Bawku MP's case - Counsel opposes move to cast doubt on client

May 25, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

COUNSEL for the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central who is standing trial over his nationality status yesterday opposed moves by the prosecution to cast doubt on his client’s defence.
According to Mr Yonny Kulendi, it was improper for the prosecution to request his client to identify documents which bordered on the renunciation of his British citizenship and which were purported to have emanated from the National Security Secretariat (NSS) and other agencies.
A Chief State Attorney, Mr Anthony Rexford Wiredu, had urged the MP, Mr Adamu Daramani Sakande, to look at what he termed an “authenticated version” of the documents he (the MP) had earlier tendered in evidence to prove that he had renounced his British citizenship before seeking to be elected as an MP.
However, Mr Kulendi vehemently opposed Mr Wiredu’s action and said the document, dated November 5, 2010 and signed by the NSS Co-ordinator, Lt Col Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (retd), had no bearing on his client’s evidence-in-chief and argued that the MP had not tendered in evidence any document with characteristics similar to that of the NSS to be called upon to identify them.
He argued that the MP was not a member of staff of the bodies to which the letter was copied to warrant him to answer questions on it, adding that the document was, in any case, labelled ‘Confidential’.
The bodies to which the letter was copied were the Attorney-General’s office and the Police Service.
Mr Kulendi, who kept referring to the document as the “thing”, in apparent reference to Mr Wiredu’s earlier description of it, argued that the prosecution was acting improperly by calling on his client to identify the document.
“The ‘thing’ was concocted, arranged and procured after the doors of justice were shut on the prosecution,” counsel argued, in apparent reference to the prosecution closing its case, only to turn around and urge his client to authenticate a document when his client had opened his defence to prove to the world he was not a British citizen.
Mr Kulendi, therefore, prayed the court not to endorse what he termed “unlawful, improper and unwarranted” attempts by the prosecution to request the MP to identify a document with which he (the MP) had nothing to do.
According to him, the prosecution was coming through a “chimney and not a window” because it had ample time to do its case but failed to prove anything against his client and was now making false allegations.
He also accused the prosecution of using state resources to fabricate stories against his client and questioned how the court was going to allow the defence to cross-examine staff of the Commonwealth and British Home Office who were alleged to have been signatories to a document which contradicted his client’s defence.
“The court will be creating prejudice against us if it accepts the documents into evidence. It will create the impression that we forged our documents,” Mr Kulendi argued and, accordingly, prayed the court not to countenance the prosecution’s attempt to subvert justice.
Opposing Mr Kulendi’s submission, Mr Wiredu explained that the MP took the prosecution by surprise when he tendered documents claiming he had renounced his British citizenship and for that reason the prosecution had to verify the authenticity or otherwise of the documents from the relevant authorities.
He explained that the prosecution could not have direct access to the British High Commission and so had to contact the NSS to do checks on its behalf.
According to him, the documents tendered by the MP were forged and further described the stamp on the renunciation document as “Kokompe stamp”.
Mr Kulendi opposed Mr Wiredu’s description, after which Mr Wiredu renamed it “Made-in-Ghana stamp”.
Mr Wiredu further argued that the British Home Office had also stated that the MP’s name was still in the database of British citizens as of November 3, 2010, but Mr Kulendi argued that that assertion was a fabrication from the state in an attempt to subvert justice.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, fixed June 8, 2011 as the date for ruling on the matter.
The MP was, on July 31, 2009, arraigned before the court, charged with nine counts relating to his nationality, perjury, forgery of passport, election fraud and deceiving public officers to be elected as an MP but was exonerated on six of those charges on July 8, 2010.
He is currently facing three charges of false declaration of office or voting, perjury and deceiving a public officer.