"Prosecution's case was totally weak"- Counsel

Accra July 16, GNA - The Attorney of the two persons charged with the assassination of Ya-Na Yakubu Andani, Paramount Chief of the Dagbon Traditional Area, on Wednesday told an Accra High Court that the Prosecution's case was totally weak.

The Attorney, Nana Obiri Boahen said: "It is unfortunate that the Prosecution was trying to appease an angry lion with an innocent lamb." He said all the four Prosecution Witnesses, who were at the Gbewaa Palace, in their evidences concluded that they did not know the second accused person in the case and that the Prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case.

Nana Boahen was addressing the court, presided over by Mr Justice Yaw Appau to close his case.

The two accused persons; Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyanfo have been charged with conspiracy and murder. They have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Nana Boahene stressed that for his clients to be found guilty of the offence levelled against them, the Prosecution should have proved all the ingredients of the charge.

He listed the ingredients to include: That the Ya-Na was dead. Who killed the Ya-Na and what was the cause.

He said the Prosecution was only able to prove that the Ya-Na was dead and that the rest were based on speculations.

He said in its evidence, the Prosecution said that the severed head was seen around the neck of Yidana, so he killed the Paramount Chief, but this was wrong.

The Attorney submitted that in his defence, Gyanfo stated that on March 21, 2002, he travelled to his village, called Mempeasem and that his wife was aware.

The Attorney submitted further that when he asked the investigator in the case during cross-examination if he went to cross-check the facts from the village and Gyamfo's wife, the investigator said no.

He, therefore, concluded that the investigation was not properly done and that was why Gyanfo was indicted for prosecution.

Nana Boahene noted that all along the trial, the Prosecution Witnesses could not tell the court what caused the death of Ya Na Andani. He said it was the Medical Doctor, who said in his evidence that the death was caused by excessive bleeding when the head was cut, adding, "the Medical Doctor was even not consistent with himself." He contended that it could be possible that he shot himself or he caused someone to shoot him or he was strangled to death and that this confirmed the Investigator's assertion that he did not know who killed Ya-Na Andani and how he was killed.

The Attorney submitted that it was clear, therefore, that the accused persons could not be held responsible for the murder, since there was no evidence linking them with the killing of the Ya Na. To buttress his point, Nana Boahene said, "the law says you cannot put multiple of suspicion to make a proof of a case".

Nana Boahene prayed that when the trial judge had finished with his "summing up," the Jurors would ask Yidana and Sugri to go home and enjoy their freedom

Nana Boahen said his client were facing two charges which were conspiracy to commit crime - murder - but having gone into the background of the case, one realised that there was a communal violence between the Abudus and Andanis, through which the Ya-Na died. He said it was the Andanis, who launched the attack on the Abudus before they fought back.

He said not a single Witness told the court that Yidana and Gyanfo agreed together with a common purpose to hatch a plan, hence "they did not conspire". He said the Investigator could not tell the court during cross-examination if adventurous Abudus or a disenchanted Abudus killed the Ya-Na, adding that he indeed did shoddy investigations.

The Attorney said the Investigator admitted that he collected the severed head to the mortuary, saying if it were so, then at what point in time did Gyanfo take the head to the Ex-Zalankulana to recite incantation on it.

The case was adjourned to July 23, at the instance of the Prosecution, to enable it to respond in the address.

"My client needs to be congratulated instead of being prosecuted"- Counsel

Accra July 16, GNA - Counsel for one of the six officers in the May Nine Stadium Disaster trial on Wednesday told an Accra High Court that his client should be congratulated for his timely effort to save the situation at the stadium.

The Counsel, Mr. William Ofori Boafo said though his client Chief Superintendent Koranteng Mintah was not on duty but his presence to watch a football match between Accra Hearts of Oak and Kumasi Asante Kotoko, made him to readily join other officers on duty to restore order.

His involvement was therefore, that he advised the junior officers, who were already firing tear gas to direct it into the atmosphere in order to disperse the rowdy football fans from destroying state property at the stadium.

He was making a submission of no case to answer before the court, presided over by Mr. Justice Yaw Appau.

The officers on trial are John Asare Naami, Faakyi Kumi, Francis Ayittey Aryee, Frank Awu, Benjamin B. Bakomora, all Assistant Superintendents of Police and Chief Superintendent of Police Mintah. The accused persons, who had earlier denied the charges, are on a 20 million-cedi bail each with two sureties.

Mr Boafo said there was the likelihood of danger as a result of the rioting behaviour of the fans and the destruction of state property. He contended that the throwing of the plastic chairs could have caused damage to lives, saying a prosecution witness stated that they saw fans throwing chairs and other objects onto the field, which could have caused harm to other fans.

According to Counsel, witnesses stated that gestures were made to stop the fans but they were recalcitrant.

"This triggered the firing," he added. He stated further that as a police officer, his client could not have watched the event without taking part in restoring order adding, "this was all that he did."

He then outlined the duties of police officers, which include restoring order and ensuring safety of persons and property. " A police officer, who stands by for indiscipline to take place could be charged," he added. MORE

Mr. Boafo told the court that it was the responsibility of the police to restore order and that the law supports this assertion.

He referred to the "Public Order 1994, Act 491, section 21 (b)" and stated that, "it shall the responsibility of the police to disperse crowd if there is breach of peace."

According to him, the medical officers who performed the autopsy stated in their evidence that the fans died as a result of suffocation. He also noted that one of the contributory factors of the disaster was the closure of the stadium gates, which the police did not have any responsibility for opening it.

Mr. Boafo stated that his client, Chief Superintendent Mintah was innocent and that he discharged his duty as expected of him and therefore, prayed the court to discharge him.

The case was adjourned to July 17, to enable prosecution to respond to counsel submissions.