Mr Francis Agodzie, a Businessman, has disagreed with the Counsel for Nana Appiah Mensah, Chief Executive Officer of Menzgold Ghana Limited, that he had different signatures on documents available to the court.
The third prosecution witness told the court presided over by Justice Ernest Owusu Dappah that he had two signatures and if he were prompted on the exact signature he signed on the Police statement, he would have done same on the witness statement.
Mr Agodzie, in his evidence in Chief told the court that he signed the signatures on the documents himself.
Nana Mensah is standing trial for 61 counts of abetment, defrauding by false pretences, carrying on deposit-taking business without a license, unlawful deposit-taking, and money laundering.
His plea to the amended charges is yet to be taken.
The accused persons have denied the charges and the court on July 26, 2019, admitted him to bail in the sum of GHS1billion with five sureties, three to be justified.
The Court has ordered him to report to th
e Police every Wednesday, pending the outcome of the case.
Mr Kwame Akufo, the Counsel for NAM 1, told the court that with the Police complaint statement, the witness spaced the Alphabets in his signature but on the witness statement they were closed but the witness disagreed.
Mr Agodzie explained to the court that it depends on the space available for him to append his signature.
The Defence said the four signatures on the documents before the court were not the witness signature entirely, but the witness disagreed saying, ‘l am prepared to sign my signature in open court.’
Mr Akufo alleged that two of the signatures belong to the Police investigation and the witness disagreed.
Initially, Mr Akufo raised an objection to the witness, testifying in the Twi Language even though his witness statement was written in the English Language, even though there was a presumption that he could read and write the language.
He said a conviction and acquittal would be dependent or based on the records before the cour
t and the statement would be considered as one of the records.
The Counsel said witness was much more comfortable in the Twi language, but the Twi language was not admissible and by signing the document in the English language without any pressure, the witness had made the parties know he understood the language.
‘There is no Twi version of his statement before the court,’ he argued.
Mr Akufo said the circumstances would affect the right of his client to a fair trial.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Yvonne Attakora-Obuobisa, opposed the objection, saying the witness gave the statement, which the prosecution sought to rely on as evidence in chief.
She said the witness was literate and could read and write English and if the witness had spoken in any language apart from the English language, the prosecution would still have given the statement in English and interpreted to the court to illicit answers from the witness.
‘We are not stating that the witness does not read, write and understand Eng
lish but rather he expresses himself more fluently in the Twi language,’ she added.
She said the language in which the witness would speak would not in any way affect the witness, indicating that the witness’ decision to speak Twi would not in any way hinder the right of the accused person and would not occasion any miscarriage of justice.
She prayed that since the language he decided to speak did not affect the accused person, he must be allowed to speak in the language he was comfortable in.
The Court, in its ruling, said the most important thing was that the parties were able to understand the testimony of the witness.
The Court said it did not find the right of the accused person to fair trial being breached.
The case has been adjourned to Tuesday January 23, 2024.
Source: Ghana News Agency