Samuel Ofosu-Ampofo
The National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Samuel Ofosu-Ampofo, has appealed against the ruling of an Accra High Court which adopted the witness statement of the prosecution’s first witness in his trial.
It is the position of his lawyer, Tony Lithur, that the judge, Justice Samuel Asiedu, a Court of Appeal judge sitting as an additional High Court judge, ‘erred’ when he dismissed their objection to the adoption of the witness statement.
Mr. Ofosu-Ampofo and the party’s Deputy Communications Officer, Anthony Kwaku Boahen, are facing three charges before an Accra High Court over alleged leaked audio detailing strategies the NDC intends to use for the 2020 general election, one being the kidnappings of family members of political opponents.
The NDC members were captured on tape allegedly planning to commit crimes in the country and turn round to blame the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP).
The first Prosecution Witness, Benjamin Osei Ampofo Adjei, a broadcast journalist with Accra-based Adom FM being led in evidence by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Yvonne Atakora-Obuobisa, denied his police investigation statement, as well his witness statement presented by the prosecution.
The court put in a state of ‘surprise’ last week when the DPP showed Mr. Adjei his witness statement and he said that was the first time he was seeing it.
The tendering of the statement through the witness then generated heated debate as the defence lawyers were against the court accepting the document.
Tony Lithur, in his objection, said paragraph 32 of the practice direction on disclosures and case management states that a witness statement may be admitted if the defence and prosecution both agree to its admission.
He said they did not agree to the tendering of the document because the witness had said the statement was prepared and brought to him to sign, meaning the statement is not his.
He added that the decision to whether admit the statement or not is with the defence and the prosecution and not subject to the discretion of the court.
The objection was opposed by the DPP who said the witness has already confirmed that he signed the witness statement which was carved out of the investigation statement which was not objected to by the defence.
She added that the court has discretion to either adopt or reject the statement they sought to tender.
Justice Asiedu dismissed the objection and admitted the statement, saying the statement was signed by the witness, thereby making it valid.
He added that practice direction is not law but a direction and that does not take away the discretion of the court.
It is this decision that the lawyers have filed an appeal against and subsequently filed a stay of proceedings.
Appearing before the court yesterday, Mr. Lithur pleaded with the court to adjourn the matter to February 11, which is the return date for the application for stay of proceedings.
The DPP, however, objected to the move, saying the mere filing of a stay of proceedings does not warrant a stay of proceedings.
The court, however, adjourned the matter because the prosecution could not furnish the court with an audio recording of an interview the witness had with Mr. Boahen in the aftermath of the alleged leaked tape which the state intended to tender.
The prosecution was ordered to make sure the court gets its copy of the audio.
Hearing continues on February 11, 2020.
BY Gibril A bdulRazak