The four-member committee set up by the Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Woode to investigate the circumstances under which 1020 grams of cocaine was turned into baking powder has held that if there was any swapping, it was done before the substance was tendered in evidence at the court premises.
The Committee, in its final report, concluded that the swapping was done before being brought to court on September 27.
The Justice Agnes Dodzie-led committee, after a weeklong probe found that the substance tendered in court on the 27th September, 2011 was not cocaine and stated in its report released on Tuesday that cocaine has a pungent smell but based on corroborated evidence before it the substance alleged to be cocaine had no such smell when tendered in court.
The Executive Summary of the report chanced upon by peacefmonline.com indicates ”Evidence before us further confirms the fact that the substance that was presented to the Court on the 27th September 2011 was the same substance produced on the 28th September 2011. It is the same substance that came in to the hands of the Committee at its sitting. The Circuit Court Judge and his staff therefore cannot be held responsible for the change that occurred in the substance between 6th October 2008 when the substance was tested to be cocaine and 27th of September 2011 when the prosecution tendered exhibit ‘C’ in Court.”
It further stated: “From our analysis of the evidence above the substance that was tendered in court on the 27th September 2011 and admitted in evidence as exhibit ‘C’ and was opened in open court did not have the pungent smell of cocaine and therefore it could not have been cocaine. It follows that if any swapping of the substance took place it was done before it was presented to the Court.”
It recommended the need to provide a strong exhibit room for narcotic drugs and arms.
In addition, Circuit Court ‘1’ Accra being a specialised court should be automated, and 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.
Other recommendations made were that the practice of making an order to destroy narcotic substances immediately on the day that it was tendered should be discouraged and rather, provisions of Act 714 of the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act should be complied with.
It recommended that narcotic substances tendered in Court should have field tests in open court on the very day they were tendered, and narcotic cases pending before the courts now should all be field tested before trial.
The Committee’s study of the available records showed that the accused, Nana Ama
Martins together with one Andy were arrested on August 22, 2008 by the Police and put before the court for possession of narcotic drug.
The report said the accused was first remanded in Police custody and later in Prison custody by the court, at that time the instruction was to the effect that the docket should be put before the court.
On November 5, 2009 the accused was granted bail by the High Court presided over by Justice Ofosu Quartey. Later the accused jumped bail and was re-arrested and put before the Circuit court where the trial judge vacated the High Court order and remanded the accused person in custody.
The accused applied to the High Court for the order revoking the order made by the High Court to be quashed on the grounds that the Circuit court had no jurisdiction to vacate a High Court’s order.
On September 15, 2011, the High Court presided over by Mr Justice Mustapha Logoh quashed the Circuit Court order for lack of jurisdiction to deal with and vacate a High Court order, and then admitted accused/applicant to bail.
The trial of the accused started on August 24, 2011.
The Committee found that the exhibit which was the subject of the investigation was tendered in court on September 27, 2011 and on the same day it was opened in the presence of the accused person, her counsel Mr Kwabla Senanu, the investigator, Mr Thomas Anyekese, the State Attorney and the court clerk.
Evidence before the Committee established that cocaine has a pungent smell and this evidence was corroborated by the analyst and that when it is opened, the scent will be smelt by everybody in whatever form it is, either powdered or compressed.
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 was done on September 27, 2011 when the seal was broken in open court for the first time.
This pre-supposes 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.
This substance, which was opened on September 27, 2011, was dented by the scooping of the top to take a sample for re-testing.
The court clerk’s evidence has it that he resealed the top of the exhibit with a white cellotape.
The exhibit that was brought before the Committee had the same white cellotape covering the scooped portion of the substance confirming the clerk’s description of what he did to the substance that was scooped on September 27, 2011.
When the analyst opened the substance in the presence of the Committee the scooping that was done on the top of the substance on September 27, 2011 was on it and it was visible.
The analyst’s confirmed it; that there was a scooping.
It can therefore be reasonably inferred from the forgoing that the substance that had the Police Laboratory seal that was opened in open court on September 27, 2011 was the same substance that was presented to the Committee on December 19, 2011; and the said substance, it has been confirmed, does not have the characteristic smell of cocaine and it is not the cocaine, and it is not the substance that the analyst said he worked on October 6, 2008.
The Committee set up on December 15th last year was to establish the role played by the trial judge and other court officials including the Registrar and the court clerk and other matters related thereto.
Source: Peacefmonline.com with additional files from GNA
|Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority.|