, Alhaji Moro and Issah Abass were identified, and they also admitted to the Committee that they were the people speaking on the tape, a claim that was hotly disputed by Counsel for the accused persons.
Earlier, he told the court that the mandate of the Georgina Wood Committee was to investigate the quantities of cocaine seized at a house in East Legon, investigate the missing 77 parcels of cocaine on board the MV Benjamin also known as Adede 2 and to make recommendations to Government on it.
He noted that although the Committee was not able to find the missing cocaine, they were able to establish those who were involved in the issue and therefore recommended their prosecution.
There was drama when Mr Baah was asked to identify the tape. The Kumawu MP insisted he could only the tape by its contents. Chief State Attorney, Gertrude Aikins requested the court to have the tape played for identification by the witness, but lead Counsel for Tagor, Ellis Owusu Fordjour, contended that the tape had not been tendered to the court as evidence and therefore cannot be played. He asserted that since the ownership of the tape was still in doubt, there was no legal foundation for the admission of the tape as evidence.
"Who authorised the recording and what law allows a person to record the private conversation of individuals?, he queried, adding, ?This is against fundamental human right as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution?.
Mohammed Attah, Counsel for Issah Abass, associated himself with Mr Owusu Fordjour"s statement.
Chief State Attorney Gertrude Aikins counter argued however that the witness was not tendering the tape as evidence but was just being asked to identify its content.
The court overruled the defense?s objections.
During cross-examination, Mr Baah said he could not remember if ACP Kofi Boakye ever complained that some part of the tape had been edited. ?During the Committee sitting, there were a series of questions asked but I cannot recollect all,? he added. He admitted that the sound quality of the tape was bad.
When asked if he was able to recognise the voice of ACP Kofi Boakye or Tagor because he had spoken with them before the Committee sitting, he replied in the negative. He told the court that the committee sought the assistance of technicians to determine the owners of the voices. The tape was later transcribed into English and Akan.
He asserted that the name ?Manhyia? was not mentioned in the purported tape recording at ACP Kofi Boakye?s residence; it only came up during the committee?s sittings when Alhaji Moro was asked if he had any connections with Manhyia, the seat of the Asantehene. Alhaji Moro?s answer, according to Mr Baah, was that ?Otumfuo does not tolerate criminal activities and if he is aware about this cocaine issue he would apprehend the person and hand him over to the police.?
The seventh prosecution witness was the investigator handling the case, Detective Inspector Charles Adaba of the CID headquarters. He told the court that when he was given the mandate to investigate the case, he contacted the Attorney General, Joe Ghartey, who gave him a transcript of the tape, but he could not identify the person(s) who made the recording.
?I went to Joy FM because they claimed they have a copy of the tape which they have pasted on their website, but they refused to give the source of their tape. I then went to Daily Guide because they have also been serialising a copy of the tape in their paper, but they claimed they got it from the Joy FM website?, he added.
He tendered in evidence the tape at the centre of the controversy. However, defense counsel objected to this on the grounds that the witness had not been able to properly identify the tape. According to Mr Owusu-Fordjour, it was standard police practice in criminal cases that an officer uses a peculiar mark to identify any object or evidence found relating to the case and document, which had not been done in this case. He said since the witness did not know how the tape got to the AG?s office he is not in a position to answer questions related to it.
At this point, both parties cited different case laws to support their arguments.
The trial judge adjourned the case to March 14, 2006, for ruling on the objection.
Comments
Post a Comment