The lawyer representing Daniel Asiedu, alias Sexy Don-Don, in the high-profile murder trial of the late MP JB Danquah, has strongly refuted claims that he is financially benefiting from the case.
Rev. Yaw Dankwa (Esq) clarified that his legal services are entirely pro bono, emphasizing that his commitment to the case is driven by professional duty and not personal or political interests. Addressing the court, he urged it to issue a statement dispelling these allegations to preserve the integrity of his role and the judicial process.
In his submissions, Rev. Dankwa raised significant concerns about the prosecution’s evidence. He questioned the credibility of claims about phones allegedly linked to the deceased, pointing out that these devices were not turned on or forensically examined. He also noted that key witnesses, such as the deceased’s wife, were not called to verify ownership of the phones.
Regarding a t-shirt purportedly bearing bloodstains and linked to the accused, the lawyer asserted that it was never presented in court nor subjected to forensic testing. Similarly, he criticized the lack of forensic analysis of a phone that the prosecution claimed had traces of blood evidence.
Rev. Dankwa also highlighted flaws in the handling of DNA evidence, arguing that the samples were not collected under proper guidelines, raising concerns about possible contamination. He questioned the authenticity of the DNA report, alleging it was copied from another laboratory’s findings.
“The report was not authored by the expert who testified. This raises serious concerns of plagiarism or potentially criminal actions,” he told the court.
The defense further criticized inconsistencies in the crime scene reconstruction and witness testimonies, questioning why individuals such as the landlord and a supposed informant were not called to testify.
Summarizing his arguments, Rev. Dankwa described the prosecution’s case as inconsistent and illogical, urging the jury to reject evidence that lacked coherence and credibility.
Amid the legal arguments, the lawyer reiterated his frustration over public misconceptions about his role. “This is a professional obligation, not a pursuit of financial gain or political affiliation,” he stated.
The court has yet to respond to Rev. Dankwa’s request for a public clarification. Meanwhile, the case continues to command significant public attention due to its legal and political implications.