Kwaku Azar writes:

  1. Bail is granted to Afoko by a High Court in March, 2019
  2. He fulfills all the bail conditions set by the Court.
  3. In fact his brother/relative Snr. Afoko stands surety for him and use property worth 10 times more than the bail amount as justification.
  4. Government through the Police refuses to release Afoko on bail in flagrant disregard of the decision of the people ( the Courts dispense justice on behalf of the people)
  5. Government further appeals to Court of Appeal to have the bail decision reversed but same is refused by the Court of Appeal.
  6. Despite the dismissal of the government’s decision, the Attorney General, superintends over the continuous unlawful detention of Afoko.
  7. Afoko through his lawyers cites the IGP and CID boss for contempt. Application for contempt is served on these people and AG appears to represent them in Court.
  8. IGP and CID boss refuse to attend court.
  9. AG applies to another Court to have the bail rescinded. And today, 15 July 2019 ( over months of blatant disregard for the Courts) another Court rescind’s the bail.
  10. Note that AG’s argument was essentially that Afoko will not attend court if the bail is not rescinded.
  11. Note also that AG did not lead any evidence to demonstrate how Afoko who is yet to be allowed the benefit of the doubt after a court granted him bail, will abscond frok the jurisdiction.
  12. Note also that as at today, AG could not establish as a fact that, Afoko has violated any of the bail conditions set by the previous judge to warrant the decision to rescind the bail.
  13. On what basis did the AG come to the conclusion that, a man who has been duly granted bail by a Court will not attend Court, when such a person has been in their custody for the past 3 years.
  14. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen. Do we see it in this case?
  15. Justice emanates from the people and shall be dispensed by the judiciary on behalf of the people so the law says or? Are the people seeing that justice?
  16. In the absence of any breach of the bail conditions set by the previous Court, how did the new court arrive at a decision to disturb the exercise of discretion of another judge?
  17. The Supreme court has held on several occassions that it will not disturb the exercise of discretion by a lower Court unless there are very compelling reasons such as a Wrongful exercise of discretion.
  18. Whether or not to grant bail is a discretion. Did the new judge find that there was wrongful exercise of discretion by the previous judge?
  19. We must take rights seriously in this country. Rights are to protect the individual from state but it appears the State is winning.
  20. We all dey inside. Ayooo

Same tactic has started against NAM1. Ayoo