January 22, 2024 – Almost three years of criminal trial before Her Royal Highness Dorinda Smith Arthur in the Cape Coast Circuit Court 1, involving Hon Atta Mensah as the first defendant and Hon Kwesi Dawood as the second defendant; This is what the court is about. ” had to say: “At the conclusion of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the accused submitted a motion not to submit the case under section 173 of Act 30/60. However, on consideration of the evidence hitherto led, none of the charges can be sustained. As a result, they are acquitted and released.”
During cross-examination, it was revealed that the complainant, Mavis Abena Ageiwa Aitte Arhin, had previously been with Ata Mensah for four years, not as Mr Dawood’s wife or girlfriend, but rather as his boyfriend. .
Regarding the incest allegation, A2 i.e. Hon Kwesi Dawood is committed to telling the truth to the court in the interest of justice and through his lead counsel, Michael Mony Esq., during the trial. I applied for a paternity test. Thereafter, a paternity test was conducted on her at her DNA Clinic, Trust Hospital, Accra, a court-appointed facility, dated March 28, 2022, and signed by the Director of the DNA Clinic, Dr. Nana Ama Abankwa. Ta. The report states: “Based on DNA analysis, the alleged father Emmanuel Dawood Mensah can be excluded as the biological father of the child Rita Akos Aitti Alhin as they do not share genetic markers. “It has said. ..Statistical results: Composite paternity index: 0.0000, Paternity probability = 0.0000%*
The answer provided by PW2, who is the complainant in the case and the mother of the 21-year-old girl, is that she knew PW1 even before the paternity test was conducted, i.e., that her daughter was not A2’s biological daughter. It was made clear that there was no. She and her prosecutors did not challenge or challenge her DNA test results, explaining why the court accepted prima facie evidence of the genetic indicators contained in her DNA test results. See Section 121(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1960 (Act 30) and NYAMEBA & ORS V THE STATE [1965] GLR723. See also his ASANTE V REPUBLIC above. In the words of eminent jurist Pwaman JSC: “If she chose to lie under oath about her pregnancy, what else did she lie about in her testimony?” ” Therefore, the filing of the suit cannot be upheld as A2 cannot open a defense on the charge of incest.
The very disposition, demeanor and reaction of the complainant during cross-examination showed that she knew that A2 (Hong Dawood) was not the biological father of PW1 (her daughter).
*Worst of all was the gross contempt and lack of remorse she displayed in court after DNA test results revealed she had lied to the police and the court* 2022 May 2022 During the cross-examination on March 11, the following occurred:
Q. I’m suggesting to you that A2 agreed to take care of the survivors because you always showed him that you were the father?
A. Although A2 was well aware that she was the biological father of the survivor, she did not take responsibility for the survivor until she was in the third grade of middle school.
Q. Are you aware that DNA testing was conducted on the survivor and A2 in this court?
A. Whatever the DNA results are, I have nothing to say. For vengeance is from the Lord. he knows what he did.
Q. Look at Exhibit 1 and read the conclusion in court.
A.I don’t read it.
Q. I think your answer shows that you are very disrespectful to the court.
A. I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m not in this courtroom because of my DNA. I’m here because I want A2 to be imprisoned forever.
It is important to establish that the second defendant denied having sex with the alleged survivor, and again that the 21-year-old alleged survivor is not the biological daughter of the second defendant. It is important to demonstrate that this has been demonstrated through words and actions supported by scientific evidence.
Interestingly, PW 4, the investigating officer has stated on oath in court that the police are willing to prove the biological relationship between the second accused and the alleged survivor, but the accused is Mavis Abena.・Proved to be Ajewa Aitti Alhin (suspect’s mother). The survivor) was unable to cooperate with police to prove this important information. On February 6, 2023, in the cross-examination of PW4, the investigating officer admitted the following:
Q. During the course of your investigation, one of the issues that came up was incest.
A.Yes
Q. Did you get a DNA report at the police level?
A. No, although efforts were made, the claimant refused to comply, even though the firm was prepared to cover the bill.
Q.Who worked on it?
A. From me
Q. According to your earlier answer, the survivor and the complainant did not cooperate with the investigation in this respect.
A. The claimant failed, but the survivor did not.
Q. I believe the complainant did not cooperate with you because he was well aware that his allegations against A2 were false.
A. I don’t know about that.
Q. Are you aware that there are DNA results as evidence that A2 is not the biological father of the survivor?
A.Yes
Q. You took A2, the plaintiff, the survivor and the court-appointed bailiff to Accra for DNA testing. is not it?
A.Yes
Q. Do you know the results of the DNA test?
A.Yes
Q. How did the results of the DNA test affect your work as an investigator on this case?
A. During the course of the investigation, when I asked the complainant to take a DNA test and she refused, I was not surprised by the results of the court-ordered DNA test.
What was established as evidence in court includes the incest allegation that the complainant, former UEW-Ajumako TESCON executive of the NPP, Mavis Abena Ajewa Aitte Arhin, reported the hearsay incident to the police, leading to the indictment. I mean, we talked. A2 refuses to cooperate with the police in establishing the very allegation that would help prove his case against A2, and the step towards proving paternity exposes his wickedness, It is clear that she actually knew it was in A2’s interest, yet she deliberately lied to the police and swore under oath that her daughter was A2’s biological daughter. Imagine what would have happened if A2’s attorneys had not been careful enough to ask the court for a paternity test, and if the court had generously agreed.
*The complainant’s very demeanor, demeanor and reaction during cross-examination showed that she knew that the second defendant was not the biological father of her 21-year-old daughter. To make matters worse, the terrible disrespect and remorse she displayed in court after DNA test results revealed that she had lied to the police and the court. It was an attitude of contempt and no remorse.
Regarding the corruption charges, even their very claims in court had several inconsistencies, inconsistencies, and outright lies. In fact, prosecutors relied heavily on over-detailed and false allegations against defendants to obtain convictions, relying on media frenzy and populist attributions against defendants.
The very conduct of the plaintiff Mavis Abena Ajewaa Aitte Arhin and her daughter Rita Akos Aitte Arhin in court betrayed them and exposed their lies.
Her reactions during cross-examination were clearly based on emotional dissatisfaction with the accused, especially considering his past. This personal hatred and disgust for the accused was the driving factor behind the malicious fabrication.
See RV Henry and Manning [1969] Per Salmon J 53 CRIM APP REP 150, the court held inter alia:
“…It is really dangerous to convict someone based solely on the evidence of women and girls.
This is dangerous. Because human experience shows that girls and women sometimes tell completely false stories in courts like this, which are very easy to fabricate but very difficult to refute. . Stories like this are fabricated for all sorts of reasons, not to mention, and sometimes for no reason at all. ”
Regarding the assault charge, apart from PW1’s statement regarding the assault charge (which A2 said in his warning letter was a malicious fabrication), the prosecution did not produce any documents, photographs or witnesses to corroborate the evidence of PW1. . Witnesses saw the alleged assault with their own eyes.
During cross-examination, investigating officer PW4, in response to a question, stated that a police medical note was issued to PW2 (Mavis Abena Ajewaa Aitte Alhin) by the local DOVVSU in connection with the assault case; He clarified that he did not return it to the police. It hasn’t been returned to him yet.
Therefore, even though there was an opportunity to obtain other witnesses and documents proving that PW1 was in fact assaulted by A2, the evidence of PW1 regarding the alleged assault could not be corroborated.
*See “Therefore, the prosecution was unable to remove this case from speculation, conjecture and suspicion as the evidence was not supported and could not persuade the court. CASEWELL V POWELL DUFFRYN ASSOCIATED COLLIERIES LTD.” . [1940] AC 152 P 169, especially Lord Wright’s opinion*
*As a result, the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against the accused for the court to require the accused to enter a defense. Therefore, he is acquitted and released. In short, the prosecution’s case is deemed to have failed*.
*The Court, pursuant to Article 30, Article 173 of the Act, does not hereby commence the presentation of the case and therefore acquits and releases the accused on the charges of corruption, incest, assault, abortion and abetting abortion. ”
– H/H Dorinda Smith Arthur, Circuit Court Judge, Cape Coast