![\"Bright](\"http:\/\/4cd.e16.myftpupload.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/Untitled.png\")
<\/a>[contextly_sidebar id=”gpEIv3c6tS0BQxsE5hnPnzjQYHVDRQGI”]On Tuesday, the 19-year-old girl who accused KKD of rape,\u00a0wrote to the court requesting that the case be dropped<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n The alleged victim mentioned the \u201cmedia frenzy\u201d which followed KKD\u2019s arrest and the never-ending buzz and social media posts as reasons for her decision.<\/p>\n She said she was therefore unable to continue assisting the Police who are prosecuting the case.<\/p>\n This development has generated heated debate over whether the withdrawal ends the case.<\/p>\n Bright Akwettey<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaking on the Citi Breakfast Show<\/strong> on Wednesday, a onetime Chief State Attorney, Bright Akwettey said the withdrawal of the case simply means “there is no case to prosecute.”<\/p>\n He explained that \u201cif you want to prosecute and prosecute successfully, you will need the woman to come and say he did it without my consent and the court will look at your evidence, your demeanour, the man\u2019s size visa-avis your size and other factors and to ascertain whether or not indeed, it was without your consent.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is your word against the man\u2019s word because in these cases, normally, there are no third parties\u2026But if the woman says I have withdrawn it or I don\u2019t want to pursue it, it means you don\u2019t have evidence to pursue in the court and you cannot go again and bring any charge sheet to anybody,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Lawyer Akwettey stressed that the case cannot be continued because \u201cyou will need to call evidence. It is not a matter of legal argument; it\u2019s a matter of evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n According to him, it is possible to say that there is a case on social media, in society but before a court of law where one has to be proven guilty, \u201cthere is no case. It is her evidence alone which will convict the man.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf you want to talk about rape, you need the consent of the victim\u2026the moment she says no, the prosecutor can have the files full of evidence, full of pictures, full of CCTV evidence, but you cannot pursue it,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n John Ndebugri<\/strong><\/p>\n A former Member of Parliament and lawyer, John Ndebugri however disagreed with Bright Akwettey.<\/p>\n He insisted that the case is not dead by the mere withdrawal by the complainant.<\/p>\n He indicated that once a case is reported, investigations are conducted and the accused charged, the case is no longer in the hands of the complainant.<\/p>\n \u201c… when you have a reported a crime to the Police and the Police starts investigations and begins to charge the accused, the matter is no more in your hands; it is in the hands of the state.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt is the Republic against the accused person. It is not Mr. A or B against the accused person,\u201d he stressed.<\/p>\n Mr. Ndebugri pointed out that it is not right for citizens to conclude that the case is dead.<\/p>\n \u201cI do not think that it is right for us to conclude that just because somebody who had reported the case turns round to say that he or she is not interested therefore the case must come to an end; I don\u2019t think so.\u201d<\/p>\n According to him, Ms Thompson can be subpoenaed to come to court to give evidence on behalf of the state.<\/p>\n \u201cShe cannot refuse to answer the subpoena. If he or she refuses to answer the subpoena, then the process of contempt will follow.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf the person comes to court is being uncooperative, the Prosecution can apply to the court to declare that person as a hostile witness in which case the Prosecution can now cross examine him or her and bring out the facts with which the accused person can be convicted,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Ace Annan Ankomah<\/strong><\/p>\n Meanwhile, private legal practitioner, Ace Annan Ankomah also on the Citi Breakfast Show<\/strong> said both Mr. Akwettey and Mr. Ndebugri are right with their submissions and interpretations of the law.<\/p>\n He mentioned that \u201cthe law has its theory and practice and for the most part, the two coincide,\u201d adding that \u201cin a criminal matter, the actual party in the case against the accused is the state. It is not even the person who is the complainant. It is the not even the person on whom the crime was committed.\u201d<\/p>\n Ace Ankomah remarked that \u201cin criminal matters, the state gives the principal party and so technically, even if the complainant says that I am no longer interested in the case, the state can say that probably, we don\u2019t even need you because we have enough evidence to go ahead with what we are doing.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSo in theory, that should be it. The state ought to be able to put its foot down that it\u2019s going to go ahead but throw it into the practice, and then you will see that the theory has issues.\u201d<\/p>\n He however asked if the state is willing to subpoena a 19-year-old to testify in a case she is no longer interested in.<\/p>\n \u201cIn this case, are we really saying that we want to see 19-year-old is summoned by a subpoena to become a principal witness to the case? So you see where the theory and practice don\u2019t jive?\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n By: Efua Idan Osam\/citifmonline.com\/Ghana
\nFollow @osamidan<\/a>
\n