Cocaine-turn-soda carbonate – Swap not on court premises – CJ’s c’ttee

Front Page: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 Story: Albert K. Salia THE Committee of Inquiry instituted by the Chief Justice to investigate the cocaine-turn-washing soda saga says the cocaine was not swapped on the premises of the Accra Circuit Court that had tried the case. “If there was any swapping of the cocaine with any other substance, it was done before the substance was tendered in court on September 27, 2011,” it said. This was contained in a report the committee submitted to the Chief Justice on its findings. The committee was set up by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood, after the Police Administration and the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) had petitioned her following a ruling by the Accra Circuit Court on December 13, 2011 which acquitted and discharged a drug suspect, Nana Ama Martins, after it was established that the substance for which she was charged was washing soda. The report said the long delay in the prosecution of the case gave room for any possible tampering with the substance, especially when it was left “in the hands of the police for three long years”. According to the report, since both the defence and the prosecution agreed that the substance that was tendered in evidence did not have the pungent smell of cocaine, “it follows that if any swapping of the substance took place, it was done before it was presented to the court”, stressing that the evidence before the committee confirmed “the fact that the substance that was presented to the court on September 27, 2011 was the same substance produced on September 28, 2011”. It said since it was the same substance that came into the hands of the committee at its sitting, “the circuit court judge and his staff cannot be held responsible for the change that occurred in the substance between October 6, 2008 when it was tested to be cocaine and September 27, 2011 when the prosecution tendered exhibit ‘C’ in court”. “The State Attorney and the defence counsel who were present in court on the day that it was opened confirmed that the substance had no such pungent smell. It must be noted that the opening and the observation by those present were done on September 27, 2011 when the seal was broken in open court for the first time. This presupposes that the substance that was opened on the first day when it was tendered did not have the characteristic smell of cocaine which the analyst confirmed is associated with cocaine,” it said. The report observed that administratively the directives given by the Office of the Chief Justice for the prosecution of the case were flouted by the prosecution. It said a State Attorney, Ms Arhin, testified that when she received the duplicate docket as the state prosecutor, the directive on it was that she could prosecute the case in any High Court of her choice. It said Ms Arhin failed to write the advice as required administratively but decided to go ahead to put the matter before a High Court. The report said although Ms Arhin prepared a charge sheet for the High Court and made efforts to get the police investigator and witnesses for the conferencing, her efforts did not yield any fruitful results. It said DSP Dery, who registered the case at Circuit Court 1 in the first instance, admitted that he was aware of the directives from the Chief Justice’s Office on the prosecution of narcotic cases and yet the case was abandoned in Circuit Court 1 (as it were) after the accused was remanded in custody. “For almost two years there was no communication between the police and the Attorney-General’s Department. It is not surprising that the accused applied for bail at another forum and got her freedom, for the law allows bail (even in non-bailable offences) in a circumstance where the accused is remanded in custody for a long period of time without trial,” it said. The committee, in its recommendations, said the practice of making an order to destroy narcotic substances immediately on the day they were tendered should be discouraged and instead the provisions of Act 714 of the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act should be complied with. “It is also recommended that narcotic substances tendered in court should have field tests in open court on the very day they are tendered. Narcotic cases pending before the courts now should all be field-tested before trial,” it added. It further recommended that Circuit Court 1, Accra, being a specialised court, should be automated and called for a strong exhibit room for narcotic drugs and arms. “It is further recommended that the Registry of the Cocoa Affairs Circuit Court should have one registrar, who should be a chief registrar, with two deputies with the ranks of deputy chief registrar. The four-member committee, which was chaired by Mrs Justice Agnes Dordzie, included Mr Justice Abdullah Iddrisu, Mr John K. Bannerman and Nii Boye Quartey, who acted as secretary. The committee, which was to submit its report within seven days, started sitting from December 15 to 20, 2011 and took evidence from 11 people. They were Thomas Anyekese, the first police investigator; Joseph Owusu, the second investigator; DSP Kofi Adjei Tuadzra, the Head of the Narcotics Unit of the Police CID; David Agyeman Agyin of the Police Forensic Laboratory; DSP Dery, a police prosecutor, and Ms Stella Arhin, a State Attorney. The rest were Daniel Nyatsidzi, court clerk, Circuit Court, Accra; Seidu Yusif, a High Court Registrar, Cocoa Affairs Court, Accra; Frederick Tetteh Kudjonu, Registrar, Cocoa Affairs Court, Accra; Eric Kyei Baffour, Circuit Court Judge, Accra, and Kwabla Senanu, counsel for the accused person.