Samuel Ofosu-Ampofo
The Supreme Court has adjourned indefinitely a case brought by the National Chairman of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), Samuel Ofosu-Ampofo, challenging the decision of an Accra High Court to adopt a witness statement in his trial.
The adjournment was at the request of the Attorney General’s Department to enable it to file an affidavit in opposition to the writ.
Appearing before the court yesterday, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Yvonne Atakora-Obuobisa, urged the court for an extension of time to file their affidavit in opposition.
The panel presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, and assisted by Justices Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Samuel Marful-Sau, Nene Amegatcher and Mariama Owusu granted the request and ordered the Attorney General to file the affidavit within two weeks.
The case was subsequently adjourned sine die (indefinitely).
Trial
Mr. Ofosu-Ampofo and the party’s Deputy Communications Officer, Anthony Kwaku Boahen, are standing trial at an Accra High Court over alleged leaked audio detailing strategies the NDC intends to use for the 2020 elections, 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 DPP initially ‘denied’ his police investigation statement, as well his witness statement presented by the prosecution, by claiming that he was seeing the documents which had his signature for the first time.
As a result, the tendering of the statement through the witness generated heated debate as the defence lawyers tried to prevent the court from adopting the document.
The trial judge, Justice Kwame A. Asiedu, dismissed the objection by the defence team 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.
Not satisfied with the court decision, the accused NDC gurus filed an appeal challenging the decision of the trial judge at the Supreme Court.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak