As Christ's accusers were identifiable, we demand to know that of NDC Chair, Boahen - Lawyer

Lawyer Godwin Edudzi Tamakloe, a member of the legal team for embattled National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Samuel Ofosu Ampofo and Deputy Communication Officer Kwaku Boahen, who have been incriminated in a purported criminal leaked tape, is demanding for the identity of his client's accusers.

According to him, just as Jesus Christ knew his accusers to be Pharisees, it is imperative that in cases of such nature, the identity of those who have implicated the two accused persons is disclosed, since the foundation of the Ghana's criminal law is Judeo-christian.

“The point is that even in the Bible, Jesus knew his accusers that they were Jews and so in the case of Samuel Ofosu Ampofo and Kwaku Boahen, we want to know the accusers . . . I always make this point that the foundation of our criminal law is Judeo-christian belief. It is the belief of Christianity which formulated the bulk of our criminal legislation,” he argued.

Speaking on Okay FM’s Ade Akye Abia Morning Show, Lawyer Edudzi Tamakloe admitted that even though the case is between the republic and Samuel Ofosu Ampofo and Kwaku Boahen, it is also fair to know the actual accusers since it is clear the "so-called evidence" leading up to the decision to charge the two NDC activists that the state is relying on, did not just materialize out of thin air.

“As it is a criminal matter, obviously it will be the republic verses Samuel Ofosu Ampofo and Kwaku Boahen but the republic did not walk to sniff for cases; it was someone who put the case before the republic that someone has committed a crime and so criminal charges should be made against him. There must be a face to the charge for a complainant and so that is what we are seeking now,” he demanded.

He explained that “there is no indication as to who the complainant is. The first letter which invited us by the police stated that they have intercepted audio recording on social media and so they are investigating the audio recording but in terms of charges, they brought issues about threat to cause harm, so legitimately it means that it is someone that our client intended to cause harm to. It raises a lot of issues. Is it the person who came to complain to you or the police decided to conduct investigation into the audio recording on social media? We just want to know”.

Whiles admitting that the defence team has been furnished with details of witnesses the prosecution intends calling on to solidify their case, they still want the identity of the complainant.

“We have put this small motion before the court to give order to the prosecution to give us that diary of action so that at least, at the end we will know who the complainant is in this matter is . . . We cannot say that someone has stolen without knowing from whom; the victim should be the complainant in this case,” he stated.