Judge begs Ken Agyapong …over charge sheet anomaly
Member of Parliament for Assin Central, Kennedy Agyapong, was ordered by a High Court Judge to step forward in an open court and his charge sheet read to him for him to plead guilty or not guilty when his legal team had not been given a copy of the charge sheet and it had not been properly filed.
The presiding judge, His Lordship, Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni. J. has personally apologized for the procedural irregularity.
The Judge uttered the apology in the same open court after lawyers for Kennedy Agyapong drew his attention to the anomaly and said they wanted it to go on the records of the court.
“I apologise profusely for not handing over the charge sheet to Counsel for 3rd Defendant/Respondent/Applicant before it was read in open court. I have copies here, which I hereby hand over with the transcribed copies of the video clip to counsel for 3rd Defendant/Respondent/Applicant”, the judge, His Lordship, Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni. J. responded after his attention was drawn to the irregularity.
Mr. Agyapong has been dragged to stand trial before the Judge over allegations that some utterances he made on NET2 Television had scandalized the courts.
His Lawyers, headed by Kwame Gyan and comprising of the Legislator for Effutu Alex Afenyo-Markin, Ralph Agyapong, Yaw Akrasi Sarpong, and Denis Osei-Antwi has major disagreements with the lawyer on issues of procedure and whether or not the learned judge, His Lordship, Justice Amos Wuntah Wuni. J., ought to continue hearing the case or give it a temporal halt.
YouTube Wahala
There were very polite but strong exchanges on legal differences between the Judge on one hand and lawyers for Kennedy Agyapong on the other hand on whether or not it was right for the Court to rely on a video it downloaded from YouTube as evidence of what Mr. Agyapong supposedly said on NET 2 Television.
The lawyers of Kennedy Agyapong argued that under the Evidence Act, 1975, section 11, on the burden of producing evidence, the burden of providing evidence is on the prosecution team but not the defendants.
They argued further that the court should have ordered for a true and original copy of what exactly Kennedy Agyapong said from NET 2 Television where the statement was made but to not download from YouTube, a social media platform that comes with several disclaimers on the contents available on the platform.
According to the legal team, they also deserve to have been given a copy of whatever evidence is being used against Kennedy Agyapong so they study and respond.
“My Lord, even under the Electronic Communications Act, my Lord has to apply to YouTube, and not to suo motu download. My Lord has to make a formal application to YouTube, because YouTube is sitting somewhere in America, and we are sitting in the High Court in Accra. My Lord, NET2 TV is right here.
“We are relying on evidence on YouTube, My Lord, with the uttermost respect, I as a practitioner of Law, I don’t think is fair for me to subject my client to this process…My Lord, I am at a loss as to whether we sitting here can vouch in accordance with our law, on the integrity of the information on YouTube. We can’t vouch for the integrity of the information on YouTube because of that massive disclaimer I mentioned”, Mr. Agyapong’s legal team posited.
The Judge, on the other hand said the information on YouTube was not but there by YouTube itself but was put there in respect of the statement made by Mr. Agyapong.
“Being visual and audio, the 3rd Defendant can be seen and heard by all reasonable persons. Therefore the video would be played in court, and a copy put on pen drive thereafter together with a transcript of the words uttered by the 3rd Defendant, for Counsel to study thereafter, and make their submission in court”, he stated and truly, the said video downloaded from You Tube was played.
More Differences
Again, the legal team for Kennedy Agyapong argued that in the face of a pending application before the Supreme Court seeking a prohibition to stop the Judge from hearing the case, the hearing should be deferred until after the Supreme Court has settled on the application.
But the Judge said the fact that an application was before the Apex court does not mean that application has been ruled on and an order to prohibit him given, therefore in the absence of such an order, he has every right to continue to hear the case.
Comments are closed.