Two retired Army officers and two serving soldiers appeared for the second time before a Military Tribunal in Ghana on Wednesday (18 August), to face various charges of subversion.
GV Tribunal building (Burma Hall)
CU Sign PAN TO people being searched before entering hall (3 shots)
GV Prisoners getting out of bus and entering hall (2 shots)
SV Judge advocate speaking to President of court at top table
SV Accused taking seats
CU Counsel seated at table
CU Capt. J. Buckuste in speaking at microphone
SV President of the court
CU Capt. J. Sowu speaking
CU President of court speaking
CU Sgt. Agohah speaking
CU Member of tribunal listening to Warrant Officer Wormenor speaking (2 shots)
GV Member of tribunal
GV Accused being marched out of curt
Script is copyright Reuters Limited. All rights reserved
Background: Two retired Army officers and two serving soldiers appeared for the second time before a Military Tribunal in Ghana on Wednesday (18 August), to face various charges of subversion.
SYNOPSIS: The tribunal was held in the Burma Camp Hall in Accra, the Ghanaian capital. It had been adjourned form the previous Friday when the four accused had disputed the Court's right to try them without serving them with a summary of evidence. It is the fifth major military tribunal set up by the ruling Supreme Military council to try people on subversion charges.
The four accused are Captain john Buckustein, Captain Joel Sowu, Sergeant Komissey Agohah, and Warrant-Officer Charles Wormenor. Their first appearance before the tribunal had lasted about an hour, but the charges against them were not read out. This was because the prosecution alleged that they had refused to accept the charge sheets when they were served on them in prison. The five-strong prosecution team was led by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. K. Gyeke-Dako.
The leading accused, Captain Buckustein, was the first to be cross-examined when the tribunal reconvened on Wednesday. The President of the Court was Lieutenant-Colonel R.B. Commey. Captain Sowu, another of the accused, had been the one to question the regulation under which they had been charged.
He had quoted the Armed Forces regulations to support his argument that the summary of evidence should have been served on them before their appearance. The prosecution stated they were not bound top supply the accused with evidence.