The Principal State Attorney who asked for the charges against 8 members of Delta Force to be dropped has said that she did that because the main witnesses could not identify any of the suspects.
In her reply to a letter from the prosecutor for her legal opinion on the case, Marie Louise-Simmons said the two police officers who were present during the incident paid attention to the safety of other people present.
“As it stands now, there was not even a single witness who can aid the prosecution to identify any of the suspects. There is also no other piece of evidence that links of the suspects to the offence they have been charged with.”
“Despite the unfortunate and despicable incident that occurred the manner in which it occurred, the investigations conducted and the evidence available makes it extremely impossible to successfully prosecute any of the suspects herein,” she added.
A Kumasi Circuit court presided over by Her Honour, Patricia Amponsah was forced to discharge the accused persons and dismissed the case of the Delta Force members.
Explaining their decision the prosecutor, said they did not have enough evidence to support the charges levelled against the accused persons. He added that he had orders from the Attorney General Gloria Akufo to drop the charges against them.
However, the Ministry of Information said the prosecutor took the decision on his own.
The eight members of Delta Force were standing trial after they besieged the Kumasi Circuit Court and freed their members who were facing charges for attacking the Ashanti Regional Security Coordinator, George Agyei.
Read her opinion on the evidence provided below:
From the docket, the incident occurred inside the KMA Circuit Court room. The evidence suggests that it was a very busy Court that day. However, only two (2) Policemen being the (CWO) in the Court were made to volunteer witness statements.
The complainant, volunteered a statement, however, his statement does not suggest that he was a witness to the incident.
The statement of the two (2) Policemen clearly indicate that they could not identify any of the persons that forcibly entered the Courtroom that day in disregard of the judge’s orders and aided the escape.
Sgt. Asagre stated clearly that he could not identify any of the said criminals. Sgt. Evans Kugbeadzor also stated that his attention was on the safety of the judge and after ushering the judge into her chambers; he returned and realized that all the 13 accused persons and their supporters had left the court. There is no justification from the diary of action that the police got any confidential information about the identity of the action persons that aided the escape.
Again, after the arrest of the suspect, there is no indication that an identification parade was conducted for any of the possible witness to have identified any of the suspects.
All suspects have also denied in their statements that they committed any offence, Infact, none of them admitted that they entered the court room that day, though of them admitted being outside the court room that day.
It is basic principle in criminal prosecution that “there can be no better identification of an accused than the evidence of a witness who swears to have seen the accused committing the offence.”
As it stands now, there was not even a single witness who can aid the prosecution to identify any of the suspects. There is also no other piece of evidence that links of the suspects to the offence they have been charged with.
Despite the unfortunate and despicable incident that occurred the manner in which it occurred, the investigations conducted and the evidence available makes it extremely impossible to successfully prosecute any of the suspects here in.
I therefore advise that the charges of DISTURBANCE OF COURT AND RESISTING ARREST & RESCUE against the suspects must be dropped for lack of evidence to prosecute.