An previous High Court decision requiring investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas to reveal his identity before to testifying in public was reversed by the Court of Appeal.
A three-member panel led by Justice Anthony Oppong and consisting of Justices Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo and Aboagye Tandoh unanimously decided that Anas had to take off his mask in order to testify.
The High Court’s May 17, 2023, ruling was essentially overturned when the court declared that “The 1st Respondent’s (Nyantakyi’s) appeal succeeds, and Anas must remove his mask when testifying.”
Anas may testify in camera, the High Court had earlier said, but he had to take off his mask in front of the accused, Kwesi Nyantakyi, in chambers before he could wear it in public.
The prosecution filed an appeal because both the defense and the prosecution were unhappy with the decision.
The lead judgment’s author, Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, stressed the value of an unmasked witness in criminal cases.
He maintained that face-to-face interaction, a fundamental right of the accused, is necessary for the adversarial nature of the legal system.
“Denying this right, particularly when the witness is the accuser, weakens the defense and the overall fairness of the trial,” the Court declared
Although the Court acknowledged the Republic’s worries that Anas’ life would be in jeopardy if he were to reveal his identity, it ruled that the prosecution had not produced any proof to back up the allegation. It decided that judicial controls could be used to handle any security threats.
Additionally, the court rejected arguments that connected Anas’ exposure to the unsolved murder of Ahmed Suale, his coworker, claiming that such allegations were more sentimental than factual.
The Court declared, “There was no evidence linking the Respondents to Suale’s death, and constitutional rights cannot be overridden without verifiable proof.”
The Court further underlined that although a witness’s right to conceal their face is unconstitutional, the right to a fair trial is.
It cited an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court that gave constitutional principles precedence above worries about personal security.
Source: newsthemegh.com