Gregory Afoko and Adams Mahama
Detective Chief inspector Augustus Nkrumah has told an Accra High Court, hearing the case of Gregory Afoko that he did not have time to interview medical personnel at the Bolgatanga Hospital on claims that the deceased mentioned specific names of persons alleged to have poured acid on him prior to his death.
According to him, after the receipt of the information, the Bolgatanga police assisted his team in contacting some of the witnesses who told investigators the deceased actually mentioned the accused and Asebke as the masterminds of the act.
Asked by the Defense Council exactly where the deceased allegedly mentioned the name of the accused and Asebke, he responded, “Yes, he mentioned their names whilst seated in the car to the wife and other witnesses at the hospital"
When questioned further if he took time to interview medical personnel to verify what had been told him, Chief Inspector Augustus Nkrumah who is the 14 Prosecution Witness stated “No, we did not have time. I now say we did not talk to” them.
The trial judge was amazed at the statement and asked him again but he changed the statement to he didn’t talk to the nurses. But the court recorded both statements
Read the full text of the cross-examination below
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENCE COUNSEL – chief inspector Augustus Nkrumah (PW14)
Q: you told the court yesterday that you took a tracksuit from the room of the accused when you went to search there.
A: Yes, that was the description we gave to the exhibits we took from the accused room
Q: this exhibit P had some burns on the lower part is that not so?
A: Yes
Q: you examined the body of the accused when he was in custody
A: Yes
Q: you found out some scars as a result of burns on his body particularly his legs
A: There were some scars but I don’t know what caused those scars
Q: on the 25/5/15 the accused was in custody in Accra
A: Yes
Q: you sent the accused to Korle Bu Teaching hospital for an examination of all the scars on his body
A: the accused was sent to Korle-Bu Teaching hospital for examination of all the scars on his body
Q: Did the doctors who examined the accused indicated in their report that the wounds were not as a result of acid burns
A: the doctors gave a general view of the wounds but not specific view of what caused it
Q: Do u have a copy of the medical report by the doctors
A: Yes I should have unless I check the records
Q: can u produce the report at the next adjourned date
A: I will go through my records and see
By court: case is adjourned to 17th, 22nd and 23rd October, for further cross examination of PW14.
Further cross examination of Pw14 Chief inspector Augustus Nkrumah by defence counsel
Pw14 reminded of his former oath
Q: At the last adjourned date we requested you to Bryan medical report
A: Yes
Q: Do u have the medical report here?
A: Yes
Q: we see to tender the medical report through Pw14
PROSECUTION: I object to it. The medical examination of the accused person was done by a medical officer. The same medical officer issued the medical report and signed as Doctor Albert Paintsil. The document is an expert report which contents are very technical. It will take only the medical officer who issued the report to tender same and answer questions there on. Pw14 is an ordinary witness who has no knowledge in medicine, more so he is not the author of the report. The witness will not be competent to tender the report and answer questions there on.
REJECTION BY THE DEFENSE; issues of tendering of a document relates solely to admissibility. If u look on the document it is a request by the Homicide unit , Accra directing d medical officer to examine n report the accused person and the police a report. The document is the report of the medical officer sent to the police. The witness earlier on u Dee cross examination had admitted that the report. The report is from prosper custody so it is admissible
BY COURT: the fact that the medical report on the accused person was at the request of the Homicide unit of the police does not change the equation that this is a medical report and specialist in nature. The witness is not the author of the document and is incompetent to answer questions on it. It will be better if the document is tendered through its author from the Korle Bu Reconstructive plastic surgery and burns Centre
The document is marked as R1
Q: when you got to the mortuary you had the opportunity to examine the whole body of the deceased
A: Yes
Q:Did you observe any burns on the body of the deceased?
A: Yes, I saw some burns on the face and the upper part of the body
Q: but you will agree with me that there were no burns on his feet
A: that one I did not observe
Q: look at the portion on exhibits H1 sub- headed Marks of violence. Can u read that portion for us?
A: Yes. (Witness reads the statement of the court and the jury)
Q: The pathologist who prepared exhibit H1 PW13 did not include both feet as having suffered burns
A: Yes it is not stated here
Q: You tendered in evidence shoes belonging to the deceased which you claim were soaked with sulfuric acid is that not so?
A: Yes
Q: and you claim that those were the shoes that were worn by the deceased at the time that the acid was allegedly poured on him.
A: that was what I was told by the Bolgatanga police team that handed over the exhibits to me
Q: I am putting it to u that those shoes do not belong to the deceased
A: I was told that the shoes that the deceased worn on that fateful day
Q: Those shoes how did the police get them?
A: I was told they were handed over to them by PW1
Q: was it possible for you to have conducted a forensic test to ascertain whether they were the shoes of the deceased
A: No
Q: You tendered in evidence exhibits K which is the carpet of the deceased vehicle
A: Yes
Q: you took exhibits k from the front passenger side of the vehicle
A: that is not so
Q: from which part of the vehicle did u find the voltic bottle exhibit O
A: it was at the passenger side
Q: it was only the Driver’s seat of the vehicle that had demand thereon, is that not so?
A: Yes. The seat was soaked with acid
Q: was the front passenger seat also soaked with acid when u got there?
A: There were splashes of liquid substance
Q: when you got there the vehicle was parked and the hand break had been pulled up
A: I did not see that
Q: when did you take pictures of the vehicle?
A: when we visited the scene from the mortuary
Q: around what time
A: it should be after 6:00pm
Q: so will I be right to say it was in the dark
A: visibility was clear
Q: you interrogated PW1 before the pictures were taken by the police
A: Yes
Q: for how many minutes or hours did u interrogate PW1
A: I cannot tell
Q: look at exhibits A, A1 and A2, photographs
A: Yes
Q: you will agree with me that you were never at Bolgatanga on the 20th may, 2015
A: Yes
Q: look at the back of each of exhibit A, A1, and A2
A: Yes. I have looked at them
Q: they state that you authorized Pw9 to take those pictures on the 20th may, 2015 is that not so?
A: that is so. The date should have read 21st may, 2015 and not 20th
Q: Do you then admit that there was a mistake on the part of the investigation team.
A: That is not so
Q: you know one Musah who was initially charged with the accused in the lower court for this alleged offence.
A: I got to know him when the case was referred to me.
Q: when the case was referred to you the police told you that there was information that Musah on the 19th of may, 2015 had gone around Bolgatanga seeking to buy acid
A: Yes the police said they had that information that was why he was picked.
Q: that information turned out to b false after ur investigation
A: Yes
Q: you said in your evidence that PW1 told you that the deceased allegedly mentioned the name of the accused and Asebke as the person who poured the substance on him. Do you still stand by that?
A: that is so.
Q: Did you carry out any other investigation independent of what PW1 told you
A: No, we investigated what was reported to us
Q: can you tell us the investigations you conducted in to that allegation?
A: Yes, after the receipt of the information the Bolgatanga police assisted us in contacting some of the wind it was confirmed by some of the witnesses that the deceased actually mentioned the accused and Asebke. To be sure of the substance that was poured on the deceased the exhibits collected was also sent for forensic analysis
Q: Did you find out where in particular the deceased allegedly mentioned the name of the accused and Asebke
A: Yes, he mentioned their names whilst seated in the car to the wife and other witnesses at the hospital?
Q: Did you interview the medical personnel on duty at that time on this information?
A: No, We did not have TIME. I now say we did not talk to them.
The case was adjourned to 22nd and 23rd November, 2018 for continuation.
