Rokko Frimpong soldiers trial: 5 soldiers freed

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 (Page 30)

THE premises of the Osu District Magistrate’s Court was greeted with spontaneous jubilation when five soldiers who were alleged to have killed the former Deputy Managing Director of the Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB), Mr Rokko Frimpong, were set free.
The soldiers hugged and kissed their spouses and family members, who were on the court premises when an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr Patrick A. Morkeh, informed the court that the Attorney-General had filed a nolle prosequi in the case, meaning the A-G had discontinued prosecution of the soldiers.
Family members of the soldiers poured talcum powder on the freed soldiers to signify victory.
Following the prosecutor’s submissions, the trial judge, Mr Emmanuel Bart Brew Plange, accordingly discharged Sergeants Michael Arthur, Richard Somuah, Lamptey Hazel and Corporals Charles Ankumah and Emmanuel Antwi
The five were first arrested by the BNI in November 2009 and later discharged by the Human Rights Court on December 15, 2009 but were re-arrested barely 72 hours after their release from detention.
Counsel for the soldiers, Mr Joe Aboagye Debrah, described the release of the soldiers as a “welcoming relief”.
He said it was unfortunate the freedom of the soldiers was taken before their innocence could be proven and expressed the hope that the state would in future conduct more thorough investigations into criminal matters before denying persons their freedom.
Last Friday, the Office of the Attorney General said the state decided to issue a nolle prosequi in the case involving the soldiers.
According to the statement, although the Attorney General was not obliged to disclose reasons for the nolle prosequi, the state had taken into consideration the public interest the case had generated, adding that “after reviewing the two case dockets in existence over the murder of Rokko Frimpong, it has come to the conclusion that it is more justifiable to prosecute the suspects who were initially charged by the police for the murder”.
It, however, further noted that there were still questions concerning the involvement of the soldiers in the re-denomination exercise and the AG had advised the BNI to sustain its inquisition of the five soldiers, with particular reference to their role and possible involvement with regard to the re-denomination exercise, which took place in July 2007.
The court on February 4, 2010 gave the prosecution two weeks to furnish it with particulars of the case.
The court specifically gave the prosecution the “last chance” to furnish it with the bill of indictment and summary of evidence after defence counsel had vehemently opposed a plea from the prosecution for an adjournment to enable it to receive results on forensic examination conducted on the bullet used to kill Mr Frimpong.
The soldiers were remanded to reappear on February 19, 2010, but had to be brought before the court yesterday for their formal discharge.
The facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution, were that the soldiers, who were picked up in November 2009, were instructed by a superior officer to kill Mr Frimpong, who was said to have uncovered some fraudulent deals in the re-denomination exercise, which incriminated some former top government officials.
According to the prosecution, the five were recruited by their superior officer (name not provided in court) at the 64 Infantry Battalion to eliminate Mr Frimpong, who was said to have uncovered the rot involving some former top-ranking government officials.
Reacting to the prosecution’s assertions, counsel for the soldiers maintained that his clients were innocent, adding that he would prove their innocence in due course.
The soldiers were picked up barely 72 hours after the Human Rights Court, presided over by Ms Charity Irene Danquah, had, on December 15, 2009, ordered their immediate release from the custody of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
The court ordered the release of the five after defence lawyers had argued that their clients’ continued detention was a flagrant abuse of their human rights, as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution, especially when the BNI failed to give a tangible reason for their continued detention.