The high-profile murder trial of Daniel Asiedu, accused of the 2016 killing of former Abuakwa North Member of Parliament (MP) JB Danquah, is heading for a retrial. This follows a hung jury verdict, which left the case unresolved after years of legal proceedings.
A jury of seven deliberated on the charges of robbery and murder brought against Asiedu but delivered a split decision of 4:3 not guilty on both counts. The verdict prompted the presiding judge, Justice Lydia Osei Marfo, to discharge the jury, citing Section 285(4) of the Criminal and Other Offenses (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). The judge ruled that the verdict was inconclusive and could not form the basis for further legal action.
Despite the jury’s decision, Daniel Asiedu remains in custody under the judge’s orders. This marks another turn in the case, which has gripped public attention for years due to its political and criminal implications.
The incident dates back to February 9, 2016, when JB Danquah was found murdered in his home. Prosecutors alleged that Asiedu broke into the MP’s residence using a ladder, attacked him in his bedroom, and fatally stabbed him multiple times in the chest and neck during a struggle. The accused allegedly made away with three mobile phones belonging to the deceased.
Initial investigations uncovered that Asiedu had sustained a knife wound on his palm during the attack. He reportedly washed the blood off at a neighboring house before fleeing the scene. Police arrested him shortly after, and he was subjected to psychiatric evaluation, which determined he was fit to stand trial.
In February 2021, Asiedu’s plea was officially taken, and the trial commenced. Over the years, the prosecution presented eight witnesses to build its case, aiming to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Asiedu was guilty of robbery and murder.
Among the witnesses was Samuel Berko Sarkodie, the late MP’s driver. He testified about his activities with the MP on the day of the incident, stating that he dropped him off at home around 11 PM after a series of meetings. Hours later, he was informed of a robbery at the MP’s residence, which tragically ended in his death.
Another critical witness was the security guard, Stephen Apraku, who was on duty at the MP’s house that night. Apraku admitted to dozing off during his shift but stated that he later noticed a ladder repositioned near the MP’s window. Suspicious of this unusual occurrence, he raised an alarm, leading to the discovery of the MP’s lifeless body lying in a pool of blood.
The prosecution’s evidence also relied on testimony from Ken Koranchie, a third witness who was a family friend of Asiedu’s girlfriend. He revealed that Asiedu handed him two mobile phones on the morning after the murder, asking him to charge and unlock them. One of the phones, an iPhone, was accidentally unlocked, exposing images of the late MP. Alarmed, Koranchie contacted Ursula Owusu, a known associate of the MP, who then alerted the police.
Additional forensic evidence further implicated Asiedu. A DNA analysis revealed traces of his DNA at the crime scene. The pathologist’s report identified exsanguination caused by multiple stab wounds as the cause of death. Witnesses also reported seeing Asiedu washing blood off his hands at a nearby house shortly after the incident.
However, Asiedu’s defense team, led by Rev. Yaw Darkwa, challenged the prosecution’s case, describing it as fabricated. They questioned the credibility of the evidence presented, including the forensic findings and the pathologist’s report.
The defense argued that the post-mortem report, completed two years after the examination, could not be reliable due to delays and missing notes from the pathologist’s stolen laptop. They also raised doubts about the DNA analysis, claiming it was conducted by a third-party company and lacked direct verification by the expert who testified.
Moreover, the defense highlighted procedural lapses, such as the failure to allow the jury access to the phones allegedly stolen by Asiedu. They argued that these phones could have provided crucial evidence to determine ownership and link them definitively to the deceased.
The defense insisted that the state failed to present material evidence, such as the alleged murder weapon or a blood-stained shirt purportedly belonging to the accused. They urged the jury to acquit Asiedu, asserting that the evidence fell short of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite these arguments, the jury returned with a split decision of 4:3 not guilty on both the robbery and murder charges. Justice Lydia Osei Marfo, acknowledging the inconclusive nature of the verdict, discharged the jury and ordered a retrial.
The retrial is expected to revisit critical aspects of the case, offering both the prosecution and defense another opportunity to present their arguments comprehensively. For many, the case is not only about seeking justice for the late JB Danquah but also about ensuring that the legal process adheres to the principles of fairness and accountability.
Asiedu’s continued detention underscores the gravity of the allegations against him and the high stakes involved in the upcoming proceedings. With the retrial on the horizon, public interest remains heightened, as the court seeks to bring closure to a case that has left many questions unanswered.
