A 45-year-old Labone Senior High School French teacher standing trial for indecent assault, Godwin Adigbli, has challenged the prosecution’s handling of an alleged blood-stained exhibit, arguing that forensic examination is necessary to establish the nature and significance of the stain.
The Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DOVVSU) court had earlier refused the application for forensic examination and medical assessment, following opposition from the prosecution.
Adigbli, who is being tried on a charge of indecent assault, had asked the court to order forensic examination of blood-stained underwear belonging to the victim tendered by the prosecution, as well as a medical examination.
His lawyer, Ernest Gbesemete, argued that the applications were made in good faith to assist the court in determining the truth, insisting that his client’s inability to pay for the proposed examinations should not prevent him from accessing potentially relevant evidence.
Mr Gbesemete told the court that Adigbli had been on interdiction throughout the proceedings and was consequently unable to bear the cost of the examinations.
He invoked Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution, arguing that the inability of the accused to finance the tests should not prevent the court from considering evidence that could be material to the determination of the case.
The defence also questioned the appearance of the alleged blood stain, arguing that a normal blood stain would have turned brownish over time, whereas the stain on the exhibit presented to the court remained red.
Chief Inspector Gladys Aikins, who is prosecuting the case, accused the defence of attempting to delay proceedings, arguing that counsel had not objected when the blood-stained underwear was tendered in evidence.
She said the prosecution was prepared to facilitate a medical examination of the accused at the Police Hospital and that the Police Crime Laboratory could examine the stain.
However, she explained that the laboratory lacked the necessary materials to conduct DNA testing on the evidence.
Chief Inspector Aikins further argued that the prosecution could not be expected to pay for an independent practitioner to conduct tests sought by the defence.
She urged the court to allow the trial to proceed, pointing out that the defence had not challenged the exhibit when it was introduced.
Mr Gbesemete maintained that his client was not deliberately delaying the trial, noting that the applications were filed within a week of the prosecution closing its case.
He argued that the state had a responsibility to protect both the complainant and the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The defence subsequently pleaded with the court to allow Adigbli adequate time to prepare his case.
The presiding judge maintained that the burden of proof had been transferred to the defence since the prosecution had closed its case. She noted that the onus was on the accused to finance any forensic evidence if he opted to use an independent facility.
The court stood by its earlier ruling, with the presiding judge indicating that counsel could appeal if dissatisfied with the decision.
The judge also warned that the accused’s bail could be rescinded if he failed to open his defence.
Godwin Adigbli subsequently entered the witness box and adopted his witness statement as his evidence-in-chief.
During cross-examination, he told the court that he had been a teacher for 20 years and taught French at Labone Senior High School for six years.
He confirmed that the school was a mixed one and that the complainant was female, although he said she was not his French student.
When asked to identify the hostel in which the complainant resided, Adigbli said he could not recall its name.
The defence objected to a subsequent question about the person in charge of the hostel, arguing that it would be unfair to expect the accused to identify the person responsible for a hostel when he had already indicated that he did not know where the complainant stayed.
Chief Inspector Aikins opposed the objection, arguing that Adigbli’s own witness statement indicated that the complainant had first come to his attention over a minor issue involving improper school attire.
She submitted that, as a teacher who had encountered the student, he should know the hostel or house to which she belonged.
The court dismissed the objection, describing the question as fair, and directed the witness to answer.
Adigbli explained that he was not a residential teacher and therefore did not know the hostel.
He also disagreed with the prosecution’s suggestion that issues concerning female students should be referred to female teachers, stating that not every matter involving a girl was reported to a female teacher.
The court adjourned the case to November 16 for continuation of cross-examination.
By Laud Adu-Asare
