The fate of Professor Agyewodin Adu Gyamfi Ampem II, Omanhene of Achirensua, being tried for murder will be decided on Monday 13 May 2002 when the Sunyani High Court Two would sum up the addresses of the prosecution and defence counsel for the consideration of the jury.
The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie, on Friday adjourned proceedings till Monday after Mr Otu Essel Kwadwo Fordjour, a Sunyani-based lawyer and counsel for the Omanhene and Mr Betuuriseeh Cab-Bayuo, Chief State Attorney in Sunyani and the prosecutor had given their addresses.
Agyewodin Adu Gyamfi is being tried for allegedly killing one Nii Atoquaye Quansah, who was among a group of youth who, on 17 April last year allegedly attacked his residence in Achirensua in Brong Ahafo Region.
In his address, Mr. Otu Essel stated that the case was rather a chieftaincy one perpetrated by an opponent of the Omanhene and not a political issue. He said his client, by firing the gun, acted in self-defence as he (accused) was under an imminent attack by the youth, who were instigated by one Kwasi Sarpong, an ex-Benkumhene of Achirensua and a bitter opponent of the Omanhene.
Mr Otu Essel said Sarpong had threatened to destool and kill the accused on the day of the incident. Defence counsel noted that the prosecutor listed 16 witnesses but called only nine without giving any explanation as to why he did not call the rest.
Mr Otu Essel said, "prosecution decided not to call the rest because he realised that they would not tell the court what would be palatable to him (the prosecutor)." Defence counsel further noted that in the interest of fairness, prosecution had to call witnesses who would not have even been favourable to him.
He argued that the prosecutor by his decision not to call all witnesses meant "that he was rather up to conviction which is not in the interest of justice." The case of prosecution should not necessarily be for conviction but for justice, truth and fairness, he added.
Mr Otu Essel said the prosecution's argument that the Omanhene could have fled to avoid the incident would have rather proved suicidal for him, since, as evidenced by defence witnesses one and two, it was getting dark at the time whilst the youth had surrounded the house, singing and chanting war songs. Counsel stressed that, what his client said should be accepted as the "gospel truth" because the evidence available showed that he was not guilty as he only acted in self-defence.
Nana was not prejudiced against the deceased since he did not even know him, whilst the deceased was also not the chieftaincy contractor wanting to destool him, counsel said, adding, "Nana did not intentionally kill him." Mr Otu Essel maintained that the Omanhene was not well-versed in firing a gun and since gun-firing could go either way, especially in the hands of an amateur shooter, the allegation that Nana Adu Gyamfi's gun-shot killed the deceased was only an unintentional act of self-defence.
Defence Counsel said though the deceased died through harm due to gun-shot wounds, there was no evidence from the prosecution that the deceased was killed by the Omanhene. The evidence available was that it was possible that the pellets that killed the deceased were capable of coming from the accused's gun, he said.
Mr Otu Essel said, however, that that was not the standard of the law, which required such an accusation to have been exclusively stated that the pellets that killed the deceased came from the Omanhene's gun.
Defence Counsel drew the attention of the jury to the fact that some of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent in their evidence, saying, whereas some said they beat gong-gong on their way to the Omanhene's residence, others said they did not.
Mr Otu Essel noted that although it came out during investigation that one Yaw Sarfo, a member of the group (youth) was holding a gun when they attacked the Omanhene, he was not arrested for the gun to be retrieved for testing.
It is, therefore, possible that the gun that killed the deceased was not that of the Achirensuahene, counsel said and insisted that the BB shells that were found at the scene of the incident were fired with the view to killing the accused.
Mr Cab-Bayuo, replying said the accused's claim that he was attacked by the youth was not true but rather he was only apprehensive of an attack. He explained that "apprehensive of an attack" did not constitute an attack but was out of fear. The prosecutor noted that the accused was not "pushed to the wall" that necessitated his firing to kill the deceased.
There was never an attack on him and if even there was an imminent attack on him, he needed not to have fired to the point of killing, the prosecutor added. Mr Cab-Bayuo argued that the Omanhene intentionally fired to kill the deceased but not in self-defence, saying, "the general principle in law is that a man of sound mind and age is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act unless the contrary is proved."
The prosecutor reminded the jury to disabuse their minds that the case was a trial of political nature. He urged the jury not to consider the social status or standing of the accused vis-a-vis that of the deceased.
The accused's social status is not a justification that he could not have killed the deceased, he added. Mr Cab-Bayuo therefore, reminded the jury of the need to be objective in their deliberations and at least come out with a verdict of manslaughter against the accused.
