The Tales of Nyadrola Agbedefu Ababa: On Ghana’s "Cocainocratic" Culture and the Rule of Law

Judge Anthony Abada should spare us the migraine. Perjury has become an acceptable convention in the nation’s judiciary. The likes of Justice Anthony Abada have little shame to right the wrongs that have pervaded the nation’s criminal justice system. I find the media’s recent publication on Judge Abada titled, “Judge: Court was Tricked to Grant Suspect Bail,” to be extremely depressing, especially coming from a judge. The developments we see in the nation’s judiciary are a microcosm of an enduring muck that is slowly tarnishing the reputation of the nation’s finest judges.

There are many questions that demand answers. First of all, whether Mr. Kenneth Ugah, the arraigned suspect, was a driver, or not, is inconsequential to the evidence before the court. He was arraigned before the Justice Abada's court on specific criminal charges. From the article, the accused was “arraigned, charged with conspiracy and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.” Secondly, from the little I know about criminal law, indicted suspects are brought to court not for the fun of it. They are indicted to stand trial because there is prima facie evidence against them. Why would a trained judge, then, grant bail to Mr. Kenneth Ugah knowing that it would be his last appearance in court?
According to Judge Abada, the police did not present Mr. Ugah as a “Nigerian" or an "accomplice.” What is the substantive value of the preceding in determining one’s guilt or innocence in law? Would the judge have denied the accused bail based on his nationality, and subsequently thrown him because he is a Nigerian? Is there something wrong with my “train of thought?” Judge Abada’s comment is one the many unfortunate statements that make certain citizens question the impartiality of some of our nation’s judges.
If Justice Abada claims that he “was tricked to grant suspect bail,” why would the police trick a judge to do the preceding, when by the judge’s own admission, the prosecution objected to the bail application? Where is the incentive for the police in tricking a judge to hold a suspect in protective custody? If, indeed, they (i.e. the police) wanted to collect bribe from the suspect, they would have done so at the time of the arrest, and not after the fact, when the case was before the court.
According Judge Abada, “he had to grant the bail to save a man he considered innocent.” How was Judge Abada able to make a determination on the “innocence,” of a suspected drug dealer without allowing the adversarial parties to make submissions before the court? Have our nation’s judges acquired some form of extraterrestrial sight to that confers on them the unique ability to detect one’s guilt, or innocence, before they make their final determination based on the weight of the evidence presented to the court? On what evidence did the learned judge determine the innocence of a drug courier/dealer? I hope the learned judge does not invoke the “Onyame-Nipa-Owawani-Nkonyani” Clause.
According to the newspaper report, “Justice Abada stated in his ruling, which was made available to the Daily Graphic, that the suspect, in his application for bail, had stated that he was an innocent person who had been held in custody, since his arrest on May 21, 2006, without trial, contrary to Article 14 (4) of the 1992 Constitution.” If the judge said the above, which I believe he did, then he believed the testimony of a drug dealer over that of the investigative officer and the prosecution. Would Judge Abada apply the same constitutional argument in the case of a violent sub-national actor who tries to subvert the state?
Some of our nation’s judges, especially those at the High Court, have cultivated the deceitful habit of misquoting the law for their own personal convenience. While the Constitution states that one must be tried within a reasonable period of time, there are other parallel laws that clearly state that a bail can be denied on the following grounds: (a) if the judge believes that the accused will recidivate (b) if the offence is indictable (c) if the accused cannot be compelled to (re)appear before the court if he/she released from protective custody (d) if there is the likelihood that the accused, if released, will destroy material evidence and (e) if the accused poses a threat to himself and the public (i.e. going underground to sell drugs and/or pursuing suspected tipsters if he is released from custody)? If our Constitution is to be upheld in every case, irrespective of the gravity of the crime, then our nation should be ready to deal with chaos. Would Judge Abada have released the terrorists held under the jurisdiction of the Ghanaian government because the Constitution says so?
According to Judge Abada, "the whole purpose of bail before trial is to secure the attendance of the accused at his trial and to secure any sentence that may be pronounced on him subsequent to his conviction," How does a judge commit an accused, who is a foreigner, and particularly a Nigerian with no fixed address, to attend court, knowing that in the past, many Nigerian drug dealers have skipped bail, and left the country? Maybe, the only way to make some of our judges appreciate the work of the nation’s Police Service is to compel these unruly judges to produce the criminals they knowingly set free.
In Ghana, some of our nation’s judge’s are well versed in citing selective paragraphs of the law to further their concealed intentions. For example, the learned judge did not tell the public anything about “Okyere V. The Republic (1972) 1 GLR 99 at p. 104.” In my own person experience with the theft, falsification and registration of my documents at the Land Commission, Judge Kobena Acquaye sided with the plaintiff, who is his friend. According to Judge Acquaye, while he detected forgery on the plaintiff’s grantor’s document, and some inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s indenture, the law protects him (i.e. the plaintiff) for falsifying my documents and registering it at the Lands Commission, and later on claiming to be an innocent purchaser of legal estate of value without notice.
In his judgment dated 20the December, 2007, Judge Acquaye contended that “Under the Land Registry Act, 1962, registration does these two things and also affects the validity of the instrument; for section 24 of the Act provides that no instrument first executed after the commencement of that Act (except a will or a judge's certificate) shall have any effect until it is registered.” However, what Judge Acquaye failed to tell the court was that the same law, two lines below his cited quote says that, “it is in the normal case neither void nor valid; but such registration is then required, in the absence of any other invalidating factor, to make it completely valid.” Here, the “invalidating factor” is the forgery on the plaintiff’s grantor’s document, and the many inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s sworn testimony, which Judge Acquaye admitted in his ruling. How can basic logic elude some of these judges?
How can a court of competent jurisdiction allow Frank Wood, a known bail contractor, to stand surety for the accused knowing that he has, in the past, bailed “many accused persons”? What happens if the “bailer” fails to produce the runaway narcotic dealer; a ritual we know all too well takes place, quite often, at the nation’s courts? Must the court allow Mr. Wood to continue to bail criminal suspects out of jail for a pecuniary reward, and compel the police to use its scarce resources to pursue “bailed” criminals?
Even a person of average intelligence can foretell without fluttering an eyelid that Mr. Frank Wood’s name is only one of the many aliases beside his true name. In democratic Ghana, bailing criminals from court has become a lucrative industry. It is a growing economic network that robs the nation’s wealthy (i.e. the Narcotic-Peters) to pay their police affiliates and corrupt judges (i.e. the Pauls"). In a recent case, Judge Kobena Acquaye cited a police officer for contempt of court when the officer told the judge to hold a suspect in custody until his (i.e. the suspect’s) forged document was confirmed by the Lands Registrar. Sadly, the land fraudster was set free by Judge Acquaye leaving the police officer to fight a contempt charge leveled against him. Isn’t our “cocainocratic,” and “property-thieving,” democracy beautiful? While it absolves the culpable, it witch-hunts the innocent by contorting the law. Was this what we pay our judges for? To suborn criminality by perverting h rule of law? Change must come, and it surely will. Hope all is well. Good day and cheers.