Investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas has asserted that revealing his identity to former Ghana Football Association (GFA) president Kwasi Nyantakyi, against whom he is expected to testify, would jeopardize his security and be akin to “signing his death warrant.”
Anas, known for his #Number 12 Exposé that exposed bribery and corruption in Ghana’s football, highlighted the potential risks to his safety.
The trial, initiated on June 29, 2021, centers on Nyantakyi’s alleged involvement in corrupt practices revealed in Anas’ exposé. The Principal State Attorney (PSA) stated that Anas refused disclosure due to safety concerns, emphasizing the appeal of the court’s decision.
Principal State Attorney Duffie Prempeh informed the court that Anas expressed concerns about compromising his personal safety by disclosing his identity to the accused and their counsel.
“My Lady respectfully, we are expected to bring our witness today, (Wednesday February 28),” the PSA told the Court.
“However, following your ruling on our application regarding the mode of testimony of our witness, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, the Attorney General extended an invitation to the witness to avail himself for pre-trial conference and ultimately to present his testimony in Court,” she said.
The Principal State Attorney also told the Court that, the Investigative Journalist said, disclosing his identity to testify for the Prosecution will amount to signing his death warrant.
“My Lady, in response to our letter, Anas indicated that given the danger to his personal safety, it will not be proper for him to disclose his identity to the Accused persons and their counsel.
Anas argued that, given the nature of his work, revealing his identity would be tantamount to signing his death warrant.
He cited the unfortunate fate of his colleague, Ahmed Suale, who was fatally shot after an engagement with the law office.
Anas requested an appeal against the court’s decision, but the appeal is still pending.
The PSA pleaded with the court for additional time to pursue the appeal in the interest of justice.
While the defense called for the criminal suit’s dismissal due to a lack of prosecution progress, the court granted the prosecution until April to address the pending appeal.
The presiding judge, Justice Marie-Louise Simmons, expressed reluctance to strike out the case immediately, waiting for the response from the Court of Appeal regarding the appeal against the ruling.
The court’s decision grants the prosecution until April to make meaningful progress; otherwise, the accused persons will be discharged.
Your article helped me a lot, is there any more related content? Thanks!