Gyakye Quayson trial: State to recall fifth witness
By DL News
Published
1 min read
During cross-examination, Latif Oshenu, the fifth prosecution witness, pointed out that a page was missing from an exhibit he had previously submitted as evidence.
An Accra High Court has approved the prosecution’s request to recall a witness in the trial of James Gyakye Quayson, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North.
The decision was made in accordance with Section 79 of the Evidence Act.
During cross-examination, Latif Oshenu, the fifth prosecution witness, pointed out that a page was missing from an exhibit he had previously submitted as evidence. In response, Madam Esi Dentaa Yankah, the Principal State Attorney (PSA), argued that the witness should be recalled so the full document could be presented in court, allowing him to refer to the omitted section.
Mr. Quayson is facing five charges, including deceit of a public officer, forgery of travel documents, making a false statutory declaration, perjury, and false declaration for office. He has pleaded not guilty and remains on bail.
Madam Yankah emphasized that without the missing page, the exhibit in its current form was incomplete. She urged the court to exercise its discretion to allow the witness to provide the full document, ensuring the trial judge had all necessary information for a fair assessment.
She further stated that a complete version of Exhibit P had been attached to the affidavit supporting the motion, considering that the existing exhibit before the court was a copy of the document the witness had originally submitted. "These are exceptional circumstances that justify recalling the witness," she noted.
In response, Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for Mr. Quayson, indicated that while they had not reviewed the original document, they were not opposing the motion.
However, he clarified that the incomplete document in question was the same one submitted by the prosecution and had not been altered by the defense.
Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, presiding over the case, identified the missing document as the Parliamentary nomination form and reminded the prosecution that they had yet to comply with court orders to provide the defense with certain documents and adjourned to February 12..
