<<Print>>

EGBERT FAIBILLE Jr., counsel for Adamu Daramani Sakande, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central on Friday prayed Accra High Court Judge, Justice Charles Quist to adjourn the MP�s trial for a short while to enable the defense study the ruling he gave on allowing prosecution to bring a witness to testify in the case if the prosecution so wished. Counsel for the MP told the court where Mr. Sakande is being tried for perjury that they just received a copy of the ruling and therefore would need time to study it. At the last hearing, the judge had ruled that it was wrong for the prosecution to have asked the MP to identify a document it brought from the National Security during a cross-examination. The ruling puts to rest the legal wrangling by both the state and counsel over whether the MP should be made to identify a document addressed to the National Security Adviser from the UK which he was not privy to. Lead counsel for the Bawku MP, Yoni Kulendi told journalists after the ruling that he would study the ruling and decide whether or not to appeal against it. Mr. Kulendi had expected the judge to give a ruling only on whether it was proper for the MP to be compelled to answer questions about the document as that was the only issue before him. Rexford Wiredu, a Principal State Attorney, who had requested that the MP identify the document while cross-examining him, explained that the document was a rebuttal against some of the documents tendered in by the MP therefore he should be made to identify them. However his lawyer, Yoni Kulendi objected to the identification of the document marked confidential with the letterhead of the National Security Coordinator, Lt Col (rtd) Larry Gbevlo-Lartey and addressed to the Director-General of Criminal Investigations Department, Attorney-General and the Inspector General of Police, on the grounds that it was not addressed to the MP. According to Mr. Kulendi, the MP was not the author of the said document and therefore could not be asked to identify it under Section 60 and 136 of the Evidence Decree. He noted that during the course of the trial, no evidence had been laid by prosecution on the document adding that his client had no personal knowledge of it. Counsel for the MP observed that if the court permitted the identification of the document by the accused person and thereafter tendered it, the defense team would have no opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Gbevlo-Lartey, and the others as well as those purported to have signed the attached correspondence between Ghana and the UK. It would therefore occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice. The judge agreed with counsel and said it was improper for the prosecution to have made that request. However, he said he would grant any request by the prosecution to call or recall a witness to rebut any doubts if the defense completes their case. The accused person under further cross-examination by Mr. Wiredu still denied being a British and Burkinabe citizen. The prosecutor put it to him that all the documents he tendered in evidence to show that he had denounced his British citizenship before he contested the parliamentary seat were fake but the MP denied it. He also denied that he tendered in those documents to throw dust into the eyes of the court. The prosecutor after this said he had no further questions for the accused person. The case has been adjourned to June 27, 2011.