Would NDC founder Jerry Rawlings get a lie detector at the NRC as he demanded at his June 4 "public lecture? This and other matters concerning the former airman's past as the leader of two military junta's in Ghana would come up at the NRC this week.
Dr Ken Attafuah, Executive Secretary of the NRC, has said he would place a letter, dated June 6, from Mr. Jerry Rawlings before the Commission today Tuesday, June 9, 2003 for a decision to be taken on it, according to a GNA report.
He said following the evidence given by Ex-Corporal Adabuga on May 22, 2003, in which he made some allegations against Rawlings, the Commission on May 27, 2003, sent an unedited transcript of the evidence to Rawlings.
Dr Attafuah said the Commission, in accordance with its procedures, sent an invitation to the Rawlings to come to the Offices of the Commission to make a statement by June 6, 2003, based on which it might give him an opportunity to cross-examine Adabuga and for him to tell his side of the story at a public hearing.
He said instead of making a statement in compliance with the Commission's established procedures, Rawlings had instead sent a letter. Dr. Attafuah the Commission would discuss the letter and issue a statement on it today.
In another development, Dr Attafuah has denied media reports that the Commission was going to grant the Rawlings's request for a polygraph machine, (a lie detector) as a condition to his appearing before the Commission.
He said the Commission had not received any formal request to that effect from Rawlings, and if he made the request the Commission would "give it the consideration that it warrants or deserves".
He said the Commission could not act on the request made at a public lecture and carried by the media.
Dr Attafuah, who is a criminologist by training and familiar with the use of polygraphs, also pointed out that lie detectors were not foolproof and were rarely used in the criminal justice systems of most countries including Canada, the United States and United Kingdom.
"Indeed, polygraphs are not a regular feature of the trial processes in these countries, and they have been rejected by the US Supreme Court as dependable aids to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses." He explained that they are more common in movies dealing with child sexual assault cases than in real life trial situations.
