An Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Samuel Bright Acquah, has dismissed a motion filed by Captain Nkrabea Effah Dartey (rtd) and Franklyn Kumakoh to seek bail for Huang Ruixia alias Aisha Huang and three others, on the grounds that Aisha was capable of influencing some big wigs in the country to interfere in the trial.
His Honour Bright Acquah ruled on the bail application that Aisha Huang, 47 years, was alleged to have sneaked from the country once to avoid prosecution, hence, there was the likelihood that she may not appear to stand trial before the court.
Reading the ruling yesterday, he commented on how Aisha Huang was well known in the public domain as a galamsey operator, and galamsey kingpin.
He added that since the ‘Galamsey Iron Lady’ had been accused of sneaking out of country to escape trial, she was, therefore, capable of doing same this time round if granted bail, adding “…as it is unclear how A1 (Aisha Huang) managed to enter the country.”
His Honour further considered the severity of the case, which, if Aisha Huang was found guilty at the end of the trial, she might be given a fine up to 30,000 penalty units, or slapped with a maximum jail term of 20 years.
Plea of Guilty
Aisha Huang is standing trial with Johng Li Hua, Huang Jei, and Huaid Hai Hun, all Chinese nationals, on the offence – engaging in the sale and purchases of minerals without valid licence, which is contrary to Section 99(1) of Minerals and Mining Act 2015 (Act 900).
The galamsey kingpin alone is answering an additional charge – mining without licence, contrary to Section 99(1) of Minerals and Mining Act 2015 (Act 900). But they have all pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Arguments
Defence Counsel for Aisha Huang, Huang Jei and Huaid Hai Hun, Captain Nkrabea Effah Dartey (rtd), argued that there was no record indicating that the ‘notorious illegal miner’ was deported from the country.
He contended that there was no record that the Parliament of Ghana had passed any law to declare his client persona-non-grata. And, in fact, there was no record of any executive order that Aisha was deported.
It was his case that Aisha Huang never sneaked out of the country, as the court was being made to believe.
The retired Captain of the Ghana Armed and former Member of Parliament (MP) for Berekum did not also shy away from criticising the Attorney General (A-G) and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, for making certain public pronouncements to the effect that the Judiciary should collaborate with the Attorney General to fight illegal mining.
On this premise, he urged that if the court refused the bail application, the media would report that the Judge had heeded the A-G’s advice, meanwhile, political authorities do not have any control over the Judiciary.
He added that this was the second time his client was being tried for a similar case, and in the first instance, she was granted bail, but just as they were about opening their defence after the prosecution had closed its case, the A-G walked into the court that fateful day with a piece of paper in his hand to file Nolle Prosequi.
Captain Nkrabea Effah Dartey (rtd) added that the accused persons had all pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the challenge lay on the state to establish the basis of the accusations, stating the accused persons merely being foreigners did not subject them to guilty simplicita.
The defence counsel pleaded with the court to let the law work, saying “if you grant them bail, the judiciary is on its feet. Don’t look at them as Chinese…”
He continued that although the charges were not so dire, the media had hyped it out of proportion, to the effect that a newspaper even wrote an editorial on his client.
Franklyn Kumakoh argued that Johng Li Hua was a victim of circumstance, since on the day that the police conducted the swoop his client had gone to the supposed crime scene to visit a male friend.
He added that his client, since her arrest, had maintained this stance.
The prosecuting officer, Detective Chief Inspector Frederick Sarpong, in opposing the bail application, said the counsel in their application for the bail, sought to rely on Article 19(2), while the presumption of innocence was not sufficient grounds for granting the application.
He postulated that the case was in the interest of the public, and the charges levelled against the accused persons needed to be thoroughly investigated without any hindrance whatsoever.
According to him, granting the accused persons bail, especially Aisha Huang, would interfere with witnesses and jeopardise police investigations.
The prosecutor told the court that Aisha Huang had a way of sneaking in and out of the country at will, stressing: “As A1 stands here, she cannot tell the court how she even entered the country.”
He disclosed to the court that other suspects in connection with the case were arrested yesterday morning, so “if the accused persons are granted bail, they are highly likely to interfere with witnesses and police investigations.”
DC/Insp Sarpong stressed that the accused persons were charged with criminal offences and not by the virtue of their nationality or colour, as the counsel wanted the court to believe.
Furthermore, he said they being in custody did not bar the rights of the accused persons to their counsel, as “the accused persons were in custody, but were able to marshal all these lawyers. For the police, our doors are always opened 24/7 to grant access to the counsel.”
Contradictions
Franklyn Kumakoh said contrary to what the prosecution told the court; that the accused persons were arrested at Bepotenten in the Amansie West District, the Chinese were rather arrested at Asokwa whilst they were asleep.
Although the court was told that Aisha Huang never sneaked out of the country, her counsel failed to disclose how she returned.
The Clash
Nkrabea Effah Dartey, in an effort to defeat the prosecution’s argument that the court should refuse the bail application based on public interest, said the only public interest in the case was that justice would be done for the four accused persons by granting them bail.
Mr. Kumakoh, to support the argument raised by Effah Dartey, added that the public did not know the law, and that the public may give a different sentiment of the issue, meanwhile, the court did not try cases on emotions.
Paradoxically, just as the prosecutor rose once again to response to the arguments, Effah Dartey told him point blank that he would not allow him to speak, and that he was not a lawyer.
But, in the course of their exchanges, the prosecutor referred to Effah Dartey as Senior. Immediately, the latter, in utmost surprise, asked, “You are a lawyer?”
Judge comments
By way of ending the ruling, Mr Acquah noted that galamsey had badly affected the environment, and that while the fishes were running away from the rivers, the animals and humans were also complaining.
Drama
A few minutes into delivering the ruling, Johng Li Hua began to lose her balance while standing in the witness box, and before the court could instruct that she be given a seat in the crowded room, the second accused person had collapsed on the floor.
She was then carried out to seek medical attention at the court’s clinic.
The brief facts
The brief facts presented to the court by the prosecutor indicated that the complainants in this case were Security and Intelligence officers based in Accra, while all the accused persons were Chinese nationals who had gained notoriety in engaging in a series of small-scale mining activities, known as “galamsey”, across the country.
He said, during 2017, Aisha Huang was arrested for a similar offence, but managed to sneak out of the country, averting prosecution.
Unfortunately, he added, during the early part of this year, Aisha Huang sneaked back into the country after having changed the details of her Chinese passport.
DC/Ins Sarpong added that Aisha Huang again resumed illegal small-scale mining activities without a license, and together with the other accused persons, engaged in the purchases and sale of minerals in Accra without a valid authority granted, as required by the Minerals and Mining Act.
He stated that Johng Li Hua, Huang Jei and Huaid Hai Hun were also into the sale of equipment used in illegal mining activities.
The prosecuting officer narrated to the court that the accused persons were arrested upon intelligence gathered by intelligent officers.
The case has been adjourned to to September 27, 2022.
