The court rejects Sexy Don Don’s request to subpoena Ken Agyapong, Ursula and two others

A High Court in Accra has dismissed a request by the lawyers of Daniel Asiedu, the man accused of killing the late Abuakwa North MP, Joseph Boakye Danquah-Adu, to subpoena four persons to testify in the ongoing trial.

Asiedu, who is on trial for murder and robbery, wants the Court to compel Ivy Boakye Danquah, wife of the late MP; Jennifer Achama, their housekeeper; Ursula Owusu-Ekuful, the Minister of Communications; and Kennedy Agyapong, Member of Parliament for Assin Central, to provide relevant information to the case.

However, the Court, presided over by Justice Lydia Osei Marfo, took the considered view that it would be unnecessary to summon them to testify at this stage.

The Court also stated: “The applicant, Daniel Asiedu, has no obligation to establish his innocence and has no duty to assist the prosecutor in their case.”

According to the motion for summons filed ex parte (without the knowledge of the prosecutor) by lawyer Yaw Dankwah on Monday, May 6, the four individuals are: Ivy Boakye Danquah, wife of the late MP; Jennifer Achama, their housekeeper; Mrs. Ursula Owusu-Ekuful, Minister of Communications; and Ken Ohene Agyapong, Member of Parliament for Assin Central.

Counsel argued that the testimonies of these individuals in court would serve the interest of justice for the people.

Lawyer Dankwah submitted that during the cross-examination of witnesses, it was revealed that Ivy Boakye Danquah Adu, wife of the late JB Danquah Adu, was in the house at the time of his death but the prosecution did not call her to testify.

The summons further explained that Jennifer Achama, the housekeeper who allowed the supposed unidentified police officers into the home, was not called to testify even though her statement was made public during the case.

It also stated that Ursula Owusu-Ekuful, Member of Parliament for Ablekuma West and Minister of Communications, should be invited by the Court to testify as she was the one who had the third and fourth prosecution witnesses for investigation into a police officer on Kanda Highways brought.

However, no statement was taken from her nor was any explanation given as to how she came across PW3 and PW4 (3rd and 4th Prosecution Witnesses) and what happened before she handed them over to the police officer at Kanda Highways.

The summons also stated that Kennedy Agyapong, Member of Parliament for Assin Central, gave interviews to media outlets claiming that he had information about the incident, but the investigator and his team did not invite him to contribute to the investigation of the current trial.

The suspect and his attorneys believe that these individuals have relevant information and, if called to testify, will assist the court and jury in delivering speedy justice.

They also state that the Court has the power to issue summons for Ivy Boakye Danquah Adu, wife of the deceased; Jennifer Achama, the housekeeper; Mrs. Ursula Owusu-Ekuful, Member of Parliament for Ablekuma West and Minister of Communications; and Kennedy Agyapong, Member of Parliament for Assin Central, to appear and testify.

Cost:

Daniel Asiedu, also known as Sexy Don Don, has been ordered to defend himself against two charges, murder and robbery, after the court found that the prosecution had presented prima facie evidence against him.

Vincent Bossu, who was tried alongside him for conspiracy to commit robbery, was acquitted and discharged.

By the court:

Judge Lydia Osei Marfo, after considering the submissions of the suspect’s counsel, refused the request for a summons.

In reviewing the affidavit in support of the motion, particularly paragraphs 7 and 8, the defense argued that the prosecution had failed to call witnesses who, they believe, would have information relevant to the court to prove the to resolve the matter.

For these reasons, the defense has argued that the Court should allow these persons to be summoned on behalf of the suspect.

The Court noted that “witnesses are to be weighed, not counted.”

“It is the prosecutor’s prerogative to call any witnesses they deem necessary to present their case, and if they choose not to do so it may be because the evidence is considered irrelevant.

Justice Osei Marfo also cited Section 52 of the Evidence Act to support her decision.

Given the stage of the case and the number of witnesses counsel intends to subpoena, the judge opined that calling these individuals to testify at this time would be unnecessary as it would only add cumulative evidence that is unnecessary and a waste of time.

“The applicant has no obligation to prove his innocence and is not obliged to assist the prosecutor,” the Court said.

The Court recommended that he should now testify to challenge the prosecution’s case.

EIB Network Legal Correspondent Murtala Inusah reports that the previous motion, filed by notice on April 22, 2024, was withdrawn and struck out by the court.

The case has been adjourned until May 13, when Asiedu will begin his defense against the charges.