For more than four decades, the moot Court competition has been customary to the celebration of the Law Week in Ghana’s Premiere University’s School of Law. This year’s annual celebration depicted a full criminal trial of a love affair gone bad.
The moot court is a mock trial exhibiting the settings of normal court proceedings. In attendance was His Lordship Justice Senyo Dzamepe, a justice of the Courts of Appeal of Ghana.
THE EVENT (The full case)
After the procession of His Lordship, Justice Senyo Dzamepe, the accused person Kofi Patapaa was called to the dock on the charge of murder, to which he pleaded not guilty.
Mr Kofi Patapaa was accused of murdering his wife, Obayaa Sponsor who suspected him of cheating on her with another paramour.
The Lead Counsel of the prosecution charged the Court to administer justice by convicting the accused on the facts and evidence.
The defence counsel, on the other hand, charged the Court not to let the accused be called guilty until the case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he’s been duly convicted.
Under examination-in-chief, the brother of the deceased, Mr Moses Man’s Hot as Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1) revealed to the Court that he had a ‘superb relationship’ with his sister, the deceased.
He further stated that the deceased, after realizing her husband’s extramarital affair, confronted him in anger. This anger led the deceased to give the accused two feminine slaps which he retaliated with one heavy masculine slap.
The deceased then threatened the accused that she would take him off her will and divorce him. After which accused replied, “we shall see”.
The next morning, the house help, wailing, informed PW1 (Moses Mans Hot) that the deceased was dead with her skin dry and pale and almost peeling off but PW1, confused, stated that when he went to bed, he saw the accused entering the deceased’s bedroom.
A pathologist and toxicologist, Dr Adonko Ade Famiko, PW2 revealed that per the autopsy report and the deceased’s health report, the deceased died out of Hyperglycaemecoma.
He indicated that inordinate Glucagon was found in the blood of the deceased which indicates that the deceased suffered from hypoglycaemia. Vasopressin was also found in the urine indicating excess dehydration of the body.
PW3, Mr Por Tia Woy’aboaas Faha, a Medical Counter Assistant (MCA) at Plasigo Pharmacy also revealed that the accused, who happened to be his friend, came to his drug store when his boss was not around for Glucagon, a restricted drug evidenced by a receipt issued out, now known as Exhibit C.
PW3 said he gave the drug out against practise regulations to Mr Patapa (the accused) because the latter was a good person who would help him freely from his heart but the accused rejected the testimony of PW3, denying that he even knew him.
Chief Inspector Mr Kwamena Aaah Tweame Hot, PW4 testified that in the hot afternoon of 2nd January, he had a call from Kitchen Stool Street, Legon that a dead body had been found in a house. His entry into the deceased’s room was greeted by two containers labelled Insulin and Glucagon each. Various containers in a refrigerator in the room also bore Insulin. Skin cells were also found on the tip of a syringe found on a table in the room. He reported that the DNA of the fingerprint found on the syringe and beneath the bottle matched that of the accused.
This then led to the arrest of the accused who was then living in a room at the Golden Tulip Hotel.
However, the defence made a submission of no case on the ground that the deceased mistakenly took the Glucagon excessively instead of the Insulin.
This argument was vehemently objected to by the prosecution and prayed the Court that the submission of ‘no case’ be thrown out of Court and let justice reign. On this, the Court held that a ‘prima facie’ case has been established and therefore called the accused to the docket to establish a defence.
A prima facie case means that the prosecution has been able to form a solid case based on the evidence submitted and if the defence does not rebut them, the evidence provided would be sufficient to prove the prosecution’s case.
The accused, who childishly wept in Court, said that the deceased was his everything and they were very happy together until her untimely demise.
In their closing statement, the defence counsel called to mind the heavy burden on the prosecution to establish that the accused was actually liable to condemnation. They also stated that since the accused has been in the same room in which the deceased was found dead, it should not be any wonder to find his fingerprints on the bottle. They pleaded with the jury to acquit the accused.
The prosecution, on the other hand, emphasised that they have accurately cited evidence to corroborate the death of Obayaa Sponsor and hence asked the jury to render justice by putting the accused behind bars.
At the end of the trial, the jury found the accused not guilty. Mr Kofi Patapaa was therefore acquitted and discharged by the Court.
So Kuulpeeps, who do you think really killed Obayaa Patapaa??