The Accra High Court is set to deliver its much-anticipated verdict on December 4 in the case of Daniel Asiedu, also known as Sexy Don Don, who stands accused of the murder of J.B. Danquah Adu. Justice Lydia Osei Marfo, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with additional High Court responsibilities, will preside over the judgment, following closing statements from both the defence and prosecution.
The case, which has drawn significant public attention since the tragic death of the Member of Parliament on February 8, 2016, reached a critical stage on Thursday when the prosecution, led by Principal State Attorney Sefakor Batsa, concluded its cross-examination of Asiedu. Known by his alias Gucci Young Star, the accused refuted key pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, including allegations that his DNA was found at the crime scene.
During the cross-examination, Asiedu vehemently denied claims that his DNA was discovered not only in the home of the late MP but also on the property of a witness, Abigail Marfo. According to the prosecution, Marfo’s property served as a location where Asiedu allegedly went to wash himself after committing the crime. Asiedu also challenged the assertion that a red hat found on Marfo’s property, containing traces of DNA, could conclusively be linked to him. He maintained that the evidence was fabricated and stated categorically that “the red hat does not belong to me, and I never left it there.”
Asiedu further disputed the prosecution’s claim that he gave more than ten statements to the police following his arrest. He insisted that he had provided only one statement of his own accord and accused the police of coercing him into thumbprinting additional statements they had written. “The police wrote those statements, not me,” Asiedu said. He maintained that he was under duress and lacked the capacity to provide genuine statements at the time.
The prosecution also alleged that Asiedu had not only murdered the MP but had stolen his mobile phones, which were later found in his possession. In response, Asiedu denied the accusations, claiming that the police had retrieved the phones from an individual he did not know. He went on to make a startling claim, suggesting that this unidentified individual later attended a meeting with prominent figures, including Madam Ursula Ekuful and Kennedy Agyapong. Asiedu criticized the police for failing to summon these individuals to testify in court.
As the trial progressed, the accused offered to show the jury tattoos on his body, including his name and alias, as evidence of his identity. However, he continued to deny any involvement in the murder of J.B. Danquah Adu, insisting that he had no motive to harm the MP or any other individual. “I have no issues with anyone. I am innocent,” he told the court.
When questioned by the jury, Asiedu elaborated on events leading up to his arrest. He stated that he had visited the Regional Police Command to report an unrelated issue involving a prostitute but was instead detained and charged with murder. He also addressed claims that a blood-stained cup presented during the crime scene reconstruction belonged to him. While acknowledging that he had blood on his hands due to an injury on his head, he expressed uncertainty about the source of the alleged bloodstains on the cup.
Asiedu’s testimony also cast doubt on the existence of security cameras at the deceased’s residence. He explained that he was under significant stress during the investigation and could not recall whether any cameras were present at the scene.
Despite the allegations against him, Asiedu pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. The court previously acquitted his alleged accomplice, Vincent Bossu, also known as Junior Agogo, of conspiracy charges after ruling on a submission of no case.
As the December 4 judgment date approaches, both sides have expressed confidence in their arguments. The prosecution remains steadfast in its belief that the evidence presented is sufficient to secure a conviction, while the defence continues to assert Asiedu’s innocence and raise questions about the integrity of the investigation.
The impending verdict will mark a pivotal moment in a case that has captivated the nation for years. For the family of J.B. Danquah Adu, the ruling represents an opportunity for justice to be served, while for Asiedu, it is a chance to clear his name and dispute the allegations that have haunted him since his arrest.
The court’s decision will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications, not only for those directly involved in the case but also for the broader legal and political landscape in Ghana. As anticipation builds, all eyes will be on Justice Lydia Osei Marfo and the seven-member jury as they weigh the evidence and deliver their final verdict.
