April 9, 2011 (Lead Story)
THE state has appealed against the acquittal and discharge of the 15 people accused of allegedly conspiring to murder the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya Na Yakubu Andani II, in March 2002.
In a notice of appeal filed on April 7, 2011, the state is praying the Court of Appeal to order the re-trial of the 15 people on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he held that the charge of conspiracy to murder failed because the Ya Na’s death had not been positively proved at the trial.
According to the state, the trial judge erred in law in admitting the alleged proceedings of the Wuaku Commission as evidence with which to contradict the conclusive judgement of the adverse findings made by the commission under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
The Fast Track High Court, on March 29, 2011, discharged the 15 people, namely, the former District Chief Executive for Yendi, Mr Mohammed Habib Tijani; Iddrisu Iddi, alias Mbadugu, 76; Alhaji Baba Iddrisu Abdulai, 54; Kwame Alhassan, 53; Mohammadu Abdulai, 57; Saibu Mohammed, 34; Alhassan Mohammed Briamah, 40; Alhassan Ibrahim, Mohammed Mustapha, Sani Moro, Baba Ibrahim, Yakubu Usifu, Ahmed Abukari, Abdul Razak Usifu and Alhassan Braimah.
Each had pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy. A seventh accused person, Zakaria Forest, who had been charged with two counts of conspiracy and murder and is on the run, was also discharged.
In an almost three-hour ruling on a submission of ‘no case’ filed on behalf of the accused persons by their lawyer, Mr Philip Addison, the court held that the prosecution had woefully failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons and it would, therefore, be dangerous to call on them to open their defence.
According to the trial judge, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against each of the accused persons on the grounds that evidence led by the 12 prosecution witnesses had been inconsistent, fabricated stories against the accused persons and were subsequently discredited on cross-examination.
Dissatisfied with the court’s decision, the Attorney-General’s Department filed the notice of appeal and further stated that the trial judge erred in law in admitting the alleged proceedings of the Wuaku Commission as evidence to contradict the evidence of most of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence was consistent with the judgement contained in the Report of the Wuaku Commission against the same accused persons under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution.
“The learned trial judge erred in law when he made findings of law which were inconsistent with the adverse findings contained in the judgement of the Report of the Wuaku Commission under Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution,” the notice of appeal pointed out.
It further argued that the learned trial judge misdirected himself on the law when he held that because the Abudus asserted that they fought a war with the Andanis, it followed that the Andanis who also fought were equally liable and, therefore, the 15 accused persons only participated in the war which led to the death of the Ya Na but could not be found liable for the offences charged upon evidence given by any prosecution witness, who is an Andani.
“The learned trial judge approached the case with a fundamental prejudice and bias against any Andani prosecution witness and so disabled himself from an impartial assessment of the evidence before him, which led him to the erroneous conclusion that the Andani witnesses appeared to him to be telling the whole world that any Abudu was potentially liable for the murder of the Ya Na when, in fact, none of the 14 accused persons was standing trial for the murder of the Ya Na,” it said.
According to the state, the trial judge disabled himself from appreciating the true meaning of the expression “no evidence” as used in Section 271 (Act 30) in arriving at the erroneous conclusion that there was in law no evidence against the accused persons to call upon them to open their defence.
It further argued that the trial judge erred in law in admitting the record of proceedings in the Republic vs Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyamfo case as evidence for purposes of contradicting the evidence of the prosecution witness in the trial of the 15 because the Yidana Sugri trial was inconsistent with Article 280 of the 1992 Constitution and the adverse findings contained in the Report of the Wuaku Commission.
Based on the stated grounds of appeal, the state held that the learned trial judge’s ruling had occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice and for that reason the Court of Appeal should set aside the ruling of the lower court and order a re-trial of the acquitted persons.
The lower court had held, among others, that the prosecution witnesses who testified against the 15 were the same persons who had testified against Yidana Sugri and Iddrisu Gyamfo in 2002 for the murder of the Ya Na. The two were acquitted and discharged in 2003.
The court was of the view that the witnesses, who, from their own testimonies, partook in the war in Dagbon, later turned round as prosecution witnesses to fabricate stories against the discharged persons, adding that “their conflicting statements totally undermine their credibility”.
“The trend of key witnesses was inconsistent. At no time was their evidence the same,” it held, and accordingly agreed with the defence team’s argument that the evidence put forward by the prosecution was “watery, suspicious, dubious and unreliable”.
It also reminded the prosecution that it (prosecution) relied on the Wuaku Commission’s Report to put together the facts of the case, adding, “Investigations do not only mean taking statements and charging persons with offence. Facts should not be forced to feed a pre-conceived notion.”
The court ruled that nowhere was the prosecution able to prove that the accused persons agreed to act together to murder the Ya Na and further pointed out that it was unfortunate for the prosecution to rely on portions of the Wuaku Commission’s Report when it suited it and later turn around to reject it when it did not serve its purpose.
A total of 12 witnesses testified in the case, which began in July 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment