Counsel, prosecution argue over Article 19 at Gregory Afoko's committal proceedings

The committal proceedings of Gregory Afoko, the man indicted for the murder of the Upper East Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Adams Mahama, was characterised by heated arguments at the Accra District Court last Thursday.

The heated arguments between the defence and the prosecution centred on the interpretation of Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution, specifically Clause 2 (e), which states that a person charged with a criminal offence “shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.

While the lead counsel for Afoko, Mr Ekow Ampah-Korsah, contended that the said clause and the article in general also applied to committal proceedings, the prosecutor, Mr Matthew Amponsah, a Chief State Attorney, was of the view that the article could be applied only to a trial.

Charge

Afoko and Asabke Alangdi have been charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit crime and murder.

A third accomplice, Musa Issa, was granted bail after the Attorney-General had advised that there was not enough evidence to charge him.

Counsel

Presenting his case, Mr Ampah-Korsah argued that per his understanding of the article, “adequate facilities” meant that the prosecution ought to furnish the defence with everything that the former requested.

According to him, the prosecution had rejected the defence’s request for “all the witness statements and evidence that the police gathered in the course of the investigation.

“My lord, for our client to have a fair trial, we need everything that we request in order to adequately prepare to interrogate the facts contained in the bill of indictment to help the court determine if there is a prima facie case against our client”

“If those documents were made available to us, we could successfully argue for the case not to go on trial at the High Court,” he said.

He prayed the court, presided over by Mr Kotoku Worlanyo, to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for it to give an interpretation of the Article.

Prosecution

For his part, Mr Amponsah refuted Mr Ampah-Korsah’s claims, contending that what the defence was requesting  the prosecution to make a full disclosure of all the materials it had come across in the course of the investigation, which “could only be granted during the trial at the High Court and not at the preliminary hearing of the case.

“The defence has already been furnished with the medical report on the deceased, the bill of indictment and summary of evidence, which comprise a list of the witnesses that the prosecution proposes to call at the trial and the summary of evidence to be given by each witness and other evidence that the prosecution will use at the trial,” he said.

Mr Amponsah described the request by the defence for the court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court as a delay tactic to stall the committal proceedings.

The case would continue today, for the court to give a ruling on whether or not to grant the request of the defence.