The court admits the leaked tape of Ofosu-Ampofo as evidence

General news for Thursday, November 19, 2020

Source: Starr FM

2020-11-19

The Commercial Division of the Accra High Court has admitted as evidence the alleged leaked audio recording of the president of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) after more than five hours of court hearing.

This was after the court chaired by Judge Samuel Asiedu, an Appeals Court judge with additional responsibility as a Superior Court judge, allowed the more than two-hour recording to be played in open court.

The audiotape that was delivered as evidence through the police investigator with Chief Detective Inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department Bernard Berko, the state’s third witness, captures the voice of Samuel Ofosu-Ampofo and some party officials in a party function.

The presiding judge, while ruling on defense attorneys Tony Lithur and Aziz Bamba’s objections to the admissibility of the audiotape, said that the audio is relevant to the charges brought against the president of the NDC and Kweku Boahen, a deputy officer party communications.

Regarding the defense attorneys’ argument that the way in which said audio was obtained violated the constitutional rights of the accused and Law 526 on Security Intelligence Agencies, the court said that there was no evidence before the court that says that the audio It was obtained by National Security or any of its agencies.

The court also rejected a request by defense attorneys to refer the matter to the Supreme Court citing Article 18 (2) which raised questions of constitutional interpretation.

The court is of the opinion that the highest court determines previously had such a provision and the only thing the lower court is to do is enforce it.

Privacy breach

Mr. Lithur, counsel for the president of the NDC in opposing the presentation of the audio evidence, said that the antecedents given by the witness of the acquisition of the tape that were surreptitiously recorded without the knowledge or consent of the accused they were wrong.

It held that the recordings obtained under the assumption that Mr. Ofosu-Ampofo has been or will be identified as none of the speakers on the occasion violates legal practice.

Mr. Lithur argued that, the right of the accused person to the privacy of his communication as guaranteed by article 18 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.

He also argued that, Mr. Ofosu-Ampofo is the chairman of the largest opposition party in the country and that it is a unique position.

He argued that his client is entitled under article 21 (3) to the right and freedom to join a political party and participate in politicized activities subject to what may be necessary in a free democratic society.

He said the consequences for which the Security Intelligence Agencies Act order under sections 29/30 of Act 526 requires a court order and that, if so, the agency itself could not have legal recordings without a court order.

Constitutional interpretation

Furthermore, it argued that, being that the case, the State cannot rely on the audio recording as the only basis for instituting criminal proceedings against its client.

“This is a classic case where I am going to urge your honor to exclude the evidence on the basis of substantial prejudice.

“In fact, I would like the court to refer this case to the Supreme Court for determination because your Honor lacks jurisdiction under Article 130 (2) for the determination of what is clearly a matter that requires constitutional interpretation,” urged the Lithur lawyer to Court

“My position will be different if it is alleged that one of the defendants has committed a crime and it is sought that the tape be presented as evidence in support of the case. In this case, the tape is the only evidence on which they are based, “argued Ofosu-Ampofo’s lawyer.

Who made this recording?

Attorney Aziz Bamba, Kweku Boahen’s attorney, who also vehemently opposed the bidding for the audio recording, argued that “the admission of a radio recording will not meet the essential requirements of article 18 (2) of the Constitution of 1992 in terms of the prescribed circumstances under which the citizen’s right to privacy could be interfered with. “

He held that, the prosecution has not been able to show that the audio recording was secured or was made according to the law.

He argued that, “the violation of the right to privacy is a violation of human rights that can be repaired under article 33 (1) of the Constitution.”

“Without knowing the identity of the person who made the recording, how can the victim of the interference be able to maintain cause of action and seek redress?”

DPP’s response

In response to the defense attorneys’ objections, the Director of the Public Ministry (DPP), Ms. Yvvone Atakorah Obuobisa, said that this is a prosecution case that, according to the audio recording that the investigator attempted to present, is relevant to the development of the case.

He said that, in article 51 (1) of the Evidence Law, the information contained in the audio recording taken on February 19, 2019 is essential to prove the existence of the statements made by the defendants and also to help to the court to make a determination. .

“I have also looked at whether the admission violates article 18 (2) of the 1992 Constitution, as alleged by the defense attorney. My Lord, Article 18 (2) guarantees the protection of our individual privacy, which we promote and also place an exception that allows interference with this right … to serve as the security and well-being of the country, protection from the disorder of crime ”The DPP told the court.

She argued that the recording came from proper custody as the investigator has testified how she obtained it.

He said that under section 142 of the Evidence Act, Chief Inspector Bernard Berko’s opinion on whether the voice is from any of the accused persons is highly relevant, authentic and must be admitted.

The court, after hearing from all parties and making references to the relevant authorities, dismissed the objections and admitted the audio recording as evidence.

After more than five hours of hearing, the court postponed the hearing until November 30 for its continuation.

Charges

The two have been charged with conspiracy to harm certain people.

While the NDC president faces a separate charge of assault for allegedly inciting party communicators against the CE president and the president of the Peace Council.