Major Mahama trial: I may sue govt for malicious prosecution – Lawyer for freed two

Read Comments Comments (3)

• Ex-Pope 1 year ago

  TWO BISMARKS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT
  
  The fact that they were acquitted doesn't necessarily mean that the authorities did not have probable cause to detain and prosecute them. There can only be maliciousness on the part of the g ...
  read full comment

  TWO BISMARKS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT
  
  The fact that they were acquitted doesn't necessarily mean that the authorities did not have probable cause to detain and prosecute them. There can only be maliciousness on the part of the government if the government had information showing that these two Bismarks had no role in the crime against the military officer but proceeded with the prosecution. Good lawyering may sometimes get some defendants acquitted at trial, but that doesn't mean that the government did not have a good reason to have them tried, no matter how long they may have been held pending trial.

  reply
• Zamata 1 year ago

  Being acquitted doesn't mean the state has no probable cause. Unless the lawyer doesn't know what malicious prosecution is. He should read the Asamoah Gyan case on malicious prosecution

  Being acquitted doesn't mean the state has no probable cause. Unless the lawyer doesn't know what malicious prosecution is. He should read the Asamoah Gyan case on malicious prosecution

  reply
• Kofi BA 1 year ago

  It's the right decision to sue government for compensation. Please, avoid fighting this in the media

  It's the right decision to sue government for compensation. Please, avoid fighting this in the media

  reply