Anthony Kweku Boahen
Anthony Kweku Boahen, a communication officer of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), who is standing trial with the erstwhile National Chairman of the Party, Samuel Ofosu Ampofo, has filed an appeal challenging an order on him by an Accra High Court to open his defence.
The two are before the court for offences relating to assault of public officers when they allegedly planned to assault some public officials including the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC).
They are on trial over a leaked audio tape which captures how the opposition NDC was allegedly planning to commit crimes in the country and turn round to blame them on the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP).
Among the strategies were the creation of a general state of insecurity in the country through kidnappings, arson and verbal attacks on public officials like the Chairman of the National Peace Council (NPC), Prof. Emmanuel Asante, and EC boss, Jean Mensa.
Mr. Ofosu-Ampofo has been charged with one count of conspiracy to cause harm and two counts of assault against a public officer. Mr. Boahen, on the other hand, is facing one count of conspiracy to cause harm.
An Accra High Court presided over by Justice Samuel Asiedu, a Supreme Court judge sitting as an additional High Court judge, on January 26, 2023, dismissed an application for no case to answer filed by the accused persons following the conclusion of the prosecution’s case.
The court, in its ruling, rejected the arguments of the defence lawyers and held that the prosecution had made a prima facie case against the accused persons, and subsequently ordered them to open their defence.
But Mr. Boahen, not satisfied with the court’s decision, has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the entirety of the ruling on ground that the trial judge erred in his decision.
The Notice of Appeal avers that “The Learned High Court judge erred in law by failing or neglecting to render a reasoned ruling on the 2nd Accused/Appellant’s (Mr. Boahen’s) application of no case to answer.”
It says the court was duty-bound to analyse or evaluate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and to demonstrate in a clear or verifiable manner whether or not the prosecution had established a prima facie case, but the court failed to do so, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
“The court was duty-bound to consider the case, the evidence, legal authorities and/or legal submissions of the second accused/appellant but the court failed or neglected to do so, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice,” the notice of appeal argues.
It further avers that the ruling was not reasonable, and the trial judge was wrong to refuse the application of no case to answer as the evidence stood at the conclusion of the case of the prosecution.
He is, therefore, seeking “an order reversing the decision of the Learned High Court Judge and a further order upholding the second accused/appellant’s application of no case to answer.”
By Gibril Abdul Razak