Ya-Na's Murder Case: Abudus Stage Demo at Court

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

By Stephen Kwabena Effah

Sympathizers and supporters of the nine persons being prosecuted for the murder of the Overlord of Dagbon, Ya-Na Yakubu Andani II, yesterday besieged the premises of the Fast Track High Court in Accra to protest against their trial.

The more than 300 demonstrators believed to be Abudus, had by 9:30 am gathered in front of the three-storey building which also house the Accra Human Rights High Court where the nine appeared to move their bail application. The gathering was however, peaceful.

The accused - Iddrisu Iddi, 76; Alhaji Baba Abdulal, 56; Kwame Alhassan, 53; Yidana Sugri, 42; Mohammed Kojo, 45; Mahamadu Abdulai, 57; Sayibu Mohammed, 34; Yakubu Mahamadu, 42, and Alhassan Braima - are charged with the murder of the Ya-Na in 2002.

They were arrested on April 10, this year, and arraigned before an Accra Magistrate’s Court on three counts of conspiracy to murder, murder and unlawful military training on April 12. Their plea was not taken, and they have been remanded to appear again on May 5.

Their counsel have since challenged the justification of their remand and filed a bail application at the Human Rights Court which fixed yesterday, to hear the application for bail pending investigations.

The court, presided over by Justice U.P Dery, after hearing the arguments of both sides yesterday, adjourned to May 18, to rule on whether to grant the application for bail.

The supporters and sympathizers, including some relatives of the nine accused, occupied the 24-seater courtroom, while those bearing placards with various inscriptions, filled the court premises.

Some of the inscriptions read: “ Ya-Na killed himself,” “No justice, No peace in Dagbon,” “President Mills, your actions are selective,” “We, the Abudus are indigenous family in Dagbon,” “President Mills, please free M’ba Dugu and co. for peace to prevail in Yendi,” and “J.J. Rawlings, please it’s time to provide your evidence”.

A number of heavily-armed police personnel we also took vantage positions at the court premises to maintain law and order, as well as ensure the safety of the nine persons.

After the court proceedings, the supporters cheered on the nine persons as they were marched by armed police men to board a waiting truck behind the court building, while others, mostly women, shed tears as they waved at the accused persons. Moving the application for bail, Mr Atta Akyaa, lead counsel for the nine persons, said the remand of his clients was unjustifiable, in view of his contention that no formal charges had been preferred against them, describing the situation as “fanciful”.

He argued that without committal, no one can assert a proper charge of murder against his clients, indicating that “the only time that it becomes a murder case is when they have been committed to stand trial.”

However, he told the court, that the prosecution had not been able to provide bill of indictment and summary of evidence to warrant the remand that was granted by the magistrate court.

Mr. Akyea said the magistrate was misled by the prosecution to believe that the case was a murder one, which, he said, disarmed the magistrate to refuse bail for his clients, saying “the magistrate misunderstood her jurisdiction”.

Further, he said that although brief facts are suppose to explain why a particular charge has been preferred against someone, he noted that in their case, the facts presented by the prosecution at the magistrate’s court was on the contrary.

"The facts traced the history of the fight between the Abudus and the Andanis….nowhere (in the facts) was it said the arrest (of the nine) was as a result of the murder of Ya-Na,” he pointed out.
He said the magistrate should have taken Article 14 into consideration to establish whether the prosecution demonstrated reasonable and cogent grounds that his clients were indeed linked to Ya-Na’s murder.

Again, he said the prosecution was wrong for arraigning Sugri who, he said, was acquitted and discharged by a competent court in the same Ya-Na’s murder case.

According to Mr. Akyea, per Article of 19 (7) Sugri should not have been arraigned at all, describing the situation as “double jeopardy”.

Mr. Akyea said the argument made by the prosecution at the lower court to the effect that the release of his clients could interfere with investigations was serious, saying that it would go to suggest that the whole of Ghana’s security is impotent.

He said that even the prosecution failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds how his nine clients could interfere with a whole National Security investigation.

“No shred of evidence was put before the magistrate court that the applicants have the capacity to interfere with National Security…It is as if the whole of National Security cannot control these individuals,” he added.

He described the situation where suspects were arrested and remanded before investigations were conducted as “justice upside down”

Opposing the bail application, Chief State Attorney Anthony Rexford Owiredu insisted that the applicants were properly charged, noting that their charge caution statement was taken in the presence of an independent witness.

However, he conceded that the bill of indictment and summary of evidence had not been prepared as required in murder cases, adding that these were being prepared.

According to him, from his 22-year legal experience, this has been one of the fastest case the Attorney General’s Department is doing.

He explained that the prosecution did not take the plea of the applicants when they were arraigned at the lower court because the law that create the charge of murder stipulate that such cases be tried by a High Court by an indictment.

The Chief State Attorney said their arrangement at the lower court was just to seek their remand while the bill of indictment and summary of evidence was being prepared to properly put them before a High Court.

“My lord, they cannot be committed within 48 hours….we need time to write and prepare the bill of indictment and summary of evidence,” he argued.

Mr. Owiredu also said that in view of the fact that the case is about murder and by virtue of Section 96 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Act, bail cannot be given to the applicants, saying “it’s proper the lower court did not grant them bail”.

He indicated that the re-arrest and prosecution of Sugri and the others was based on the recommendations of the Wuako Commission’s recommendation, noting that even Sugri had in the current case been charged with only unlawful military training.

The Chief State Attorney said a lot more people recommended by the Commission for prosecution were at large and thus it would not be healthy to release the applicants since they could interfere with investigations.

He also debunked the defence’s claim that the applicants were being used as guinea pigs, saying “there is substantial evidence against them and we will prove that at the High Court.”

He said “everything possible is being done to put them before a High Court before the end of May”.