Daniel Asiedu, the man accused of murdering Abuakwa North Member of Parliament (MP), Joseph Boakye Danquah-Adu, has shared graphic details of his alleged sexual interactions with a woman he claims was a sex worker at Konkonsa Bar at Agbogbloshie.
Asiedu, affectionately called ‘Sexy Don Don’, claimed that the prostitute’s exceptional services left a lasting impression, and he found himself craving for more.
This desire led him to visit the lady’s house again at 4:00 am having left there earlier at 2:00 am to the Konkonsa Bar for more energy drinks in pursuit of another encounter.
Daniel Asiedu is facing a jury trial before the High Court in Accra presided over by Justice Lydia Osei Marfo for the murder of late MP who was killed on February 8, 2016.
He is currently in the witness box mounting his defense after the prosecution led by Mrs Sefakor Batse, a Principal State Attorney, had closed its case and the court held that Asiedu has a case to answer.
Apart from murder, he is also facing a charge of robbery despite being acquitted on the charge of conspiracy with Vincent Bossu, who has since been freed.
On Monday, November 4, 2024, when the trial resumed after long delays – largely because of the jury strike in the 2023/24 legal year – Sexy Don Don was in the witness box to answer questions on the legislator’s death.
Asiedu had previously told the court how he went to the Konkonsa Bar to have fun and was approached by a prostitute who took him to her house for sex.
While being led by his Counsel, Yaw Dankwah to give further testimony to the court and the jury on Monday, November 4, he explained that he went back to the lady’s home for the second time for more pleasures around 4:00 am when he had left there earlier at 2:00 am.
“My lady, whenever I feel like having sex, I do go to Vienna city at Madina to do so. But the way this lady showed me pleasure on that night made me go back after I went to the beer bar at 2:00 am to have more drinks.
“While drinking, I reflected on the way we have had pleasure and the conversations we had and that made me go back to her,” Asiedu told the jury on Monday.
EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, reports that Asiedu was speaking through a Twi interpreter.
Below are excerpts of Asiedu’s evidence-in-chief:
Q: You were in this courtroom when the prosecution tendered statements allegedly made by you voluntarily to the police. Do you remember that?
A: Yes, I remember.
Q: Can you tell this court what you said in the very first statement you made to the police?
A: My lady, it was at dawn when I went to the police regional headquarters to lodge a complaint against some people who had come to where I had gone to patronize the services of a prostitute. So, when I was about reporting the matter to the police, the one I went with asked me to wait for him at the counter back whilst he went up to see the commander of the station. So, while standing in front of the counter, the gentleman I went with came back with the police officer. I did not make my complaint at the time but they told me the commander wanted to see me.
Q: The police are saying that in your statements you said that you were not involved but in other statements, you said that you were there with some people and you mentioned names and in other statements, you took from me; you are saying that you were there. Can you explain to the jury why these different statements?
A: When the then-commander Dampare called for me when I got there, he gave me a seat. He asked about my health and I answered him. Then he asked again why I was here then I told him that someone had broken into our room and I was here to report the matter to the police. Then he told me that he wanted to ask me a question… Then he showed me a picture on his phone and asked whether I knew the said person, I answered no, I do not know him. Then he asked DS Sarpong to take me to their washroom, then I asked what the matter was.
Q: All these you have told the court, what we want is for you to tell the court why there are disparities in your statements.
A: In my first statement, I stood by my belief and told the truth to the police that I knew nothing about the matter. Then they asked me whether I loved my life or I wanted to die. Then he explained to me that, have I seen what DSP has done to me, what will follow will be worse than that. So, then I told them that whatever they tell me, I will agree to it and also whatever they ask me to do, I will do that.
Q: After Dampare threatened you with your life after being beaten, were your statements taken again after that?
A: Yes, my lady. They did not allow me to talk rather they brought a paper and asked me to thumb print which I did.
Q: Tell the jury whether the paper they brought for you to thumbprint; was there any writing on the paper or it was a blank paper that was given to you to thumbprint?
A: My lady, it was a police statement form filed with two pages which I was asked to thumbprint.
Q: Take a look at Exhibit W, specifically the caution statement dated the 13th of February, 2016 is this one of the papers they asked you to thumbprint without you writing anything?
A: Yes, my lady.
Q: In this courtroom, there was a so-called DNA expert who came and sat where you are sitting now and claimed that a DNA which matches your sample was found on a T-shirt and that T-shirt was found in a JB Danquah’s house and the police are saying that you were wearing that T-shirt even though it was never brought to this court, what do you say about what the police are alleging?
Counsel for the Republic:
My lady, if we could cross-check the Exhibits to see what Exhibit B is because counsel for the accused in his question states that the said T-shirt was never brought to this court? So, this is for the clarity of the records.
My lady, I am objecting to this question because on the 13th of July, 2022 the said exhibit which is the blood-stained t-shirt with a hemisphere worn by the accused person written in it was tendered in this court without objection and labelled Exhibit E.
Counsel for the accused:
My lady, the so-called Exhibit E was never shown to the accused person neither was it shown to the jury the content of what is in that envelope marked Exhibit E, as a result, we pray that Exhibit E be brought to court for the defence counsel to examine it and use it in our case.
By Court:
The objection is sustained because on the 13th of July, 2022 the said t-shirt was admitted in evidence as Exhibit E in this courtroom. However, due to the intimation of counsel for the accused, let the said exhibit be made available on the next adjourned date.
Q: You told this court that you went to relieve yourself socially and the lady you met that night at the beer bar rather made advances on you proposing a relationship which you accepted and you went to her place with her and you said you did your thing and you woke up about 2:00 am and went to the beer bar again for further drink and then you came back to the lady’s place again. Tell this court, the person you just met, you did not know her, she has never been your friend before and you relieved yourself, tell this court why did you go back to her place again at 4:00 am.
A: My lady, whenever I feel like having sex, I do go to Vienna city at Madina to do so. But the way this lady showed me pleasure on that night made me go back after I went to the beer bar at 2:00 am to have more drinks. While drinking, I reflected on the way we have had pleasure and the conversations we had that made me go back to her.
Q: Tell this court when you say that you went back at 2:00 am to drink, What were you drinking or what did you drink?
A: My Lady it was ‘Red Bull’ energy drink.
Q: Give the name of this prostitute who entertained you very well and wanted you to be her boyfriend.
A: Her name is Janet Kyeraa.
The Case has been adjourned to November 6, 2024.
