Full text of Justice Dordzie Committee of Inquiry into cocaine saga

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO THE POLICE CID AND NACOB
PETITION TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OVER “WASHING SODA COCAINE”

INTRODUCTION

The Honourable Lady Chief Justice on 14th December 2011 set up a high-level
Committee of Inquiry to investigate circumstances under which 1020 grams of cocaine
allegedly received in Circuit Court 1, Accra, as an exhibit in the case of “The Republic
Vs. Nana Ama Martins” turned into washing soda. In the 14th December 2011 edition of
the Daily Graphic, the newspaper reported that the Accra Circuit Court was puzzled as
to how a substance alleged to be cocaine which was seized from an accused person,
confirmed by the Police to be cocaine after testing and weighing 1020 grams, later
turned out to be sodium carbonate (commonly known as washing soda) after another
test by the Ghana Standards Board on the orders of the Court.
Other media reports stated the same. Subsequently, the Criminal Investigations
Department of the Ghana Police Service and the Narcotics Control Board held a Press
Conference on the matter and petitioned Her Ladyship the Chief Justice to investigate
the conduct of the Accra Circuit Court and its trial Judge, His Honour Eric Kyei Baffour
over the disappearance of 1020 grams of cocaine exhibit which was kept in the custody
of the court.
The Committee of Enquiry is chaired by Justice Agnes Dordzie, a Justice of the Court of
Appeal. Other members of the Committee are Justice Abdullah Iddrisu, a Justice of the
High Court and Mr. John Bannerman, the Chief Registrar General of the Judicial Service
with Mr. Nii Boye Quartey, Deputy Director of Human Resource of the Judicial Service
as Secretary to the Committee.

The terms of reference of the Committee are to establish the roles played by the trial
Judge and other court officials including the Registrar and the Court Clerk in the matter
and other matters related thereto.

2
The Committee was to sit in public and submit its report within seven (7) days from its
first sitting effective 15th December 2011.
The Committee started its sittings from 15th to 20th December 2011 and took evidence
from the following eleven (11) persons in the order their names appear.
1. Thomas Anyekese - 1st Investigator (Ghana Police Service)
2. Joseph Owusu - 2nd Investigator (Ghana Police Service)
3. DSP Kofi Adjei Tuadzra - Head of the Narcotics Unit of Police CID
(Ghana Police Service)
4. Stella Arhin - State Attorney (Attorney Generals Department
5. Daniel Nyatsidzi - Court Clerk, Circuit Court, Accra.
6. Seidu Yusif - High Court Registrar, Cocoa Affairs, Accra, Court
7. Frederick Tetteh Kudjonu - Registrar Cocoa Affairs, Accra, Court
8. H/H Eric Kyei Baffour - Circuit Judge, Circuit Court , Accra.
9. Kwabla Senanu - Counsel for the accused person
10. David Agyeman Agyin - Police Forensic Expert (Ghana Police Service)
11. D.S.P. Dery - Police Prosecutor (Ghana Police Service)
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
THOMAS ANYEKESE (1ST INVESTIGATOR)
The witness Thomas Anyekese told the Committee that on 27th September 2011 he was
summoned to appear before the Circuit Court, Accra, which he did and he was asked to
tender the report and the substance they received from the Police Forensic Science
Laboratory. He said he tendered them and there was no objection and the substance
was admitted as exhibit C with the Police seal embossed on it. He said the report which
showed that the substance tested positive as cocaine was also marked as an exhibit
before the Court. The Court then asked him to open the substance. He did and it was
shown to the accused person, her Counsel and the Court. He did not complete his
evidence on 27th September 2011 therefore the case was adjourned to 28th September
2011 for continuation. On the 28th September, 2011 during cross examination, the
3
Court ordered that the exhibit which was in the custody of the court be brought to
court, and it was brought to Court and it was then that Defence Counsel raised
objection and said that he did not believe the authenticity of the substance. The State
Attorney, who was the Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submission of the Defence
Counsel. The Judge however overruled her and gave an Order that the substance be retested.
The assistant Registrar of the Court took sample of the substance and put it in
another brown envelope and sealed it with the seal of the Court. The Court Clerk, the
Registrar, defence counsel, the accused person and the current Investigator (Joseph
Owusu) appended their signatures. The witness said he refused to append his
signature.
JOSEPH OWUSU (SECOND INVESTIGATOR)
He told the Committee he took over the case from Thomas Anyekese in 2009 or 2010.
At the time the case was handed over to him, investigation was almost complete and
the substance was kept with the Unit Commander of the Narcotic Unit of the Police CID.
On 6th September 2011 he was to take the exhibit to Court. He was accompanied by
two armed senior police officers and they took the substance to Court but the police
investigator was not called that day to give evidence. They therefore sent the substance
back to the Unit Commander. On the 13th September 2011 he took the substance back
to Court and he was again accompanied by two armed senior police officers.
The investigator Thomas Anyekese could not be called on the 13th September well so
they sent the substance back to the Unit Commander 2011.
On the 27th September 2011, he went back to COURT with the substance and again he
was accompanied by two senior police officers who were armed.
On the 27th September 2011 Thomas Anyekese was called to give his evidence and
therefore the substance was handed over to him. He said he was a witness so he
stayed outside the Court room but he learnt the case was adjourned to 28th September
2011 for continuation. He gave evidence before the Court on 3rd October 2011 and
tendered the charge statement of the accused person.
4
DSP KOFI ADJEI TUADZRA (COMMANDER, NACORTIC CONTROL UNIT)
DSP Kofi Adjei Tuadzra said he took over as the Unit Commander of the Narcotic Unit of
the police CID on 27th August 2010. He took over from Superintendant Thomas Obah.
When he took over he became responsible for all the exhibits in the Unit including the
one labelled “The Republic vs. Nana Ama Martins”. He said he checked the seals on all
the exhibits including the Nana Ama exhibit and found all of them intact. He was
informed by Constable Owusu that the Nana Ama case was on trial. On the 6th of
September 2011 he took the Nana Ama exhibit out of the safe to be sent to court. The
witness said the cocaine weighed about one Kilogramme and had a market value of
about $44,000. He therefore found it necessary to take precautionary measures on
who handles the substance. On all the occasions that the substance had to leave his
office to the Court he made sure two armed senior officers accompanied Constable
Owusu.
He said he was informed by Owusu that the substance was admitted in evidence on the
27th of September 2011 and left in the custody of the court. He enquired whether the
seal was broken and the answer was yes. He then enquired whether an order was
made for the destruction of the substance the answer was no. He was alarmed and
therefore called the state Attorney to to find out why there was no such order. She
explained to him that they were going back to court on the following day the 28th of
September. She will make the application for the destruction of the substance. He was
again informed on the 28th September 2011 that the Court ordered a re-testing of the
substance because the defence counsel had challenged the authenticity of the
substance that was previously admitted in evidence without objection.
He realised that something had gone wrong. He therefore submitted a written report to
his superiors. The written report was tendered in evidence through him as exhibit 1
STELLA ARHIN (STATE ATTORNEY)
Stella Arhin in her evidence said that the case was assigned to her in 2009 and she
prepared the charge sheet for the trial. She said that she realized from the extract of
the Police docket that the Police first took it to Justice Dotse for assignment to a Court
and it was assigned to Circuit Court 1 for the accused person to be remanded in
custody. She said she prepared a charge sheet for the High Court and called the
5
Investigator to ask him to organize the witnesses and bring them to her office for a
conference but that the investigator said he was at a course and would see her after
the course. She said she waited for the Investigator but he never came and she had to
go on maternity. When she came back from the maternity leave she could not get in
touch with the Investigator, Thomas Anyekese. All her efforts to get the police and
witnesses including getting the Greater Accra crime boss involved yielded no result.
She said she went to Circuit Court 1 one day and saw in that Court a docket titled “The
Republic vs. Nana Ama Martins”. She made enquiries about which police prosecutor was
handling that case in that Court. She was told it was DSP Dery. She contacted him and
DSP Dery briefed her on how far they had gone with that case at Circuit Court 1. DSP
Dery further connected her to the investigator. All these happened in July 2011. She
realised that a lot had gone on in Circuit Court 1 and therefore decided to continue
prosecuting the matter at the Circuit Court instead of the High Court where she had
instructions to prosecute the matter.
The witness further told the Committee that in the course of the trial the substance was
tendered through Thomas Anyekese on 27th September 2011. Defence counsel did not
object to the tendering of the exhibit. The test report was accepted as Exhibit ‘B’ and
the substance was marked as Exhibit ‘C’. After the exhibits were admitted in evidence
the substance was opened in Court, the seals were broken and the drug was brought
out of the envelope. Upon the Court orders the cellotape was cut and they all saw the
whitish substance with their own eyes.
After this Counsel started his cross examination to a point and prayed for adjournment.
His application was granted and the case was adjourned to the next day 28th
September, 2011 for continuation.
On 28th September, 2011 defence counsel continued his cross examination and getting
to the tail end of it he challenged the authenticity of the drug and said it was not
cocaine. He also argued that the Police Forensic Lab did not have the authority to test
the drug and requested retesting of the drug.
The witness said she objected to the steps the Defence Counsel was taking at that time
of the trial. The Judge over ruled her objection and ordered that the substance should
6
be retested at the Ghana Standards Board. The Court also ordered that the Registrar
should take sample for the testing.
The testing at Ghana Standards Board turned out that the substance tested negative for
cocaine. At the close of the prosecution’s case defence Counsel made a submission of
no case. She opposed it but the Court upheld the submission of no case. Ms Arhin, the
State Attorney, in her evidence in cross examination confirmed that when the seals
were broken on the envelope and the drug taken out on the 27th September 2011, it did
not have the usual pungent smell of cocaine.
DANIEL NYATSIDZI (COURT CLERK)
Mr. Daniel Nyatsidzi in his evidence stated that he has been working at the Circuit Court
1 as Court Clerk for four years. He said on the 27th September, 2011, he was in Court
as the clerk of the Court during the trial of the case entitled “The Republic VS Nana
Ama Martins”. PW4, who was the investigator in the case, that is, Thomas Anyekese,
was called to give evidence and in the course of his evidence he applied to the Court to
tender the various exhibits they had. Exhibit C was also tendered and he marked it. The
Court demanded to know the content of exhibit C. The Investigator was given the
envelope containing the substance, which is exhibit C, to open. He opened it and
removed the slab-like object which was very hard wrapped with cellotape. The
investigator was asked to cut a portion. He gave him a scissors to cut the portion and
the Investigator showed the exhibit to the Court. The Investigator gave the exhibit back
to him and he put it back in the bigger envelope with the label. After cross examination
counsel asked him to take back exhibit C from the investigator. He did and stapled the
part of the envelope that had been cut and kept exhibit C in the room where he keeps
all exhibits. Defence counsel continued with cross examination on the 28th September
2011 and asked him to bring out all the exhibits. He asked him to give exhibit C to
Thomas Anyekese and as he was giving it back to Thomas Anyekese the State Attorney
demanded to have a look at it and he gave it to her. A long argument ensued between
both counsel. The defence counsel insisted that what the witness was holding in his
hand was not cocaine but the witness insisted that it was cocaine. The Court made an
order for re-testing and the Judge retired to his chambers.
7
He went to inform the Registrar that the Court has made an Order so he should come
to the Court. The Registrar came immediately. The Defence Counsel, the accused
person, the two Investigators, Joseph Owusu and Thomas Anyekese, were all present.
The Registrar asked that Thomas Anyekese should sign the envelope into which the
sample would be fetched. He refused so Joseph Owusu signed. The State Attorney
signed, the defence counsel signed, the accused person also signed. A sample was
fetched from where the investigator had used scissors and brought out the sample.
The Registrar took the sample to his office and said that the following day he will go
with the investigator to the Standards Board.
The witness said that at this stage the State Attorney advised him to bring a fresh
envelope so he brought the envelope. Upon the advice of the State Attorney he used
white cellotape to cover the portion of the substance that was cut open. He put the slab
in the envelope that was endorsed by the State Attorney. According to the witness he is
the only one that has access to the cabinet were exhibit C was kept. The cabinet was
exclusively used for exhibits. When he came to work in that Court he complained to the
Registrar on how exhibits are kept and the Registrar obtained a steel cabinet for him to
use for exhibits. The witness insisted even in cross examination that he is the only one
who has access to the key to the cabinet where he kept the exhibits.
SEIDU YUSIF (HIGH COURT REGISTRAR)
Mr. Seidu Yusif in his evidence stated that on 28th September, 2011 he was called to
Circuit Court 1 by the Court Clerk and told that an exhibit which is cocaine needed to be
retested because the Court has ordered that, so as a deputy Registrar he went back to
inform his senior who gave him instructions, he also gave him the seal and he went to
the Court room with the seal and then a sample of the cocaine was taken in the
presence of all the stakeholders and it was put in an envelope and sealed. He said the
State Attorney, the Investigator Mr. Joseph Owusu, the Defence Counsel and the
accused person all signed the edges of the envelope and he also signed and the seal
was used in their presence. He went back to his office and waited for the Court to
close. He needed the Record Book from the Court for the order made for the re-testing
of the substance to be drawn. The Court however closed late so he had to go to the
8
Standard Board on 29th September, 2011. He said he kept the sample he took in his
office until the 29th September 2011 went he sent it to the Standards Board.
On 18th November, 2011 he went for the report from the Analyst of the Standard Board.
The analyst came to give evidence and submitted his report on 22nd November, 2011.
The witness said when he presented the sample to the Standard Board a preliminary
test was done in the presence of Joseph Owusu, the investigator and the substance
tested negative for cocaine.
MR. FREDERICK TETTEH KUDJONU (REGISTRAR, CIRCUIT COURT, COCOA
AFFAIRS)
Mr. Fredrick Tetteh Kudjonu informed the Committee that he is the Registrar of the
Circuit Court at Cocoa Affairs. He said that when he took over the administration of the
Court registry he realized that each Court has been keeping its exhibits mostly in steel
or wooden cabinets located in the judge’s chambers. He indicated that after a while he
realised that there was the need to have an exhibit room for the Courts.
On the day in question, his assistant came to him that the court had ordered a testing
of cocaine and that he needed the Court’s iron seal. He gave the seal to him and the
next day he brought an Order for him to sign. After making some corrections in the
Order he gave it back to his assistant but he never brought it back for his signature. He
said that later his assistant informed him that they had sent the substance for testing.
He also said that he was not aware that cocaine was tendered in the Court. What he
knew was that they were sending the substance for testing. He further said that in view
of his health condition he had delegated his assistant to do most of the work on his
behalf.
HIS HONOUR ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR (CIRCUIT COURT 1 JUDGE)
His Honour Eric Kyei Baffour informed the Committee that he took over Circuit Court 1
in October 2010. When he looked through the cases he inherited he discovered the
case of “the Republic V. Nana Ama Martin” He realised that for almost one whole year
the case had not been called and that the last time the case was called was in October
2010. Upon enquiries from the Court Clerk he was informed that the accused was
9
admitted to bail and had absconded. He therefore caused the case to be listed and
issued Bench Warrant for the arrest of the accused. When the Bond was estreated from
the surety, he was put into custody for about three (3) months. Later the accused
person was re-arraigned before him and he gave a date for trial.
On 27th September 2011, Thomas Anyekese, the first investigator in the case, took his
turn to give evidence before the Court. He tended the Police Laboratory report. He also
tended the substance that was allegedly found on the accused and which had tested
positive for cocaine, weighing 1,020 grams. He added that the envelope containing the
cocaine was opened by Thomas Anyekese. He asked that a scissors be brought and he
cut a part of the cellotape and they all saw that it was a whitish substance. Mr. Kwabla
Senanu, Counsel for the accused, raised no objection and said that the exhibit be
admitted for what it was worth. After it had been tendered it was admitted and marked
Exhibit C and given to the Court Clerk who was responsible for such duties. Mr. Kwabla
Senanu thereafter examined the witness for a while and then prayed for an
adjournment. The prosecutor did not raise any objection so he adjourned the case to
28th September 2011.
When he got to his chambers on 28th September 2011 at half past six, his Interpreter
came to him in his chambers and informed him that one Police Officer called ASP
Ananga called him after he left the Court on the 27th September 2011 and asked him
whether he the Judge had given an Order for the immediate destruction of the
substance the Police tendered. He found that very unusual because the substance had
been tendered and cross examination has not yet finished so why should he give an
Order for the destruction of the substance. He however brushed the information aside.
By half past eight in the morning of 28th September 2011, Court resumed sitting. PW4,
the Investigator in the case, Thomas Anyekese, took the witness box and cross
examination by Mr. Kwabla Senanu continued. After a while he asked that the
substance, Exhibit C, be produced. He then asked that the substance be given back to
the witness. When it was showed to the witness he said “this thing you tendered is not
cocaine” but the witness said it was not correct. His Honour Eric Kyei Baffour further
told the Committee that Thomas Anyekese added that there are two types of cocaine;
10
the whitish and yellowish type and that he did not add that to his records but just put
down “Not correct”. Then Kwabla Senanu said, “My lord, I do not think this substance
the prosecution has tendered is cocaine; and I pray for an Order of the Court for
another test to be conducted not at the Police Forensic Laboratory, but this time at the
Ghana Standards Board”. Then Ms Stella Arhin, the prosecutor in the case, raised an
objection. The basis of the objection was that it was customary upon the arrest of the
accused for the substance to be tested at the Police Forensic Laboratory and that there
was nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, when the substance was tendered the
previous day, Mr. Senanu failed to raise any objection. He then relied on the case of
“Juxon Smith vs. KLM Dutch Airlines” and granted Mr. Kwabla Senanu’s application. He
ordered the substance to be re-tested by the Ghana Standards Board. He retired to his
chambers and resumed sitting after the sample for the test had been taken. The
Deputy Registrar reported to him later that when they took the sample to the Ghana
Standards Board in the company of the Investigator, Joseph Owusu, a field test was
conducted in their presence and the substance tested negative for cocaine.
Subsequently, he had a report that the Analyst at Standards Board had finished the test
and that the report was ready. He therefore ordered that the analyst at the standards
Board, Mr. Adarkwa Yiadom, as well as the Forensic Analyst who conducted the first
test in 2008 should appear before him in Court to testify.
When the analyst from the Ghana Standards Board appeared, the prosecutor, Ms Stella
Arhin, prayed the Court to take his evidence in camera. He disagreed with her so the
witness gave his evidence in open Court. He told the Court that his analysis of exhibit C
proved that the substance was Sodium Carbonate and not cocaine. The State Attorney
in her cross examination said that it was the Court that changed the substance. His
Honour Eric Kyei Baffour said he took offence at the allegation because she often
prosecuted in his Court and knew his reputation as a Judge. So he made her
understand that it was by his initiative that the case was brought for trial and that the
Prosecutor, the Police and Nacob had done nothing and they had no interest in the
case. The State Attorney retracted her statement and apologised. He invited Mr. David
Agyeman Agyin of the Police Forensic Lab who testified that in 2008 he conducted the
11
test on the substance and it tested positive for cocaine and he confirmed that if the
substance now tested negative for cocaine then it had changed.
The defence Counsel then indicated to the Court that he would file a submission of “no
case” which he did and the Judge gave his ruling on 13th December 2011. He tended a
copy of his ruling as exhibit 2. His Honour Eric Kyei Baffour further told the Committee
that after exhibit C had been marked the Clerk put it back in the envelope in which they
brought it. He has no dealings with exhibits but is aware that the exhibits are kept in a
cabinet in his chambers and the Court Clerk has the key. If he needed to write a
Judgment or a Ruling, what he requests for are the paper exhibits like statements of
witnesses and accused persons but not substances like cocaine, cannabis, guns etc so
he had nothing whatsoever to do with the handling of the substance.
He also said that on 27th September 2011, he left his chambers around 3.00 pm and
never came back till the next day, the 28th September 2011 at 6.00 am. When he came
back he didn’t notice any change about the cabinet; he never touched the cabinet at all
so if anything had been done to the cabinet, he wouldn’t know.
He further informed the Committee that when the accused person was arrested and put
before him he was represented by Mr. Quist who prayed the Court that the accused
person should be re-admitted to her formal bail. He refused because the offence for
which she had been arrested was a non-bailable offence
KWABLAH SENANU (COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED, NANA AMA MARTINS)
He represented Nana Ama Martins from 15th July 2011. He had not been Counsel for
her in any proceedings prior to that date. He said that on 27th September 2011 Thomas
Anyekese gave evidence in Court and tendered exhibit C, the subject matter of the
probe. He indicated that he had had experience in the trial of cocaine cases and that he
was involved in notorious cases like the Gorman Case and he had noted from
experience that when cocaine is tendered, within two seconds, there is a strong
peculiar smell. However, when the substance, exhibit C, was tendered the scent was
absent. He also indicated that it was true he did not object to the tendering of the
substance but when he went home he was troubled by the matter and he had doubts
about the substance being cocaine. In view of this, when he came back the following
12
morning, he decided to have the Court order a retesting of the substance because of
the doubts he had as to whether the substance was cocaine or not. He further said that
it was not the best practice for the police, the people who had caused the arrest, to test
the substance. He felt that an independent body, that is, the Ghana Standards Board
analyst should test the substance. The other reason that made him apply for the
retesting to be done by an independent authority was the circumstances of the arrest of
the accused and how another person who was alleged to be with the accused run away
from the taxi they were sitting in. His application was granted. He informed the
Committee that after he had raised the objection to the authenticity of the substance
and went downstairs, the police, including Thomas Anyekese, came around him and
told him that the objection he had raised was going to create a “Tsunami and tremor”
at the police headquarters; and from that day, as a practitioner, he has “feelers” and he
knows that since his had reason to believe that there was indeed an “earth tremor”
because of the results of the objection he raised.
DAVID AGYEMAN AGYIN (POLICE FORENSIC ANALYST)
Mr. David Agyeman Agyin informed the Committee that he received the substance
suspected to be cocaine in the case of “The Republic vs. Nana Ama Martins” on 29th
August 2008. He took the weight and then a sample of the substance that was brought
from the Police CID headquarters. According to their records, it was Thomas Anyekese
who submitted the substance for examination. The weight of the substance was 1,430
grams. After taking the sample he resealed the envelope with the forensic laboratory
seal. He did the confirmation test on the 6th October 2008 and the substance tested
cocaine. He submitted the report to the Chief Superintendent of the Ghana Police
Service on 20th October 2008. He also indicated that it was their practice to keep a
sample of substances they had worked on so as he speaks the laboratory has a sample
of the substance they tested and confirmed to be cocaine. The report they produced
showed that he was very sure that the substance was cocaine. He confirmed that
cocaine has a pungent smell in whatever form it is kept. He also said that exhibit C has
no smell and he is positive it is not the substance he worked on.
13
DSP DERY (GHANA POLICE)
He said the case of the Republic vs. Nana Ama Martins was given to him for prosecution
in September 2008. Further investigation was to go on in respect of the case. He had to
leave the country for a UN mission and therefore one Inspector Nat Cudjoe took over
the case from him. He was informed by the investigator that the substance had been
sent to the forensic lab for examination and the duplicate docket on the case had been
sent to the Attorney General’s office for advice. In March 2009, he left the country for
the UN mission. He came back in March 2010 and took over the case. The State
Attorney at the time informed him she was to prosecute the case. He handed over the
brief to her, briefed her on where they had reached, and connected her to the
investigator. He said he was aware of the procedure laid down by the Chief Justice in
instituting the prosecution of narcotic cases and he narrated the procedure to the
Committee.
FINDINGS
The Committee’s study of the available records show that the accused, Nana Ama
Martins together with one Andy were arrested on 22nd August 2008 by the Police and
the accused was put before Circuit Court 1, Accra for the offence of possession of
narcotic drug.
The accused was first remanded in Police Custody and later Prison Custody by the
Circuit Court. At that time the instruction was to the effect that the docket should be
put before the Circuit Court. (See Committee Exhibit 1). On 5th November 2009 the
accused was granted bail by the High Court presided over by Justice Ofosu Quartey.
Later the accused jumped bail and was re-arrested and put before Circuit Court 1 where
the trial Judge vacated the Order of the High Court and remanded the accused person
in custody.
The accused applied to the High Court for the Order revoking the Order made by the
High Court to be quashed on the grounds that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to
vacate a High Court’s Order. On 15th September 2011, the High Court presided over by
Justice Mustapha Logoh quashed the Order of the Circuit Court for lack of jurisdiction to
14
deal with and vacate an Order of the High Court. The Court then admitted
Accused/Applicant to bail. The trial of the accused started on 24th August 2011.
The Committee also found that Exhibit ‘C’, which is the subject of the investigation
before us, was tendered in Court on 27th September 2011 and on the same day it was
opened in Court in the presence of the accused person, her counsel Mr. Kwabla
Senanu, the investigator, Mr. Thomas Anyekese, the State Attorney and the Court
Clerk.
Evidence before the Committee has established that cocaine has a pungent smell and
this evidence has been corroborated by the Analyst and that when it is opened, the
scent will be smelt by everybody in whatever form it is, either powdered or compressed.
The State Attorney and the defense counsel who were present in Court on the day that
it was opened confirmed that the substance had no such pungent smell.
It must be noted that the opening and the observation by those present was done on
27th September 2011 when the seal was broken in open Court for the first time. This
pre-supposes that the substance that was opened on the first day when it was tendered
did not have the characteristic smell of cocaine which the analyst confirmed is
associated with cocaine.
This substance, which was opened on the 27th September 2011, was dented by the
scooping of the top to take a sample for re-testing. The Court clerk’s evidence has it
that he resealed the top of the exhibit with a white cellotape. Exhibit ‘C’ that was
brought before the Committee had the same white cellotape covering the scooped
portion of the substance confirming the clerk’s description of what he did to the
substance that was scooped on the 27th September 2011.
When the analyst opened the substance in the presence of the Committee the scooping
that was done on the top of the substance on the 27th of September 2011 was on it and
it was visible. The analyst’s confirmed it; that there was a scooping. It can therefore be
reasonably inferred from the forgoing that the substance that had the Police Laboratory
seal that was opened in open Court on 27th September 2011 was the same substance
that was presented to the Committee on the 19th of December, 2011; and the said
15
substance, it has been confirmed, does not have the characteristic smell of cocaine and
it is not the cocaine, and it is not the substance that the Analyst said he worked on on
6th October 2008.
It is our conclusion therefore that if there were any swapping of the cocaine with any
other substance it was done before the substance was tendered in Court on the 27th
September, 2011.
It is our finding from the evidence before us that the substance that was tendered in
Court on the 27th of September 2011 was not cocaine.
We became more convinced on our findings as stated above as a result of these and
other corroborative evidence that came before us.
• Mr. Senanu, the Defence Counsel testified that after he got the Order for the retesting
of the substance, when he got down, the Police including the
investigator, Thomas Anyekese, came to him that his request for the re-testing
will cause ‘tsunami tremor’ at the Police Headquarters.
• The State Attorney who was prosecuting the case also confirmed that when the
substance was opened on the 27th September 2011 in Court, it did not have any
pungent smell.
• Again when the investigator Thomas Anyekese was to append his signature on
the envelope for the re-testing he refused to do that and it was rather the
second investigator, Joseph Owusu who appended his signature.
We further find that directives given by the office of the Chief Justice for the
prosecution of this case were flouted by the prosecution.
Committee Exhibit ‘1’ contains the said directives. By the directive the accused, Nana
Ama Martins, was to be put before the Circuit Court ‘1’ for the purposes of being
remanded in custody. The police were to complete their investigation and submit the
duplicate docket to the Attorney General’s office for advice. Thereafter directions would
be given as to which court should try the matter.
The State Attorney Ms. Arhin testified that when she received the duplicate docket as
the state prosecutor, the directive on it was that she could prosecute the case in any
16
High Court of her choice. She realized that the prosecution had a good case. She did
not write the advice as required administratively but decided to go ahead to put the
matter before a High Court. She prepared a charge sheet for the High Court and made
efforts to get the police investigator and the witnesses for the conferencing. Her efforts
did not yield any fruitful results.
DSP Derry who registered the case at Circuit Court ‘1’ in the first instance admitted he
is aware of the directives from the Chief Justice’s office on the prosecution of narcotic
cases. Yet the case was abandoned in Circuit Court 1 (as it were) after the accused
was remanded in custody. For almost two (2) years there was no communication
between the police and the Attorney General’s department.
It is not surprising that the accused applied for bail at another forum and got her
freedom, for the law allows bail (even in non-bailable offences) in a circumstance where
the accused is remanded in custody for a long period of time without trial.
As a result of the delay in the prosecution of the case the substance which is now the
subject matter of investigation was left in the hands of the police for three long years.
This obviously gave room for any possible tampering with the substance.
From our analysis of the evidence above the substance that was tendered in court on
the 27th September 2011 and admitted in evidence as exhibit ‘C’ and was opened in
open court did not have the pungent smell of cocaine and therefore it could not have
been cocaine. It follows that if any swapping of the substance took place it was done
before it was presented to the Court.
Evidence before us further confirms the fact that the substance that was presented to
the Court on the 27th September 2011 was the same substance produced on the 28th
September 2011. It is the same substance that came in to the hands of the Committee
at its sitting. The Circuit Court Judge and his staff therefore cannot be held responsible
for the change that occurred in the substance between 6th October 2008 when the
substance was tested to be cocaine and 27th of September 2011 when the prosecution
tendered exhibit ‘C’ in Court.
We also found that there were some administrative lapses in the workings of the circuit
court.
17
• The Committee found that the Court Clerk (District Court Registrar) of Circuit
Court 1, Daniel Nyatsidzi failed to inform the Registrar of the Court that Exhibit
‘C’ – Cocaine had been tendered in Court and that he was keeping it in the steel
cabinet in the Judge’s chambers.
• That Court failed to realise that a substance like cocaine of that kind of weight
should be kept in the Judge’s chambers.
• That the deputy Registrar, Mr. Seidu Yusif, who has been assisting the
substantive Registrar, did not properly inform the substantive Registrar, Mr.
Fredrick Tetteh Kudjornu that the substance had been tendered in Court and it
was for re-testing. The deputy Registrar only told the Registrar that the Court
had ordered for testing of cocaine and he needed the iron seal.
• The Committee also found that the deputy Registrar has assumed certain
responsibilities of his own because of the ill health of the substantive Registrar.
For instance, when an order inviting certain persons to appear in court was sent
to the substantive Registrar to sign and he made corrections it was not sent back
to him for his signature.
• We consider the situation where the Court Clerk is solely in control of an exhibit
such as cocaine as being bad practice.
• We also find it inappropriate for a deputy Registrar to hide matters of this nature
from his boss.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• It is recommended that the practice of making an order to destroy narcotic
substances immediately on the day that it is tendered should be discouraged and
rather, the provisions of Act 714 of the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act
should be complied with.
• It is also recommended that narcotic substances tendered in Court should have
field tests in open court on the very day they are tendered.
• Narcotic cases pending before the courts now should all be field tested before
trial.
18
• It is recommended that Circuit Court ‘1’ Accra being a specialized court should be
automated.
• There is the need to provide a strong exhibit room for narcotic drugs and arms.
• It is further recommended that the Registry of the Cocoa Affairs Circuit Court
should have one Registrar, who should be a Chief Registrar with two deputies
with the ranks of Deputy Chief Registrar.
…………………………………………….
JUSTICE AGNES DORDZIE
(CHAIRPERSON)
………………………………………………
JUSTICE ABDULLAH IDDRISU
(MEMBER)
………………………………………………
JOHN K. BANNERMAN
(MEMBER)
………………………………………………
NII BOYE QUARTEY
(SECRETARY)