Adams Mahama murder case: High Court discharges Afoko,Asabke

The ruling releases both accused persons from trial, although it does not amount to an acquittal.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

 The Accra High Court has discharged Gregory Afoko and Asabke Alangdi, the men accused of orchestrating the 2015 acid attack that killed former NPP regional chairman Adams Mahama.

Justice Marie-Louise Simmons shut down the proceedings on Monday, 1 December 2025, citing chronic prosecutorial inertia, repeated adjournments, and a stalled jury process that had rendered the continuation of the case untenable.

The ruling releases both accused persons from trial, although it does not amount to an acquittal.

At the heart of the judge’s decision was a pattern of prosecutorial non-performance that undermined the viability of the third trial:

The case was on its third restart following a hung jury in April 2023.

The 2024–2025 proceedings saw only five of sixteen prosecution witnesses testify.

From late November 2024, the trial entered a cycle of six consecutive adjournments, all triggered by the prosecution.

By the seventh adjournment, the prosecution failed to appear altogether, leaving the court with no indication of how the State intended to proceed.

Jury attendance had also degraded, with only five of seven jurors present on the final hearing date — despite allowances being paid.

Against this backdrop, Justice Simmons declared the trial effectively non-functional:

The empanelled jurors were dissolved, with the court formally recording appreciation for their extended service.

The Afoko prosecution has been marked by an extraordinary procedural journey:

2015–2019: the first trial collapsed.

2023: the second trial concluded with a hung jury (4–3 in favour of not guilty).

January 2024: the third trial began de novo, relying on the 2019 bill of indictment.

February 2025: Afoko secured bail after nearly ten years in custody; the State did not oppose.

The failure of the third attempt now places the entire prosecution in a precarious position. Unless the Attorney-General determines otherwise, the State effectively loses active control of a case that has consumed significant national attention for a decade.

Prosecutors had alleged that on 20 May 2015, the accused men ambushed Adams Mahama at his home in Bolgatanga and doused him with acid, causing catastrophic burns that proved fatal during emergency evacuation to Accra.

The case drew political scrutiny due to Afoko’s family ties—he is the brother of former NPP Chairman Paul Afoko—and the broader internal party tensions surrounding the events leading up to the attack.

The State’s narrative included:

A chain of confrontations between Mahama and national executives of the NPP.

The formation of rival youth groups aligned to internal party factions.

Evidence of premeditation, supported by witness statements and the deceased’s dying declaration naming Afoko and Alangdi.

Despite this evidentiary foundation, the prosecution’s chronic inability to advance its own case ultimately proved decisive.

The discharge signals several operational realities for Ghana’s criminal justice ecosystem:

Judicial intolerance for prolonged prosecutorial inefficiency
The ruling underscores a renewed posture by the bench to curtail cases that become procedurally stagnant.

Elevated accountability on State prosecutors
High-stakes criminal cases will increasingly require disciplined trial management, timely witness coordination, and strategic clarity.

Potential reassessment by the Attorney-General’s Department
A nolle prosequi, re-filing, or strategic withdrawal remain open options, but all would attract political and administrative scrutiny.

Systemic cost considerations
The case has incurred significant public expenditure through jury allowances, security arrangements, and repeated de novo proceedings.

With the discharge:

Gregory Afoko and Asabke Alangdi exit the courtroom free of active trial obligations.

Their bail and custody conditions are dissolved unless the State reinitiates proceedings.

The ruling does not equate to an acquittal; the Attorney-General may elect to restart the process, though practicality and public interest calculus will weigh heavily.