Free my client because he is innocent ....

...Mallam Isa's lawyer tells court

Mr Ambrose Dery, counsel for former Youth and Sports Minister, Mallam Ali Yusif Isa on Thursday said his client was innocent of charges preferred against him and asked the Fast Track Court trying him to free him.

Addressing the court in Accra, he submitted that Mallam Isa was framed up and the prosecution's evidence was to implicate him.

He therefore, prayed the court to hold the accused not guilty of the offences.

Counsel said the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not lead to an irresistible inference of the guilt of the accused on the two charges of stealing and fraudulently causing the loss of 46,000 dollars.

Mallam Isa who is charged with causing financial loss of 46,000 dollars to the state and stealing, has pleaded not guilty and is on 500 million cedis bail with a surety to be justified.

The court is presided over by Justice Julius Ansah, an Appeal Court Judge, sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge.

Defence Counsel said though he appreciated the innovation of the court as "Fast Track", its procedure in respect of criminal cases should be looked at to ensure that cases are disposed of "reasonably fast", but not "excessively fast".

Counsel submitted that the accused was refused an adjournment even when he was not provided with a record of proceedings after three days examination in-chief and had to pursue and pick up record of proceedings on a Saturday, whereas the same court, granted a long adjournment at the instance of the prosecution in the quality grain case to enable it obtain relevant documents to prosecute that case.

He added that the accused person in this case, could neither be granted an adjournment to obtain a backlog of proceedings, nor a few days to prepare an address for the court.

Mr Dery said a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty or has pleaded guilty. He said in any civil or criminal action the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of crime, which is directly in issue, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

He said when the burden is shifted to the accused person, that person only needs to raise a reasonable doubt.

Counsel pointed out further that Section 13(2) of the Evidence Decree 1975 NRCD 323 provides that "in a criminal action, the burden of persuasion, when it is on the accused as to any fact, the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires only that the accused raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt."

Mr Dery, stressing on the evidence adduced by prosecution, told the court that there is no direct evidence in the matter that the accused stole 46,000 dollars or fraudulently caused the loss of the money.

He said the evidence of the circumstances surrounding the loss of the 46,000 dollars does not support the two charges.

"Circumstantial evidence ought to be closely examined and it must be acted upon only when the circumstances are such that the guilt of the accused must necessarily be inferred, and that the facts lead to no other conclusion."

Mr Dery told the court that the circumstances of the case were that two officials of the Youth and Sports Ministry worked out the trip to the Sudan for Mallam Isa and he got a diplomatic passport in a record time of two days.

He said his client resisted taking cash of 46,000 dollars and insisted on transfer.

Counsel said his client did not have control of the green suitcase after it left his office on February 23 until it arrived in the Sudan on February 28.

He added that the accused called Accra to inform one of the top officials in the ministry of the problem, before the green suitcase arrived.

He said his client refused to honour dubious bills and took issue with Mr. Worlanyoh Agrah, Mr James Tigah and one other official over unjustified bills.

The accused also cut down on budget for the Sudan trip from 150,000 dollars to 56,000 dollars.

Mr Dery also touched on the prosecution's failure to call vital witnesses, saying the principle of law is that if there is one witness whose evidence would settle the case one way or another and the prosecution fails to call that witness, their case must fail since in that event they have not proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Counsel said the failure to call the former minister's bodyguard, who is a serving member of the Ghana Police Service, "must be a big blow to the prosecution."

He contended that the investigator in the case, Mr. Jeff Edward Musore admitted in evidence that the police bodyguard was present when the accused parked his green suitcase in the office on February 23 this year.

Counsel stated that it was common knowledge that the police bodyguard was with the accused throughout February 23.

Counsel referred to a publication of Friday, April 20 this year, in the Daily Graphic and said in the police committee report, the bodyguard alleged that accused removed the 46,000 dollars from the green suitcase. However, the prosecution did not call such a vital witness.

He also said Mr Alex Asante and Mr Agrah, officials of the GFA, alleged that the second defence witness, Musah Alhassan removed the money from the suitcase, adding that "it is a situation of giving a dog a bad name to hang it."

Mr Dery said the failure of the prosecution to call the bodyguard is incurably bad and that the case against the accused must fail.

He said the allegation by Mr Agrah and Mr Asante that the accused told Mr Alhassan to remove the money from the bag "is a hearsay evidence".

He said the evidence of Mr Alhassan who denied the allegation is solid and not controvertible.

Counsel contended that the evidence of the prosecution that his client removed the "black polythene bag" from the green suitcase is not credible.

The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mr Osafo Sarpong said the accused is facing two charges in two counts.

Count one is stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Code 1960, Act 29 and count two is fraudulently causing financial loss to the state contrary to section 179A(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, 1960 Act 29.

Mr Sarpong said the ingredients of count one are that the person charged must not be the owner of the thing allegedly stolen and must have appropriated it. He added that such appropriation must have been dishonest.

On count two, counsel stated that fraudulently causing loss of 46,000 dollars means "dishonesty" which is also covered by count one.

He said the prosecution has duly charged the accused with stealing. DPP said there was evidence of the accused person making purchases in Amsterdam, saying all these constitute dishonesty.

He said the loss was caused to the state and it was so done fraudulently. Mr Sampong said the prosecution did not call the wife of the accused person since it knew that she was not going to tell the truth to the court.

He asked the court not to believe the evidence of the accused.