The murder trial of Daniel Asiedu, accused of killing former Abuakwa North MP JB Danquah, is set for a retrial following a hung jury verdict.
The jury of seven delivered a split decision of 4:3 not guilty, prompting the presiding judge, Justice Lydia Osei Marfo, to discharge the jury in accordance with Section 285(4) of the Criminal and Other Offenses (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). The court determined the verdict was inconclusive and insufficient for further action.
Despite the jury’s decision, Daniel Asiedu remains in custody as ordered by the judge.
The case dates back to 2016 when Asiedu was arrested in connection with the murder of the late MP. Prosecutors allege that Asiedu robbed and fatally stabbed JB Danquah at his residence.
After undergoing psychiatric evaluation and being declared fit for trial, Asiedu’s plea was taken in February 2021, and the trial began the same year.
The retrial is expected to address lingering questions surrounding the case and seek a conclusive resolution to the high-profile murder trial.
FACTS OF THE CASE
According to the facts of the case, the accused visited the house of the late MP, and accessed the room of the MP by using a ladder. At the time the incident occurred, the security officer on night duty was said to be asleep.
The accused is said to have struggled with the deceased, over powered the MP, stabbed him in the chest and neck and made away with three phones.
Police investigations uncovered that the accused had a knife wound on his palm and washed off the blood at a house adjacent to the house of the late MP.
Daniel Asiedu is said to have handed over the phones to a family friend of his girlfriend to charge them and unlock them who was the third prosecution’s witness.
Prosecution case
The state called eight witnesses to prove its case of Robbery and Murder against the accused person. The first witness was Samuel Berko Sarkodie, driver of the late MP. He testified to the activities of the MP on the day of the incident.
He explained under oath that he drove his boss to his office at Dzorwulu, later to Tema and Stanbic heights for meetings and dropped him off at home at about 11 pm on February 8. He returned to his home only to be called at about 1 pm and informed of a robbery incident at the home of the MP.
The second witness, Stephen Apraku a security personnel stationed at the house of the deceased MP at night, testified that indeed the driver dropped off the MP and left the premises. He however admitted to dozing off at a point during his night duty. He explained waking up to the repositioning of the ladder in the house.
Being suspicious of the ladder moving from its normal position and being placed at the window leading to the room of the late MP, he raised an alarm which led to the arrival of the Police. He testified that together with the police, they found the police officer lying dead in a pool of blood.
The third and fourth witnesses who are brothers, testified to their relationship with the accused and his involvement in the crime. The two were family friends of the girlfriend of the accused.
The third witness, Ken Koranchie testified to the accused handing over two phones to him the dawn after the incident. According to him, the accused asked him to charge the phones and later unlock the iPhones for him.
One of the iPhones however was unlocked unknowingly to the accused person according to the third prosecution witness.
Ken Koranchie further testified that he learned about the death of the MP, the morning after the phones were handed to him.
To his surprise, he saw pictures of the late MP on the unlocked phone. Alarmed by the situation, he sought to return the phone to the police.
The third prosecution witness testified that he established contact with Ursula Owusu after finding her number on the unlocked iPhone.
Ursula Owusu is said to have reported the incident and the third prosecution witness to the police which eventually resulted in the arrest of the accused person.
Another witness whose house was adjacent to that of the house of the MP testified to the accused person washing of the blood off his hands at her home.
The other three witnesses were the pathologist, DNA analyst and the investigator.
The pathologist identified the cause of death to be Exsanguination which was a result of stab wounds to the chest and neck.
The DNA analyst testified that traces of the accused DNA were found at the crime scene and on the home of the fifth accused where he washed off the blood from his hands.
The investigator in his testimony also revealed that the accused admitted to committing the offence.
The prosecution argued that it has by its evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of robbery and murder.
Defence of Accused
Lawyers of the accused persons however described the prosecution case as a made-up story to unlawfully jail his client. According to his lawyers, the state failed to present material evidence that linked the crime to the accused.
Rev. Yaw Darkwa representing Daniel Asiedu explained that no forensic test was carried on the supposed murder weapon, a shirt alleged to belong to the accused with blood on it.
He also raised questions as to why the jury in the case was not allowed to access the phones to see if indeed it belonged to the deceased.
He also raised issues about the work of the pathologist whose report was written two years after the test was taken. Yaw Darkwa argued that the post-mortem report could not be relied on as the pathologist may have forgotten parts of the report due to the lapse in time.
This according to him is because the pathologist had explained that the laptop for which he took notes during the pathology test was stolen.
Rev Yaw Darkwa further raised concerns about the work of the DNA expert claiming the work was done by a third-party company for which he claimed credit.
For him, the DNA expert was not competent enough to speak on the DNA results since the report did not emanate from him.
The lawyer of the accused thus urged the jury to acquit his client as in his opinion, the accused was falsely prosecuted.
The jury after deliberations returned with a 4:3 not guilty verdict for both the robbery charge and murder charge.
