The case brought by the National Chairman of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), Samuel Ofosu AmpofoSU, 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.
Mr Ampofo invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by filling an application challenging the decision of the trial High Court to admit into evidence a witness statement presented by the prosecution.
He is seeking an order of certiorari from the Supreme Court quashing the said decision by the High Court.
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)
Mr Ofosu Ampofo and Kwaku Boahen, a Deputy Communications Officer of the NDC, are standing trial over a leaked tape in which they were allegedly heard inciting violence against the leadership of the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Peace Council (NPC).
The two have pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to commit assault against a public officer, while Ofosu Ampofo has pleaded not guilty to two counts of assault against a public officer.
During the first day of the trial on January 29, this year, the first prosecution witness, Benjamin Osei Ampofo Adjei, a journalist with Accra-based Adom FM, took the stand at the Accra High Court to testify.
He, however, denied knowledge of a statement that bore his signature and which was crucial to the prosecution’s case.
Even before the statement was presented to him to identify if the signature on it as his, Adjei had testified that the police had brought a statement to him to sign and that he had signed it because he was told it was part of investigations.
After the denial by the witness, the DPP sought to tender the statement into evidence but that was objected to by Mr Lithur and Dr Basit Aziz Bamba, counsel for Boahen.
In his objection, Mr Lithur argued that per the practice direction on disclosures, all parties (prosecution and defence) must agree before a witness statement could be tendered as evidence.
According to him, the defence had not agreed for the statement to be tendered because the witness had denied knowledge of it.
In response, Mrs Obuobisa refuted the argument by the defence and submitted that the rule of admissibility of a witness statement required a witness statement to be dated and signed or thumb-printed by the witness.
According to her, the statement dated May 3, 2019 had been duly signed by the witness and, therefore, it must be admitted into evidence.
In his ruling, the trial judge, Justice Samuel Asiedu, agreed with the prosecution and held that so far as the statement contained the signature of the witness, it must be adopted as evidence.
“To the extent that the witness has identified his signature on the statement, the statement is valid and acceptable,” Justice Asiedu ruled.
It is the said decision that the NDC National Chairman is challenging at the Supreme Court and has been adjourned Indefinitely Today.
By: NK AB