A deputy Communications Director of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) Kamal-Deen has called the bluff of Kaaka’s family over their decision not to appear before the fact-finding committee probing the killings in Ejura.
According to him, the testimony of the family may not be substantial to unraveling the circumstances surrounding the killings.
“The investigation of Kaaka’s death is in the hands of the police. This statement coming from the family; they could be of help but the last I checked the committee had not invited the family to appear before them,” he told Starr News.
The family of the slain Kaaka says it will not testify before the committee because they do not trust that they will serve them justice
In a statement, the family said even though they are grateful for the establishment of the three-member committee, they do not believe the focus of the committe of will bring them the justice they require.
“In addition, having sought and obtained independent legal advice as to the work of the Committee, and our rights vis-à-vis the Committee, we have become apprehensive of the substantive and procedural regularity of the Committee’s work. We are also now concerned that the Committee’s work does not provide the appropriate framework for a full, faithful and impartial inquiry, as envisaged under Article 278 of the 1992 Constitution. In this connection, we note, in particular:
“(1) Our regret with the decision to not establish this inquiry using the powers provided for under Article 278 of the 1992 Constitution. We are concerned that the failure to institute a proper Commission of Inquiry under Article 278, means that this Committee of inquiry does not have the powers, rights and privileges of the High Court or a Justice of the High Court at a trial. As such, the Committee has no power to (a) enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath,” the statement said.
It added: “Watching the proceedings over the past few days, we have found the Committee’s inability to enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath as well as to compel any documents, to be very puzzling. We are also concerned that these restrictions put the Committee in a position where it can neither vet, validate nor substantiate any statements made before it; nor cross-examine the testimonies of the witnesses on the basis of facts independently procured”.