$1.9m gold scam: Anas confessed to “being bought’ with $100k to shield Baba Tunde
In his lengthy ruling on March 15, 2023, Justice Eric Baah of the Court of Appeal, who recently dismissed investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas‘ GHS25 million defamation lawsuit against Assin Central MP Kennedy Agyapong, revealed that the CEO of Tiger Eye P.I., who in his opinion engages in “investigative terrorism” rather than “investigative journalism,” confessed on tape to being bribed with $100,000 by one Baba Tunde, one of
Additionally, Justice Baah said in his judgment that one of the exhibits tendered in court, also captured Anas on tape confessing to giving a former Director-General of the Criminal Investigations Department of the Ghana Police Service, Mr Adu Poku, some $75,000 as bribe.
According to the judgment, the journalist who was the plaintiff in the defamation case in which he sought damages from Mr. Agyapong for calling him names like “blackmailer, corrupt, extortionist, criminal, evil, and murderer” in the documentary “Who Watches The Watchman” that was aired in 2018 on Net2 TV, a media outlet owned by the politician, to purportedly expose the alleged shady dealings of the Tiger Eye P.I. CEO
ALSO CHECK: WAEC begins 2023 WASSCE registration
Go to Justice. The following is Eric Baah’s decision about the gold scam case, based on which he found that Mr. Agyapong was correct to describe Mr. Aremeyaw as a “blackmailer, extortionist, criminal, and corrupt”
Hafiz Abdallah, who first appears in Exhibit KOA1 on Net 2 TV on May 31, 2018, accuses the plaintiff of accepting a $50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) bribe to halt an inquiry into a gold scam by the aforementioned Hafiz and others.
Hafiz claims that the plaintiff’s refusal to share the recordings about the case was due to the money he accepted.
The conversation between the plaintiff and Baba Tunde and Mubarak may be seen in the next segment of the video.
The topic of conversation was a 1.9 million dollar gold scam involving Baba Tunde, Mubarak, and Hafiz Abdallah, among other suspects.
They received a total of $560,000 out of the $1.9 million, claims Mubarak.
He stated that Hafiz, “those at the airport, and all other folks,” all received a portion of this cash.
Mubarak made it apparent to the plaintiff that they belonged to a global gang of criminals.
“The individual who brought the business was from Cotonou,” Mubarak said. Although he goes by the name Abbas, Kwame is his business name in Cotonou. He operates under that name professionally. He isn’t present.
One of the accused, “Prince is not here, he is in Cotonou,” he informed the lawsuit.
In the following remarks, Mubarak acknowledged his involvement in the crime: “We don’t hide anything. Honestly, I’m unsure if it was 1.9. But as for myself, I am aware that I am involved.
He then went on to list the amount received as well as how much each suspect and their aides received.
The plaintiff and the two suspects then had a protracted conversation in which they made plans for how they would create a false narrative to blame one Hafiz for refusing to assist the plaintiff by providing him with money, how they would tell their charming tale to the police, and how they would secure the proceeds of the crime in their bank accounts.
Following this interaction, the plaintiff met the prosecutor in the gold scam case for what his attorney claimed to be a trial practice session.
In fact, the information plaintiff had obtained regarding the suspects was the focus of their initial investigation.
He attempted to describe the circumstances to the prosecutor while displaying the footage of his interaction with the suspects.
The subject of the suspects was then turned to money, the plaintiff, and the prosecutor.
The complainant admitted to the prosecutor that he had been paid $100,000.00 to buy his silence. The dialogue went like this: ‘ Prosecutor: Hmm, they’ve been trying hard to resolve everything.
Anas: From where did he get 1.9 million dollars and his demeanor? From whom did they steal it? Then he began describing to me how these individuals arrived and began assisting them. Because he is somehow related to me, they spent $100,000 to buy me at that time. Somehow. I have no idea how.
The prosecution was interested in finding out who provided the plaintiff’s money, how much she would earn, and how the evidence would be distorted to find a victim (Hafiz).
They then had the following conversation: ‘ Prosecutor: Is it the two of them? Anas: Baba Tunde, not you. Now, he desired to defend himself. Inform me how much was transferred to me, prosecutor.
Anas: $5,000 (five thousand dollars) Prosecutor: We all want money, we all need money… Anas: Exactly. Prosecutor: That’s the reason why I had to know the evidence he had and then we turn it to suit the presentation you have in court’.
According to the plaintiff’s own admission in the video that he had bribed the CID Director General: Anas: They’ve got… The head of CID at the time was Adu Poku. I thus met with him and gave him $75,000′.
The plaintiff’s assertion that the incident in the prosecutor’s office depicted in the second section of the film was a rehearsal was found to be substantially untrue.
The evening did indeed begin as a rehearsal but deviated into unrelated topics.
It immediately turned into a section on how to exchange bribes and sabotage the criminal investigation into the gold swindle that was still ongoing.
Otherwise, how related was the rehearsal to the confession of plaintiff that Baba Tunde had bought him with $100,000.00, a claim which became proven by the exclusion of Baba Tunde from the charges despite his tape-recorded confession which was in the possession of the plaintiff?
How related was the rehearsal to plaintiff’s confession that he met the then Director General of CID, Ghana Police Service, and bribed him with $75,000.00?
And how related was the rehearsal to plaintiff’s confession that he had paid a bribe of $5,000.00 into the account of the prosecutor?
Plaintiff evaded the critical issues raised by his confession statements in exhibit KOA1 and hid under the shaky and porous banner of the rehearsal.
There is no evidence of the real copy that was supposed to be tendered, notwithstanding the prosecution’s attempt to tender a tape of the plaintiff against the defendants.
Although it might have been a modified and edited version of exhibit KOA1, it might have been the identical copy.
According to the plaintiff, he took a nap after the court denied the prosecution’s request to have the tape admitted.
The tape was subsequently put on hold, and it wasn’t until the defendant broadcast his “Who Watches Watchman” that it came to the public’s attention.
Had it not been for the efforts of the investigators of that piece and the defendant, Ghanaians and the world would never have become aware of that tape and the culprits therein.
Name, humiliate, and prosecute has become the plaintiff’s catchphrase, which is repeated nonstop in our ears and of which I take judicial notice.
In response, the plaintiff has hurried to show the public audiovisuals about his findings, frequently for a price (judicial notice).
Further judicial notice is taken of the fact that hundreds of cedis and/or goats, yam, and other items were collected as bribes in several of the investigations that were made public. Consider the research on judges titled “Ghana in God’s Eyes: Epic of Injustice,” which was quoted by the plaintiff’s attorney.
The theft in question, which totaled $1.9 million, was likely the largest crime overall that the plaintiff has looked into.
As mentioned above, the culprits confessed on tape and in the face of plaintiff, their involvement in the crime.
The suspects indicated that they are an international criminal gang operating between Ghana and Cotonou.
A tape covering the self-confession of the suspects in a gold scam involving $1.9 million and a cross-border gang with accomplices at the airport and other places, would have been explosive on the airways.
But the airwaves were kept silent by the plaintiff and his team.
As has been his custom, the plaintiff in this case neglected to publicly air the explosive footage in order to identify and expose the culprits.
Unusually for him, he deferred to the court first rather than last. Yet, plaintiff kept the recording a secret even after the court rejected it and the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
He continued to be silent.
From 2009 until 2018, when the videos were first made public thanks to the defendant, he remained silent.
As the plaintiff has continued to play recordings of his own investigations, it was not due to a change in attitude or policy.
What incapacitated the plaintiff from showing the tape to the public?
The answer is in the tape.
In the tape, Hafiz decoded the reason why the plaintiff refused to air the tape as was his tradition in other investigations.
Said Hafiz of the plaintiff’s conduct: “So, why didn’t you show the videos? You showed the custom officers, you showed the judges, but when it came to our time because he took the 50,000 (fifty thousand dollars), he didn’t show it. You understand where I am coming from? All that am trying to say to Ghanaians is that this guy is not correct. He is not a correct human being because he comes to do this thing, he goes to edit what he wants to add and minus what he wants-like any movie producer will do. That is exactly what he is doing. It is a movie that he is producing.”
The claim of Hafiz, when considered in the context of other events in the case, assumes the status of high credibility.
In the tape, plaintiff appeared to plot with Mubarak and Baba Tunde, on how to shield them and the other culprits and shift the blame onto Hafiz.
When plaintiff met the prosecutor in her office, the plot continued.
To that end, the prosecutor told plaintiff: “That’s the reason why I had to know the evidence he had and we turn it to suit the presentation you have to do in court.”
To “turn” evidence to suit plaintiff’s narration in court, was to bend the evidence, in breach of the law, and in violation of the ethics of prosecution.
As a prosecutor, you do not turn or bend one piece of evidence to suit the other. You present it as it is, even if it would be to the accused’s benefit.
The ethics of prosecution goes on to require that if a prosecutor has evidence which will benefit or exonerate the accused, and which evidence the accused person does not possess, the prosecutor must hand over that piece of evidence to the accused.
The up-quoted part of the conversation meant one and only one thing, that there was a plot between the plaintiff and the prosecutor to sabotage the trial.
In the court proceedings (exhibits KOA2/ F-series), the case began with Mohammed Hafiz Abdallah. Then an unnamed person was added. Later, the three persons appearing as accused persons were: Mohammed Hafix Abdallah, Mubarak Seidu and Prince Kingston Kwame.
Conspicuously missing was Baba Tunde, who plaintiff had captured on tape confessing to the crime.
Why was Baba Tunde left out? If he was left out by the prosecution without the knowledge of plaintiff, did the plaintiff petition the Attorney General for his inclusion, since he had his confession on tape?
The evidence before me amply proves that Baba Tunde was excluded from the charges through the machinations of the plaintiff, after receiving a bribe of $100,000.00 from Baba Tunde, and on grounds of their family relationship.
For the sake of emphasis, I will repeat the relevant aspect of the conversation between the plaintiff and the prosecutor on Baba Tunde: ‘Prosecutor: Hmm they have really been working and are settling everybody. Anas: “…his demeanour, 1.9 million dollars from where? Who did they take it from? Then he started telling me how the people came here and were working with them. So, at that time they bought me with hundred thousand dollars because he is somehow related to me. Somehow. I don’t know how…? Prosecutor: Is it the two? Anas: No, Baba Tunde. He now wanted to fight for himself’.
If plaintiff says that Baba Tunde, in fighting for himself, bribed him with $100,000.00, who else can say he didn’t?
True to the scheme, Baba Tunde who had confessed to a crime involving $1.9 milliom on a tape in the possession of plaintiff, was excluded from the charges.
The video of his confession was never shown to the public.
Bribery and corruption by and of public officers are a crime under section 239 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Section 239 (1) and (2) provides: “(1) Every public officer or juror who commits corruption, or wilful oppression, or extortion, in respect of the duties of his office, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. (2) Whoever corrupts any person in respect of any duties as a public officer or juror shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.”
Corruption by and of a Public Officer, etc. has been explained in sections 240 and 241 of Act 29 as follows: “Section 240. A public officer, juror, or voter is guilty of corruption in respect of the duties of his office or vote, if he directly or indirectly agrees or offers to permit his conduct as such officer, juror, or voter to be influenced by the gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by him, or by any other person, from any person whomsoever.
Section 241
If someone attempts to influence the behavior of a public official, juror, or voter with regard to the duties of their office or with regard to their vote, either directly or indirectly, through the gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by the public official, juror, or voter, or by another person, from whoever, they are guilty of corrupting them.
A voluntary confession statement is admissible against the maker in criminal cases as stated above.
In a civil trial, proving an allegation of a crime requires proving it “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but the confession statements relieved the defendant of this burden.
Conclusion: Based on evidence KOA1, the defendant proved the plaintiff’s criminal accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.
The plaintiff’s attorney used logical fallacies and theoretical justifications to try to prove the claim.
