You are here: HomeNews2010 09 24Article 190871

Opinions of Friday, 24 September 2010

Columnist: Sarpong, Justice

Call Rawlings As A Witness Or Subpoena Him To Testify

I don't think the indemnity clause precludes Rawlings from being called as a witness in a criminal case especially one that involves the murder of a paramount Chief and forty others. Since 2002 when Ya Na was killed in a chieftancy dispute between the Abudus and the Andani gates, the narcisstic and lupine Rawlings has been pontificating and sermonizing to Ghanaians as having evidence as to the people responsible for the murder of the Ya Na and forty of his elders.

The NPP regime arrested two people for the murder of Ya Na and his elders but they were freed for lack of evidence and nobody was held responsible for that crime. NDC after promising the Andanis to arrest and prosecute all those responsible for the Ya Na murder finally arrested more than thirty three people including a thirteen year old boy who would have been 5 years old when the Ya Na was murdered. I didn't know the Dagombas warriors start their war careers at that early age. Five year old with a spear and arrow singing war songs and baiting for blood, that is a sight I will pay a pretty dollar to watch. The number was whittled down to fifteen people who are standing trial for the Ya Na's murder.

The defence Lawyers of the accused fifteen people as a matter of urgency should call Rawlings as their principal witness or subpoena him to appear as a reluctant witness for the defense since he has said on many occassions that, he has evidence to the real killers of the Ya Na pointing his accusing fingers at some politicians in the NPP regime at that time. In any criminal case, the onus of prove lies with the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused person or people being prosecuted committed the offence they are being prosecuted and all the defence team has to do is to poke holes in the prosecution case and create doubts among the jury to gain an aquittal, and Rawlings pointing fingers at other people will give the defence lawyers the avenue to destroy the prosecution case.

The defence team can create this doubt by putting the latest behemoth, Rawlings, who have bloated to such Brobdingnagian dimensions as to have entered the realm of the absurd on the witness stand and force him to name the politicians who masterminded the murder of Ya Na. If the defense team adopt this strategy and the judiciary does its job, their clients would be singing the 'halleluja' song and parading through the principal streets of Accra and Yendi in the coming months.The jactations and malarkey's of caitiff Rawlings should be exploited by the defence team as ambrosial to win freedom for their clients.

It's about time Rawlings should be taught a lesson for opening his buccal cavity when it should have been closed by lawyers. Rawlings is the best friend for defence lawyers and it is time Ata Ayi gets himself a real lawyer and appeal his case. Folks, I am not a lawyer but Ata Ayi no matter how you think about him can get off from his conviction by dragging Rawlings to court to prove his case that, he Ata Ayi did not kill those 34 women before the 2000 elections.

Folks, when the dead bodies of these women started appearing on the streets of Accra, Rawlings said those women were not Ghanaians but were dead bodies brought from Togo mortuaries by NPP party to disgrace him and make him unpopular until one of the families of the dead women identified one of these women as a Ghanaian. What did Rawlings say then? Rawlings started singing a new tune and said he knows some NPP members of Parliament responsible for the dead Ghanaians. When he was confronted to name these people, the voodoo worshipper said only 'ANTOA NSUO NYAMMA' can force him to name names or until he is put under chemical intoxicants, he will not reveal his evidence.

What is the name of the lawyer who defended Ata Ayi? He or she is incompetent for not dragging Rawlings to the court and forcing him to reveal the names of the NPP members of Parliament who Rawlings has evidence of them being responsible for the deaths of these women, failure on Rawlings part to reveal the names could have brought contempt of court charges against this mugwump. How could they have convicted Ata Ayi when a former President whose evidence should have been valued more than any other person due to his security knowledge was not called to testify? Did Ata Ayi Lawyer even bring this to the attention of the trial judge? He could have got Ata Ayi off with Rawlings declining to testify and him or her filing for a motion for dismissal of charges to free his client from prosecution.

Lawyers, especially defense lawyers should have cojones to call anybody irrespective of their rank and power in society when defending their clients and Rawlings has a lot of evidence or lack of them that can set their clients free because this "O" level failure of a former President can't keep his mouth shut.

Justice Sarpong

Houston, Texas