Prof. Kwaku Azar Asare, a democracy and development fellow at CDD-Ghana, has commented on the prime suspect in the murder of the late Abuakwa North MP, Joseph Boakye Danquah Adu, being found not guilty by a 4-3 jury vote and the subsequent retrial order.
According to Prof. Asare, as demonstrated in the G. Afoko and S. Dondon cases, the law strictly prohibits majority verdicts in murder trials.
He emphasized that without unanimity among the jury, the defendant may be subjected to multiple trials, potentially prolonging the legal process indefinitely and leading to further legal uncertainties.
“This is why G. Afoko is now facing his third trial, and Dondon’s second trial is imminent, despite both having received majority verdicts of “not guilty.”
“This system appears indifferent to fairness, efficiency, or the emotional toll on the parties involved”.
Prof. Kwaku Azar Asare
Prof. Asare further pointed out that, given the state’s significantly greater resources compared to the defendant, this often results in a protracted war of attrition—one that the Republic is almost certain to win.
He expressed concern over the implications of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, questioning how this affects fundamental legal principles in a fair justice system.
He further asked whether individuals, particularly those facing such prolonged legal battles, are not entitled to their liberty if the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof.
As such, Prof. Asare stressed the unfairness of repeated trials and the strain on the accused’s rights and well-being.
He further questioned why the prosecution should be given multiple opportunities to meet its burden of proof.
Prof. Asare emphasized that this raises a serious concern, questioning whether this approach does not increase the risk that, through sheer persistence or luck, a guilty verdict might eventually be reached after several trials.
He noted that this practice undermines the fairness of the judicial process, as it allows the prosecution to continue reattempting their case until they potentially succeed, regardless of the strength or weakness of the original evidence.
Asare Criticizes “Trial Until Guilty” Practice
Furthermore, Prof. Kwaku Azar Asare observed that the fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty” appears to have been replaced by an unending cycle of trials—trials that continue until one is eventually found guilty.
He argued that this shift undermines the very foundation of justice, where individuals should be presumed innocent from the outset.
Prof. Asare emphasized that the public should not treat these concerns as abstract or trivial, as they have profound implications for the fairness of the legal system and the protection of individual rights.
According to him, such a shift in judicial practice poses a direct threat to the integrity of justice and the rights of defendants.
“They strike at the very heart of justice and fairness in our legal system and deserve far more attention than they currently receive.
“As a society, we must grapple with these questions to preserve the principles that underpin our democracy”.
Prof. Kwaku Azar Asare
Accordingly, he urged that the Bar and the legal academy take a more active and robust role in addressing these pressing issues.
He emphasized the need for these institutions to spearhead discussions that critically analyze the implications of such practices on justice and fairness.
Prof. Asare stressed that the legal community has a responsibility not only to protect the foundational principles of justice but also to challenge the status quo when those principles are under threat.
By fostering meaningful engagement and public discourse, he argued, the legal fraternity and scholars can help shape a more equitable system that upholds the rule of law and safeguards the rights of all citizens.
Meanwhile, the court, in its ruling, determined that the jury’s verdict was inadequate to warrant further action. Despite this conclusion, the suspect continues to remain in custody.
