Toffee Cocaine Woman Freed

There was spontaneous applause and shouts of joy in an Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday when Justice Marful Sau, an Appeals Court Judge with additional responsibility, acquitted and discharged Augustina Abu, a businesswoman accused of importing 61 slabs of cocaine in a confectionary container.

Even before the judge could finish reading his verdict, some relatives of the woman had burst into uncontrollable tears, when it became clear which way the judgement was going.

Giving reasons for his verdict, the trial Judge said the prosecution had failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the businesswoman was indeed the one who imported the cocaine or had knowledge of the drug before its arrival on May 15, 2009.

He said throughout the trial, one thing which was not in dispute was the fact that the accused person had never traveled to Ecuador but had been ordering the goods, which were chewing gums, through the internet and paid the confectionary company, Confettica, through either Barclays Bank or Standard Chartered.

According to him, the prosecution witness, who came from Mearsk, shipper of the container, admitted that the container was tampered with, as the original seal from Ecuador was broken while additional seals were put onto the container.

He said it was also revealed that after the seal was broken, the cocaine was put on top of the confectionary and said that action was absurd because if indeed the accused person was the one who ordered the drug, then it may have been as well concealed in the confectionary but not on top of it where it could be easily detected.

In addition, he noted that the witness from Mearsk also admitted that once goods leave a country of origin, the importer or consignee has no control over them and observed that the vessel did not come directly from its country of origin but passed through Panama before its arrival.

Explaining further, the judge noted that the first charge of engaging in criminal conspiracy with others who are unknown and out of jurisdiction, could not hold, because the woman did not travel to Ecuador and that the prosecution had not been able to prove which persons she was alleged to have conspired with to import the substance.

Justice Sau said the business woman, who has been importing gum for about twenty five years, was not present when the goods were being loaded onto the vessel for her to have conspired with others, adding that she told the court she met the gum manufacturers at a confectionary conference in Cologne, Germany.

The trial judge said as a result, the charge of conspiracy against the accused person was very speculative, since the prosecution failed to show who her alleged accomplices were and how the importer who had never been to Ecuador could be said to have conspired with someone to import cocaine.

On the evidence by Abu, he noted that she did not call any witness but maintained she only ordered for chewing gum from a company she had been dealing with for years and tendered documents in evidence.

Justice Sau said Augustina Abu had stated that what she ordered was confectionary, just like was stated on the receipts of the importation and said she did not know the rules of importation but that her agent handled the clearing for her.

He said the second charge of importing narcotic drugs without license was a charge which required the prosecution to prove that the accused person had knowledge of the substance before it arrived, but said they had failed to do so.

Justice Sau said the prosecution’s claim that the worth of the drug was about $1 million, so nobody could have taken such a risk without knowing that the drug would arrive at its destination, was fallacious because someone might have put the substance there just to cause trouble for Augustina Abu.

He said the woman was charged because she was the importer of the sweets and the prosecution assumed that once she imported the goods, she was automatically in the know but had not been able to prove that she had knowledge of it.

According to him, the evidence given by the prosecution was circumstantial but noted that he was not oblivious of the fact that circumstantial evidence could be used in some cases.

He said where inference is not properly before the court, it became mere speculation based on which he cannot convict the accused person and all the other unknown persons who were said to be at large and beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

The trial judge consequently acquitted Augustina Abu on the second charge too and ordered that the money from the sale of the said chewing gum be returned to her. The said cocaine has since been burnt.

Esiama Asampong and Paul Abariga represented the state while Addo Atuah, Adjei Lartey and Kwasi Agyeman represented Augustina Abu.