Kwaku Azar Writes On Gregory Afoko

Since 2015, Afoko G. has been in custody. His case's facts are well-known and do not require recitation.
Afoko is found not guilty; Alangde is sentenced to hang
.
His first trial began in 2015 and was terminated in 2019 by the prosecution. His second trial began in 2019 and ended in April 2023 with a 4-3 deadlock.

The Attorney General, who is also the Minister of Justice, has signaled his intention to go for a third bite.

Murder is unquestionably a heinous crime, and there is a strong public interest in convicting and punishing murderers for reasons of accountability, deterrence, and societal protection.

However, this public interest must be measured against the costs of repeated trials in order to uphold the values of a fair trial, justice, and to prevent prosecutorial misconduct.

In the first place, tribulations are emotionally, physically, and monetarily costly. Repeated trials increase these expenses.

Second, most defendants lack the financial resources to compete with the state. The number of trials is decreasing a defendant's ability to present a sufficient defense.

Thirdly, recurrent trials create a significant strategic disadvantage for the defendant. Having exposed his defense in prior trials, he must now confront a prosecutor who is well-versed in his story and will undoubtedly use this information to his advantage in future trials. In essence, he becomes a reluctant prosecution witness in subsequent cases.

Fourth, witnesses tend to forget events over time, which can increase the likelihood that their memories align with the prosecution's theory.

Fifth, allowing a prosecutor to cycle through juries increases the possibility that he or she will eventually find a sympathetic juror. Contrary to the presumption that it is preferable to let the crime of a culpable person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent, this can increase the likelihood of convicting an innocent defendant.

There is something inherently wrong with remanding someone who has not been convicted of a crime in the past eight years. It is cruel and unusual punishment to compound this wrong by detaining him further and subjecting him to more proceedings.

In conclusion, a retrial following a deadlocked jury is manifestly cruel and unjust. It imposes emotional and financial hardships on the defendant, significantly benefits the prosecution, and heightens the possibility of an incorrect conviction.


Article 19(7) states, "No person who has been tried by a competent court for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall be tried again for that offence or for any other criminal offence of which he could have been convicted at the trial for the offence, except on the order of a superior court in the course of an appeal or review proceeding relating to the conviction or acquittal."

This article does not prohibit repeated trials after a deadlocked jury, as a deadlocked jury has neither convicted nor exonerated the defendant.

But the Constitution must not be read literally in order to undermine its values, including the liberties it promises.

Article 19(7) on double jeopardy must be interpreted intentionally to prohibit the retrial of a defendant who has been incarcerated for eight years and has been subject to two trials, one of which was truncated by the prosecution and the other of which resulted in a deadlocked jury.

#SALL is the cardinal offense of the eighth Congress.

Da Yie!