Final Submission of ACP Kofi Boakye's Counsel To Wood Committee

The Georgina Wood C’ttee on Narcotics

C/o Ministry of Interior Accra.

Attn: Justice Georgina Wood (Mrs.), Chairperson

Dear Madam,

RE: ACP KOFI BOAKYE – FINAL SUBMISSION

We act for ACP Kofi Boakye. We wish to present hereinbelow, our final submissions on the evidence before the Committee in respect of our client. We do so, fully aware of the fact that the Committee has ended its hearings.

Written Statement Our client submitted a written statement dated July 6, 2006 to the Committee. In the said statement, our client stated that he had information that Alhaji Issah Abbas had gone into MV Benjamin “with some policemen from headquarters to remove 77 parcels…” The said statement explained that he confronted the said Alhaji Issah who denied the allegation but stated that it was rather Kwabena Amaning, a.k.a. Taagor who was peddling information that Issah and ACP Kofi Boakye had used his outfit at the Police Headquarters and undertaken the operation. Our client further stated that he tried to get to Taagor through Alhaji Issah’s phone but Taagor switched off. Instructively, our client’s statement furthers avers that he instructed the Panthers Unit to arrest Taagor at his residence but he run away to Kumasi. It was in Kumasi that Taagor made contact with Alhaji Moro and other influential personalities in Kumasi to intervene on his behalf. Taagor reported to the Police Headquarters days later and gave a conflicting statement. Our client’s statement further avers that due to the compact nature of his office on the third floor of the Police Headquarters building, his superiors were duly informed and the meeting held in his residence. Our client further states that after the meeting, he again informed his superiors. Our client further made additions to the type-written statement in pen to the effect that Taagor’s real name was Kwabena Amaning and that Kwadwo Nsumankwaa should be arrested as he had a lot of information.

A Tape? What tape? We acknowledge receipt from the Committee, a tape recording of the meeting that was convened by our client to secure information on the missing cocaine. For ease of reference, we will refer to that tape as” the Committee tape”. We have posed the question to the Committee itself where it procured the said tape from. The Committee’s response has been that it was received anonymously. We have also followed the evidence of Mr. Agyarko who testified that he had received a tape recording from Mr. Ben Ndego, which was in respect of the meeting in our client’s house. For ease of reference, we will hereinafter refer to this tape as “the Agyarko tape”. As yet the duration of that tape has not been established. As yet, it has also not been established whether it was the same tape that was handed over to Col. (Rtd.) Akuoko. Col. (Rtd.) Akuoko has also testified to the Committee that he received a tape from Mr. Ben Ndego. That tape will hereinafter be referred as “the Ndego Tape”. Strangely, Messrs Ndego and Akuoko have both testified that they listened separately to the Ndego tape for only a few minutes. The evidence led by both witnesses is to the effect that they have not as yet had the opportunity to listen to the entirety of the Ndego tape. Mr. Agyarko has also testified that he also only listened to the Agyarko tape for only about 5 minutes and made a decision that it was so critical that it had to be passed on to the President. The totality of the evidence of Messrs Ndego and Akuoko is to the effect that before the Ndego tape or a copy thereof reached Mr. Agyarko, Mr. Agyarko had been briefed about the contents and the probable implications of the conversation on the said tape. Yet, Mr. Agyarko’s testimony was that he only listened for a few minutes and tried to get the tape to the President but was unable to. He has told the Committee that he gave the tape to a trusted security operative.

Who is that operative? Did that tape get to the President and when did it get to the Head of State? In the light of the evidence of the National Security Minister(NSM) that they are in possession of a seven minute tape of inconsequential chatter, (hereinafter referred to as “the NSM tape”) can it be said that the Agyarko tape is only seven minutes? If the tape with the NSM is not the Agyarko tape or a variant thereof, then where did that tape which went to the security operative get to? Is the NSM tape the Agyarko tape? Does the President have a tape which has not been divulged to the Committee? Did the National Security receive another tape from another anonymous source? Is the Committee tape the same as the Ndego tape which is the same as the Agyarko tape which is the same as the NSM tape which may be the same tape which was to be passed on to the President? What is the nexus between the Ndego tape, Agyarko tape, the NSM tape, the President’s tape and the Committee’s tape?

Source of the Tape Fundamental questions as to the source of the tape have been left unanswered. Mr. Ndego has stated categorically to the Committee that he cannot divulge the name of the person who gave him the tape. Mr. Agyarko would not divulge which security operative he gave the Agyarko tape to and when. The Committee itself is in no mood to divulge how it came by its tape.

“The question now is who recorded the conversation and for what purpose. The obvious fact is that the meeting was scheduled to unravel the missing drugs but not for extortion so why should people arrange to record. It is clear that whoever recorded it has an interest in the missing drugs and wanted to know what I know. The key to the missing drugs is who recorded it”. (Emphasis ours)

The above is the concluding paragraph of our client’s statement dated July 6, 2006. We have also stated right from the commencement of our oral evidence before the Committee that we sincerely believe that the Committee should unravel the mystery of the source of the tape to help it unravel where the missing cocaine is. The fact-finding Committee has found as a fact that nobody has owned up as recording the said meeting. Witnesses who have critical information that may help the Committee follow the trail and secure the identity of the person or persons who taped the said meeting have also refused to make the disclosure before the Committee. We are surprised that the person or persons who undertook such an exercise, will not disclose their identities if there was no malice in their action and their objective at all times, was to help our dear nation fight the scourge of narcotics.

Credibility of the Committee Tape To the best of our knowledge and further to evidence adduced before the Committee, the Committee tape does not have an owner, yet. The fact-finding Committee has found as a fact through evidence adduced before the Committee that there is an Agyarko tape, an NSM tape, a President’s tape, an Ndego tape and the Committee tape. There are also numerous tapes of the meeting apparently ‘dropped’ at media houses in the country. We are not privy to any fact to establish that the Committee tape is the original tape of the recording of the said meeting or a copy of the original tape or indeed a copy of the copy of the original tape?

We have also contested that the Committee tape does not represent the entirety of the duration of the meeting that was convened by our client to elicit information from the named individuals. We have also shown that the Committee tape has been doctored for effect by editing out portions of the said tape. The Committee has not heard any evidence to contest our assertions. Indeed, our client has given evidence to the effect that the duration of the meeting was about one hour and thirty minutes. We have also pointed out portions of the tape that have been edited. As yet, no other person present at the said meeting has contested our assertions. None of the witnesses who have come into contact with the different versions of the tape have also led any evidence to contradict this assertion of our client.

It is our humble submission therefore that the Committee tape is so inherently flawed that its evidentiary value is at best, minimal. The ‘dropped’ tape of the Committee should therefore not be relied on as a credible piece of evidence.

Contents of “the Committee tape” We refer the Committee to the comments contained in our correspondence dated August 14, 2006 on the transcript of the Committee tape. As indicated therein, the transcript that we received cannot be deemed as an accurate reflection of the tape recording submitted to us by the Committee.

We are strongly of the opinion that a transcript of the said tape should necessarily include our comments as the draft received by the legal team was essentially flawed.

Having established that the Committee tape is inherently flawed as a piece of evidence before the Committee, we wish to submit that there is nothing on the Committee tape that suggests the commission of an offence by our client. There is also nothing on the Committee tape that suggests that our client was attempting to extort money from any of the persons present at the meeting. Indeed, on the copy of the Committee tape made available to us, our client can be clearly heard stating that he knows nothing about the matter and that he was investigating because his name had been brought into the matter. Throughout the discourse on the Committee tape, our client seeks answers to the very issues that have necessitated the establishment of the Committee.

Further, having had the opportunity of listening to the Committee tape and also perusing the transcript of the said tape, even on the presumption that the Committee tape was not as inherently flawed, we wish to request the Committee to ask this fundamental question: ‘WHAT OFFENCE HAS ACP KOFI BOAKYE COMMITTED?

If the Committee can sincerely answer that question, it should define the offence to enable the law deal with our client. This has been a very trying time for a very distinguished serving officer whose only crime was to try and save the image of his boss and the Police Service to which he had dedicated his entire life. Our client’s statement was to the effect that all he was trying to do was to elicit information from the persons on whom he had had information regarding the missing cocaine. At the time our client was holding the meeting, he was essentially, a “one-man Georgina Wood Committee”!

The Evidence before the Committee Our client has testified that he sent policemen to try and arrest Kwabena Amaning when he would not respond to the calls on Alhaji Issah’s phone to report himself. If he was minded to do a deal with drug barons, why would he send a police contingent to effect Kwabena Amaning’s arrest? The said Kwabena Amaning fled to Kumasi where he sought the assistance of very influential personalities to intervene on his behalf. We have also testified that we saw the said Kwabena Amaning in the company of a Secretary at the Manhyia Palace in the secretariat of the IGP at the Police Headquarters. That evidence has also not been controverted at the Committee. Indeed, the evidence of Kwabena Amaning and Alhaji Abbas, including his comments on the Committee tape, indicate that the said Amaning and the said Secretary were at Alhaji Abbas’ house in Tema on a certain mission. It is our considered opinion that the Secretary at the Manhyia Palace, if afforded the opportunity, would have corroborated our evidence. The Committee’s hearings have ended, yet till date, the Secretary has not been summoned before the Committee either to controvert the evidence adduced or to corroborate same.

Further, we have testified that Alhaji Moro was at the said meeting on Taagor’s behalf. Alhaji Moro’s evidence was that when he called our client from Kumasi, our client informed him that the matter was too serious to be discussed on phone so he should come to Accra. Alhaji Moro further testified that ACP Kofi Boakye told him on arrival in Accra that before the issues will be discussed, his superiors ought to be informed “before we sit on the matter”. According to Alhaji Moro’s testimony, he went with our client into the office of Mr. Adu-Gyimah and our client told Mr. Adu-Gyimah about the meeting. Alhaji Moro stated that “ACP mentioned Abass too, so I pleaded that the matter be dealt with in the house”. Yet, the evidence of the IGP on oath was that he did not have a clue about these events until after he received a call in June 2006 from our client who was in Germany at the time. The Committee has till date, not called Mr. Adu-Gyimah to establish this fact.

Kwabena Amaning also testified that he picked Alhaji Moro up at TV3 and brought him to the meeting. This sharply contrasts with the evidence of Kwabena Acheampong who was on the evidence of the self-same Kwabena Amaning, supposed to be riding in the same car as himself and Moro to the meeting. Kwabena Acheampong testified that when they arrived at the meeting, Moro was already there. Alhaji Moro himself has also testified to the Committee that Kwabena Amaning came to plead with him to intervene on his behalf with the Asantehene but upon hearing his case, he, Moro, unilaterally decided that it will be suicidal to bring such a matter to the attention of the Otumfuo as the Asantehene would have caused their arrest immediately. Alhaji Moro further testified that this was the reason why he personally intervened in the matter. This evidence contrasts sharply with the evidence of Kwabena Amaning who virtually disowned Alhaji Moro in respect of most of the evidence he had given. Alhaji Moro’s evidence also contradicts Taagor’s in respect of how he got to the meeting in the first place.

Till date, the Committee has not been able to allow these individuals who have given conflicting testimonies to cross-examine themselves to ascertain the facts. As a fact-finding Committee, incapacitated by its own inability to facilitate a process that will help it elicit facts, we find it difficult to appreciate that the Committee has ability to make a clear determination on the facts pertaining to the evidence adduced by these individuals who were present at the said meeting, particularly in respect of matters that concern our client and which necessitated our presence at the Committee.

THE IGP’s Evidence Our client had testified that he had informed his superiors about the meeting. He further testified that he also reported the outcome of the meeting to his superiors, the National Security Minister and the Minister of Interior. The National Security Minister has testified to the Committee that he was indeed informed by our client after the meeting.

Was the IGP informed or not? Was he aware of the meeting and the antecedents to the said meeting?

The IGP testified on August 14, 2006 that the first time he heard about the meeting was somewhere in June 2006, when our client was in Germany for the World Cup. He further stated that he was not informed by our client either before or after the said meeting. What might possibly make the IGP make such a statement, especially in view of the fact that the Committee tape itself has our client stating “ I WANT TO ALWAYS PROTECT THE IGP”?(Emphasis ours).

It is instructive to note from the evidence of the IGP on the said date that he referred to Alhaji Issah as “Issa” but to Kwabena Amaning as “one Taagor”. This immediately suggests that the IGP has no knowledge whatsoever of the said Taagor. The IGP however in his evidence-in-chief accepted that he was informed about 5-6 days after he returned from the Western Region, some time after the World Cup. Indeed he categorically stated that our client also informed him that he had reported the matter to the NSM and the Minister for the Interior for investigation.

Would a man who is in league with suspected cocaine dealers go to such lengths apparently to incriminate himself?

The IGP on August 14, 2006 was asked some pointed questions by the Committee as follows:

Q. Are you saying that no one warned you about Issa’s dubious character? A. Nobody Q. ACP Boakye never warned you about his dubious character? A. No. Q. Do you know that Issah has had a brush with the law? A. I am not aware. (Emphasis ours)

It is instructive to note that we were not present at the IGP’s evidence-in- chief on August 14, 2006.

The above evidence, which came out on August 14, 2006 should be contrasted with the evidence of the same IGP under cross-examination on August 15, 2006:

Q. I told you that some of the people around you like Issah and Joe Donkor are people of questionable character who have the potential of bringing your name and the name of the Police into disrepute. Yes, you told me I promised you I would arrest any of them caught in any criminal deals, just to prove to you what they can do. I told you I have cut them off since the earlier warning and that you may go ahead and arrest them if you find them in any criminal activities. (Emphasis ours).

You will recall that our client had testified that a certain Joe Donkor and the same Alhaji Issah Abbas had used the name of the IGP to dupe someone of two million dollars in a ‘419’ deal out of which one hundred thousand dollars had been given to the IGP as “security money”. The IGP admitted that our client told him about the information he had gathered but did not admit in his evidence to receiving any such money from the said Joe Donkor and Alhaji Issah’s fraudulent activities. Our client further testified that barely a week later, he had information that the same Alhaji Issah had gone on the boat with policemen to raid the ship. He also informed the IGP about this. The IGP denied on oath that he had been told by our client about his information on the activities of the bosom pal of the highest police officer of our dear country. Our client further testified that he had cause to arrest Taagor over an assault matter and he also reported this to the IGP. This assertion was admitted by the IGP.

The big question that must be answered by the Committee is why the IGP would deny only the assertion that he was fully informed about the allegations of Alhaji Issah’s involvement in the missing cocaine?

The IGP further admitted that our client had put up a notice on his office that no mobile phones were to be allowed into his office prior to his departure to Germany. The evidence was to the effect that even the IGP commended him for that action and recommended that other top personnel of the Police emulate our client’s example. Our client testified that he had informed the IGP that he only did that because he had heard that the meeting he held in his house had been recorded and that all senior police officers ought to exercise caution in the course of their duties. The IGP testified that he was duly informed but it was only in respect of a taping by a lady who came to our client’s office and not due to the meeting held in our client’s house. Till date, no lady has come out with any recording in our client’s office, neither has any media house published any such recording neither has a copy thereof been “dropped” either at the Committee, with the IGP himself, Messrs. Ndego, Akuoko, Agyarko or even a trusted, faceless security operative for onward dispatch to the President of the Republic. The credibility of the evidence by the IGP would have to be determined by the Committee itself.

We wish to submit that as the Director-General of Operations of Ghana Police, ACP Kofi Boakye had a duty to determine who had undertaken that operation especially when he did not have any knowledge of it and policemen had been mentioned. His evidence also clearly laid the antecedents to the said meeting. He was partly motivated by his declared intention to ensure that people close to his boss, the top Police Capo in Ghana, would not engage in crimes either using the name of the IGP or smear him by virtue of their links to him and thus affect the entire Police Service. “At the moment, with my position, I want to always protect the IGP. The truth will surely come out. You know that in spite of our differences in the past, even when I’m angry with him I call you (referring to Alhaji Issah Abbas) and I call him”. If the Director of Police Operations has to speak to Alhaji Issah Abbas in respect of matters affecting his work in order to make his work place environmentally-friendly, Alhaji Issah Abbas cannot be made to look like an acquaintance as the IGP would have the Committee believe. It is in the light of the 419 incident involving the same individual, the information on the MV Benjamin involving the same individual and the mention of Taagor in the matter that informed the meeting that was held in our client’s house. There was therefore nothing secret about that meeting as our evidence and that of Alhaji Moro attests to. On the Committee tape, one can clearly hear workmen at work in the house. Our client has also testified that the meeting was held in the open, which has been corroborated by the other witnesses.

Prior Permission Necessary? The IGP himself testified that ACP Kofi Boakye did not need his permission to hold the said meeting. It is uncontested evidence that the IGP was informed after the meeting. It is also in evidence that the NSM was informed after the meeting. It has not been contested that the Minister of Interior was informed after the meeting. In cross-examination, the relevant evidence was as follows:

Q: You know as a fact that as Director General of Police, I could have met them first before reporting to you. A: Yes, there is nothing wrong if as Director, you hear something and carry out a preliminary investigation and inform me later…

Q: You agree I do not need to bring your name in for cover

A: You do not need my permission to investigate certain aspects of certain cases. You do not necessarily have to investigate aspects of the case in your office.

BY COMMITTEE: Q: In other words, he could investigate outside his office? A: Yes, that is so.

Why would the IGP deny that he was informed before the meeting?

The IGP testified that the first time he knew of the meeting was when our client called him from Germany in June 2006. However under cross-examination, he admitted that Alhaji Issah had told him about the meeting before our client called him from Germany. Indeed, the fact of the IGP’s meeting with Issah was also elicited under cross-examination as the IGP sought to portray that he had not seen or met Alhaji Issah since he was warned by our client to stay off him. However, under cross-examination, the IGP admitted that he met Alhaji Issah at the Spintex Mobil. The IGP sought to explain this inconsistency by saying it was a chance meeting. If the meeting at the Spintex Road Mobil Station between the two bosom friends, living as wide apart as Cantonments and Tema was coincidental, why did it have to be elicited under fierce cross-examination and was not proffered by the IGP and especially when it did contradict his earlier evidence?

The lack of credibility of the IGP’s testimony is also evident from the following:

Q: I put it to you that it is incorrect that the first time you heard about the tape is when I rang you from Germany. I came to tell you in your office that I had been taped by NACOB in connection with the meeting I had in my house with Taagor, Issah and myself over the raid of the ship carrying cocaine. A: No, this is not true. Q: It was because of this taping that you accepted my suggestion that mobile phones should not be carried into offices. A: I disagree Q: There is no lady or man who has come into my office to tape me and that is the basis upon which I make the suggestion. A: I do not know about Taagor or Issah having taped you at any meeting in your house. Q: You remember you informed me you had met Issah who told you Taagor recorded me A: I met Issah at the Mobil Station on the Spintex Road. At the time, ACP was in Germany and Issah came and said” Master, we had some small meeting and Kofi says someone has recorded the meeting and he called me from Germany and accused me of the recording”. Issah denied that he did, but never said it was Taagor who did the recording.

The heat of cross-examination had let the cat out of the bag! It was at this juncture that the IGP was asked pointedly as follows:

Q: So you knew of the tape before I called you from Germany. A. Yes, Issah told me they have had a small meeting and someone had recorded them. At the time, I had no conversation with ACP Boakye.

Later in the same cross-examination, the Committee itself asked the IGP the following: Q: Are you sure you did not authorize ACP to investigate the allegation of police raid? A: No, I did not authorize him to carry out the investigations. Q: Did he report the result to you? A: No, he did not. Q: ACP reported Issah’s fraudulent 419 activities? A: Yes. (Emphasis ours).

This was the evidence of a man who had under the heat of the cross-examination, obviously forgotten his earlier testimony to this effect:

“At the time, I also did not know about the meeting. ACP did not at any time even when he spoke to me on the phone, tell me about the details or the contents of that meeting. When he returned from Germany I did not see him until I left for the Western Region. On my return after about 5-6 days, ACP reported to me that the discussions he had with the people at the meeting was only for about 5-10 minutes and that he had realized that what they were talking about was the NACOBOD case. He also told me that he had reported the matter to the Minister for Interior and the Minister for National Security for investigation”.

Further evidence adduced at the Committee in respect of the Grace Asibi case shows that the IGP, though he averred on oath in his evidence-in-chief that he did not know Grace Asibi, admitted under cross-examination by Asibi’s Counsel that Asibi and another man came to his residence to discuss a pending cocaine investigation. The IGP is still at post! Apparently there is nothing wrong with holding meetings in your residence to discuss pending Police cases. How does that reconcile with the same man authorizing a colleague senior officer to proceed on leave in respect of matters that he himself has testified as not against any code of conduct of the Ghana Police?

In the light of the foregoing, It is our submission that the IGP’s evidence cannot be taken as credible by the Committee. It has been established by the evidence adduced before the Committee that the IGP was fully aware of the antecedents to the meeting and the meeting itself. The totality of the evidence of the IGP should be looked at in determining which witness is credible.

It is also clear from the evidence that even in the unlikely assumption that the IGP was not informed before the meeting, he has categorically stated that no such permission was necessary. The fact of the meeting therefore does not breach any code of the Police Service or constitute any offence.

The Evidence? Mind The Gaps

Alhaji Issah testified that he knew the IGP very well. The IGP’s evidence sought to show that he did not know him that intimately and that he had cut him off after our client’s admonishing. Issah has also testified to the Committee that the IGP stayed in his London residence. This conflicting evidence has not been resolved between the two parties through cross-examination. What fact does the Committee glean from this?

Our client testified that he saw a Secretary at the Manhyia Palace and Taagor at the IGP’s Secretariat at the Police Headquarters on a specified date. The IGP denies that he knows Taagor. The IGP also denies that he ever met them in his office. As noted earlier, the said Secretary was never called to establish whether he has been to the IGP’s office with Taagor and on what date and for what purpose. Taagor himself has not been cross-examined in respect of these matters neither have the concerned parties been made to cross-examine themselves on the subject.

Our client testified that Alhaji Issah had impounded a police car to his house because he claimed the Police owed him. The IGP testified that he knew nothing about it. The true fact was never established.

The IGP further stated on oath that he does not know that Issah had a brush with the law. That fact can only be established if Issah’s records are ascertained to establish if he has indeed had a brush with the law and when. We are reliably informed that prior to his appearance before the Committee, Alhaji Issah had been detained by the BNI for five days before being granted bail. We know. The IGP doesn’t?

We also wish to strongly reiterate our formal comments dated August 14, 2006 on the transcript of the Committee tape. We have pointed out that aspects of the transcript ascribe statements not made by our client to him. We have also pointed that in certain portions where even his voice was audible, it was not captured in the transcript submitted to us for comments. We have further pointed portions where he has been completely misquoted. We have also pointed out the selected portions on the ‘dropped’ Committee tape had been edited out. We have also pointed out defined areas in the said transcript where the context of statements not even made by our client was transcribed to imply possible wrongdoing by ACP Kofi Boakye. We therefore strongly stand by our comments in our letter dated August 14, 2006 in respect of the transcript. We have categorically stated and we hereby reiterate that the transcript we received cannot be deemed as an accurate reflection of the contents of the Committee tape.

Alhaji Abbas categorically states on the Committee tape that “Ben is my brother”. This was a statement made in 2006. The Committee has made no effort to determine whether the “Ben” Alhaji Issah mentions on the tape is the same Mr. Ben Ndego who appeared before the Committee. Now that the hearings have closed, how can that fact be established? We are of the considered opinion that the Committee should have established whether the reference is to Mr. Ben Ndego. If Alhaji Issah’s “Ben” is the same Mr. Ben Ndego, we find it mildly interesting that whilst Alhaji Issah claims the other as a brother in 2006, Mr. Ndego testified that he had not laid eyes on a dear brother since 1998, though they are all resident in Ghana and indeed live in Accra and Tema. We are disturbed that in view of the comments made by Alhaji Issah on the Committee tape which showed that he was privy to national security information, the Committee should have found it prudent to take steps to elicit the necessary information from either Mr. Ndego or Alhaji Issah Abbas. How did Alhaji Issah Abbas get all the information he stated on the flawed Committee tape?

The Man ACP Kofi Boakye and the Issues Our client is the Director General of the Ghana Police Service. His brief includes gathering information, analysis and passing this on to the appropriate authorities. In gathering information, his mode of operation involves cooperation, collaboration, promise, intimidation, arm twisting, accommodation, coaxing, coercing and at worse feigning direct interest.

Our instructions are that in this particular instance, as he always did even at the peak of the armed robbery incidents, he called those whose names came to his notice individually i.e. (Issah and Tagor) and they gave conflicting reports as to the whereabouts of the missing cocaine and why our client’s name as the Director General of Operations should come into the matter at all. Secondly when he called Targor to his office, he was very evasive. Our client therefore decided to relax the atmosphere for him in order to get the maximum information. In all this, Alhaji Issah was supposed to be helping the police to get the truth from Taagor. It is important to point out to the Committee that the information that our client released at the meeting was the information he gathered when he met them individually.

It is also clear from our client’s statement to the Committee that he was first trying to absolve the Police from any involvement and at the same time gather enough information for the National Security as to the mystery surrounding the missing cocaine.

We wish to place on record that our client informed the IGP before and after the meeting and the cross-examination of the IGP clearly shows that the IGP was economical with the truth as to when he was informed. We further wish to place on record that having had the opportunity of participating in the cross-examination of the IGP and from the totality of his evidence under cross-examination, it is our submission that the IGP was not truthful under oath. As already pointed out, the Committee asked him whether our client had advised him against his association with Issah but he denied with a categorical NO. Under cross examination however, he admitted that due to ACP Kofi Boakye’s advice, he severed links with Issah.

Further, the evidence from the cross-examination was clearly that the IGP was aware that our client had told him that because of the way Issah and Tagor were misusing his name, he was going to arrest them. Indeed, the evidence is that our client arrested Tagor on a threatening case on the 28/4/06 and informed the IGP on 28/5/06 at the Police Depot and he even asked our client to send Taagor to court. From the totality of the evidence, it is highly inconceivable that our client could have informed the IGP about the arrest but will refuse to tell him about the meeting.

We wish to reiterate that the source of the recording of the meeting could be a vital link between the missing cocaine and those who hijacked it. Our client still stands by that assertion.

We further wish to emphasise that as somebody who has been the Commander of the Striking Force Commander, Accra Regional and Director General, Operations, our client has vast information on suspected drug dealers, armed robbers and other persons involved in organized crime in the country and he uses all that he knows to get the information he needs to adequately perform his functions as such. The evidence before the Committee clearly shows that our client at no point did ask for money or drug from those he met.

We wish to point out to the Committee that the cases mentioned on the “Committee tape” such as the 2 million dollar Joe Donkoh case and the arrest of Yaw Billa were not connected to drugs at all, as stated on the tape. The Joe Donkoh case, for example, was one involving alleged fraud, as reflected in IGP’s cross-examination. The reference to the arrest of the Venezuelan lady was also done by the Togolese authorities. Our client read this matter in the Ghanaian Times sometime last year. All those statements were made for effect, to help elicit the information sought. This was the same modus operandi employed to such stunning effect in the arrest of the top armed robbers in the country. Whether our client has arrested any drug dealer or not during his term at Accra Regional and Striking Force will be borne out by the actual records. That, respectfully, will be an act of fact-finding! A check of the records of our client clearly shows that he busted a lot of drug dealers during the said period. In a meeting such as he had convened, it was important to state those untruths for the benefit of the people at the meeting to enable them offer the information he needed, information which was duly passed on to the IGP and the other relevant security chiefs. Further more, our client could not have the information he needed by threatening the people with arrest. To the best of his knowledge and ability, feigning interest and convincing them that he had enough knowledge about the issues could enable them give him more information and this he achieved.

At the peak of the armed robbery in Accra, our client had numerous meetings with ex-convicts and even people whom he suspected to be armed robbers and through their instrumentality and with critical information from them, the Police were able to crack all the known gangsters. Our client still holds the professional opinion that except high level infiltration, all the security agencies can do with the mundane activities is to arrest the addicts and leave the barons.

We dare say that there must be an admission that there was a systemic failure of the security system regarding the operations to arrest and recover the missing cocaine rather than trying to make a scapegoat of what our client has been doing all his ‘police life’ to arrest criminals. Our client is of the considered opinion that the conventional methods of policing crime has outlived its’ usefulness and it is high time the nation put cynicism aside and developed modern methods of crime fighting. Ghanaians should not frustrate the security agencies and doubt their integrity because some drug barons and politically motivated interests want to destroy them.

Our client wishes to assure the Committee that he is ready at all times to assist either directly or indirectly in the fight against drugs in the country since in his estimation and knowledge, what is happening is just the tip of the iceberg and the earlier all security agencies work together devoid of blackmail, jealousy, betrayal, back-stabbing etc, to save the country from this menace the better.

It must also be stated that apart from the misrepresentation made by the IGP, our client’s written statement and his evidence is corroborated even by a flawed piece of evidence as the Committee tape.

Conclusion Finally, we wish to submit that: 1. ACP Kofi Boakye was only doing his job as Director-General, Operations, Ghana Police Service in convening the meeting to elicit information from Alhaji Issah Abbas and Taagor.

2. The source of the Committee tape still remains a mystery.

3. The source of the Ndego tape still remains a mystery.

4. The Committee tape cannot be deemed as a true representation of the said meeting.

5. The evidence of our client is corroborated by even the flawed Committee tape and the evidence adduced before the Committee.

6. The information received by ACP Kofi Boakye at the said meeting has been duly passed on to the relevant security operatives.

7. It is still unclear whether the Committee tape is the original recording or a copy of the original recording or a copy of a copy of the original recording.

8. The Committee has been unable to establish any nexus between the Ndego tape, Agyarko tape, NSM tape, media tapes and the Committee tape.

9. Mr. Ndego knows who gave him the tape but has refused to divulge same to the Committee and the Committee blinked first.

10. Mr. Agyarko knows the name of the trusted security operative who received the Agyarko tape from him but has refused to divulge same to the Committee. Again, the Committee blinked first.

11. The issues raised in our letter dated August 22, 2006 as a public duty remain largely unanswered by the Committee.

12. The IGP’s testimony in respect of the matters concerning our client is not credible as he lied under oath and/or at best was economical with the truth in his testimony.

13. The evidence of our client has been consistent and corroborated by other witnesses before the Committee.

14. Certain facts cannot be established by the Committee by its failure to either call relevant witnesses or recall witnesses so that conflicting pieces of evidence could be resolved by the Committee.

15. In respect of the mandate of the Committee to help unravel the mystery of the missing 77 parcels of cocaine, it has been established beyond doubt by the evidence adduced before the Committee that the name of ACP Kofi Boakye and that of the unit he commands cannot by any stretch of the imagination be associated therewith.

16. In respect of the mandate to advise the government on the menace that narcotics pose to the Ghanaian society, our client has offered useful advice to the Committee in addition to demonstrating through his work as a police officer, his ability and willingness at all times, to tackle the menace. This trait is what has caused him so much pain as a result of this process.

In the light of the foregoing, we expect the Committee to make findings of fact which must necessarily be based on the evidence adduced before it and available to it. Having been part of the process particularly as they relate to our client, we make bold to state categorically that the entire nation has been taken on a wild goose chase after a very convenient red herring called ACP Kofi Boakye. In building our nation, we are of the considered opinion that all efforts be made to protect and defend the integrity and reputation of personalities who have dedicated their lives to public service rather than the treatment our client has received in the wake of his appearance at the Committee.

A fact-finding Committee must necessarily find the facts. The evidence before the Committee clearly shows that our client has no hand in either the missing cocaine nor has he engaged in any unprofessional conduct in the course of his functions as Director-General, Operations of the Ghana Police Service. Any contrary finding cannot be based on the facts. We hope we have played our part in helping you arrive at the facts.

“Where law ends, tyranny begins” – William Pitt.

Submitted,

1stLaw, Accra

http://www.osimidiaries.blogspot.com/