Officer at Police Forensic Lab testifies in cocaine probe

Accra, Dec.19 GNA – Mr David Adzeman Adjin, an analyst at the Police Forensic Laboratory (PFL), on Monday testified at the ongoing probe into circumstances under which a cocaine exhibit turned into sodium carbonate.

He told the committee that the substance tendered in court was not the exhibit the PLF worked.

“I am very positive that this is not the exhibit that we worked on at the forensic laboratory. This is because the substance did not have the pungent smell associated with cocaine,” he said.

The four-member committee was set up by the Chief Justice, Mrs Georgina Wood.

Mr Adjin who was led in evidence by Mr Anthony K. Kokroko, Counsel for the Ghana Police Service said on August 29, 2008 they had a request from the Police Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for the PFL to test whether a substance brought from an accused person was cocaine.

He said the substance they received from the CID was packaged in a brown envelope and concealed.

Mr Adjin said after conducting forensic test on the substance they submitted their report to the CID and also kept the sample of the cocaine substance at the laboratory.

When asked by Mr Asiamah Sampong, Counsel for Mrs Stella Arhin, the Prosecution in the case, why he did not believe that it is the same substance which was presented at the court? He said since the seals were broken we cannot say that the exhibit that was shown in court was what we examined at the forensic laboratory.

He said personnel of the PFL were positive about the work that we did and believe that the substance that they tested proved to be cocaine.

Mr Kwabla Senanu, Counsel for the accused, Nana Ama Martin stated that his reasons for calling for the resting of the cocaine exhibit was that he was not convinced that the earlier substance tendered to the court on September 27, 2011 was cocaine.

He said from his experience as a lawyer who has handled many cocaine cases the exhibit which was tendered in court “did not have the pungent smell, which normally accompanies a cocaine substance”.

Mr Senanu, who was led evidence by his Counsel Mr Nii Acquaye Bruce Thompson, made the statement when appeared before the committee.

He said he only got involved in the case from July 15, 2011 when the relatives of the accused asked for his services in relation to the matter.

He said on September 27, 2011 the original investigator who started the case Kassim Ayeh was asked by the court to come and testify in the matter.

Mr Senanu said after the substance had been tendered in evidence and had cross-examined the witnesses he prayed the court for adjournment.

He said when he went home and analysed the scenario he was not convinced that the cocaine exhibited in court was the real product.

Mr Senanu said when the case was recalled on September 28, 2011, he prayed the court that the exhibit should be retested at the Ghana Standards Board (GSB), which the court obliged.

He said after the court process while he was going down the stairs he met two Police officials who he claimed were not happy with his objection.

Mr Senanu said he overheard the personnel saying that the decision could cause a “tsunami” at the Police C.I.D department.

He said he did not understand why the Police had become apprehensive on the matter and subsequently filed for a submission of no case.

Mr Eric Kyei Baffour, the trial judge on the case, said in his testimony that when he assumed office at the court on August, 2010, his attention was drawn to many cases which had not been pursued by the Police or the Attorney General Department including that of Nana Ama Martin, the accused at the centre of the cocaine saga.

He said when he read the docket on the case he saw that the accused had been granted bail at the High Court with surety and had absconded.

Mr Baffour said what he subsequently did was to ask his clerk to look for the initial Police prosecutor who manage to find the investigator. The investigator assisted in arresting the person who stood surety for Nana Ama.

He said on September 27, the prosecution tendered an exhibit to the court, which was accepted by both parties in the trial “for what it is wealth”.

He said on September 28, the defence Counsel called for retesting of the exhibit at the GSB because he did not believe that the substance which was tendered the previous day was cocaine, which the court obliged.

He said even though the prosecution raised objection to the issue the court cited a Supreme Court ruling to back its case.