It’s not compulsory for him to testify – Ana’s lawyers react to Supreme Court ruling

The law firm explained that its client only offered to testify in the stead of the slain Ahmed Suale who was supposed to have been the star witness.

“The criminal proceedings were instituted following Anas’ petition filed with the Attorney-General.

“The Star witness for the Republic, Ahmed Suale, who was one of the investigative journalists in respect of the documentary, was murdered in Madina, Accra weeks before his testimony could be taken.

“Anas Aremeyaw Anas agreed to testify in the stead of Ahmed Suale on condition that he be allowed to do so in camera or in chambers,” the statement said.

It, therefore, urged the general public to ignore the publications to the effect that the apex court has ordered Anas to jeopardise his safety by removing his veil in a bid to testify in the case relating to his ‘Number 12’ expose which showed Nayantaky, the former Ghana Football Association President taking bribes.

“The public should disregard false reportage that Anas has been ordered by the Supreme Court or is being compelled by the Supreme Court to appear in court without his trademark face beads.

“Anas may choose to testify as a prosecution witness or not. Anas and his Tiger Eye team will continue to wear the iconic face beads as a symbol of impartial anonymity in investigative journalism and to highlight the extreme risks in that line of duty,” the statement added.

The Supreme Court of the land presided over by Justice Baffoe-Bonnie on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, said the High Court’s order that granted Anas the special privilege lacked legal foundation.

The renowned investigative journalist is expected to testify as a prosecution witness in the criminal case entitled Republic v Kwesi Nyantakyi & Another. It follows his undercover investigation titled ‘Number 12’, which showed Nyantakyi, a former president of the Ghana Football Association taking bribes.

In March 2022, during Case Management Conference, the High Court 2, criminal division presided over by her ladyship Elfreda Dankyi peremptorily granted an ORAL application by the prosecution for Anas Aremeyaw Anas to give evidence in camera as a prosecution witness.

But Nyantakyi, through his lead counsel, Thaddeus Sory of Sory@Law, disagreed with the High Court order and then proceeded to the Supreme Court for an order of certiorari to quash it.

The defence legal team argued that:

1. The order of the High Court offended the human rights of the applicant as guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution.

2. That the order was made without regard to the procedures and rules of court which required that a formal and not an oral application be made in such circumstances

3. And the order of the court was made in excess of the jurisdiction of the court.

The Supreme Court agreed with Nyantakyi’s argument and declared the High Court’s order null and void, adding that it lacked legal basis.