By Nicholas Osei-Wusu
A Circuit Court at Asokwa in the Ashanti region has remanded into Police custody the Suame Constituency Youth Organizer of the NDC, Razak Okoamoa Avoliya, for six days. Mr. Avoliya has been formally charged by the police with Offensive Conduct conducive to breach peace.
The Suame Constituency Youth Organizer of the NDC, Razak Koampa Avoliya, was formally arraigned before a Circuit Court at Asokwa near Kumasi at about 11.15 a.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2023, by the Police, to a very charged atmosphere at the court premises.
Clad in a white long sleeve shirt over blue jeans in a handcuff, the Constituency Youth Organizer looked undaunted as he tried to wave at the excited crowd of NDC regional, Constituency and Ward Executives with some members and sympathizers who had arrived at the court premises nearly three hours before his arrival.
On the arrival of the police vehicle that brought him, the crowd went into a spontaneous chant of the NDC’s revolutionary song ‘Revo, Revo Revo’ amidst heavy police presence, some armed to the teeth, who had also arrived to take up strategic positions at the court premises well ahead of the accused’s arrival.
Coming few minutes ahead of the accused person and the police were the Prosecutor, ACP Kofi Blagodzi, who is also the Head of the Legal and Prosecution Unit of the Ashanti Central Regional Police. When the case was called by the Court presided over by Mr. Fred Obikyere, the Prosecutor, ACP Blagodzi, presented the accused, Razak Koampa Avoliya, 32 years of age, and read the charge formally preferred against him.
ACP Blagodzi charged the Constituency Youth Organizer with breaching Section 207 of the Criminal and Other Offences Law, Act 29, with, ‘Offensive Conduct conducive to breach of peace’.
ACP Blagodzi had referred to a social media video in which the Suame Constituency Youth Organizer allegedly made some comments allegedly inciting members of his party in the constituency to arm themselves in defense during the 2024 electioneering if they were attacked by members of the NPP in order to win the polls.
In urging the Court to remand the accused person, ACP Blagodzi explained that, if Razak were granted bail, he could interfere with the Police’ investigation into the case.
The Police Prosecutor told the Court that, it was the Police who pursued Razak and eventually arrested him and that a bail for him would not auger well for further investigation.
This claim by the Police Prosecutor was however countered by the head of the defence Counsel, Lawyer Evans Amankwaah, who informed the court that the accused surrendered himself to the Sofoline police on Wednesday, February 8, 2023, in the company of his Counsel and party executives. This claim was corroborated by the CID in charge of the case.
In opposing the pleas by the Prosecutor against the grant of a bail, defense counsel argued that, since the accused person voluntarily surrendered himself to the Police, he did not pose any risk to the investigation and was not a flight risk.
Lawyer Amankwaa argued further that the accused person had persons of substance, including himself as the defense counsel, to stand surety for him. He accused the Police Prosecutor of misinterpreting what the accused person said in the viral video. The presiding Judge, Mr. Fred Obikyere, said the fact that the accused person had willingly submitted himself to the police was indicative that he was ready to cooperate with further investigations.
Mr. Obikyere noted that however, based on the utterances of the accused in the said viral video, granting him bail could create anarchy and chaos in the society stressing that, the remarks of Razak has serious national security implications hence must be held in Police custody.
The court asked that the accused person be brought again before the court on Tuesday, February 14, which coincidentally will be Valentine’s Day.
Speaking to the media later in an interview, lead Counsel for the accused, Lawyer Evans Amankwaah, said even though whether or not to grant a bail application is a discretionary matter for the presiding judge, he disagreed with the court’s decision.
