Latif Iddrisu Case: Police Witness Struggles to Verify Identity Parade Claims

Introduction

In a pivotal development within the long-running legal battle between Multimedia journalist Latif Iddrisu and the Inspector General of Police (IGP), a police witness testified in court but struggled to substantiate claims about an identity parade. This case, stemming from an alleged attack on Iddrisu by police officers during a protest eight years ago, has drawn significant public and media attention. The latest court proceedings have raised serious questions about the credibility of the police’s evidence and the integrity of the investigative process.

Key Points

Background

The case dates back to 2018 when Multimedia journalist Latif Iddrisu was allegedly assaulted by police officers while covering a protest. Iddrisu subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General, seeking justice and accountability for the attack. After years of pre-trial procedures and delays, the defense finally opened its case on Tuesday, January 27, 2026.

Central to the defense’s argument is the claim that an identity parade was conducted, during which Iddrisu and his witnesses allegedly failed to identify the officers responsible for the assault. However, the credibility of this claim has been severely undermined by the testimony of Superintendent Adom, an officer from the criminal division of the Ghana Police Service.

Analysis

The testimony of Superintendent Adom represents a significant setback for the defense. His repeated admissions of inability to recall crucial details—such as the date of the parade and the supervising officer—raise serious questions about the veracity of the police’s claims. Moreover, the lack of any documentary evidence to support the occurrence of the identity parade further weakens the defense’s position.

Legal experts have noted that the witness’s inability to provide concrete evidence or even basic details about the alleged parade could have significant implications for the case. “When a witness claims an event occurred but cannot provide the date, the participants, or any documentation, it severely undermines the credibility of that testimony,” explains legal analyst Kwame Asante.

The judge’s decision to sustain the objection against “refreshing memory” with the witness statement is particularly noteworthy. This ruling suggests that the court found the witness’s testimony unreliable and not sufficiently supported by the statement itself. The judge’s characterization of the memory refresh request as “mute” indicates a clear skepticism toward the witness’s claims.

The case also highlights broader issues of police accountability in Ghana. The fact that it has taken nearly eight years to reach this stage of proceedings, coupled with the apparent lack of concrete evidence from the police, raises questions about the effectiveness of the justice system in holding law enforcement accountable for alleged misconduct.

Practical Advice

For journalists and media organizations covering similar cases, this development offers several important lessons:

1. **Document everything**: As demonstrated by this case, having thorough documentation can be crucial in legal proceedings. Journalists should maintain detailed records of all interactions with law enforcement and any incidents of harassment or assault.

2. **Seek legal support early**: Given the complexities and potential delays in such cases, it’s advisable to engage legal counsel at the earliest opportunity.

3. **Build a strong support network**: Collaborating with press freedom organizations and other media outlets can provide additional resources and visibility to such cases.

4. **Be prepared for long-term battles**: Cases involving police misconduct often involve lengthy legal processes. Persistence and patience are essential.

For the general public and activists:

1. **Document police interactions**: If you witness or experience police misconduct, document it thoroughly if it’s safe to do so.

2. **Know your rights**: Familiarize yourself with your legal rights when interacting with law enforcement.

3. **Report incidents**: Use official channels to report police misconduct, and consider reaching out to human rights organizations for support.

Frequently Asked Questions

**Q: What is an identity parade, and why is it important in this case?**
A: An identity parade is a police procedure where a suspect is placed among a group of similar-looking individuals for a witness to identify. In this case, the police claim such a parade was conducted, but the witness couldn’t verify its occurrence, which is crucial to the defense’s argument.

**Q: Why has this case taken so long to reach this stage?**
A: Legal cases involving police misconduct often face delays due to various factors, including procedural complexities, resource constraints, and potential attempts to stall proceedings.

**Q: What are the potential outcomes of this case?**
A: Possible outcomes include a ruling in favor of Iddrisu, which could lead to compensation and potential disciplinary action against the officers involved. Alternatively, the court might dismiss the case if it finds insufficient evidence.

**Q: How does this case impact press freedom in Ghana?**
A: This case is seen as a test of the justice system’s willingness to hold law enforcement accountable for actions against journalists, which could have broader implications for press freedom and the safety of journalists in Ghana.

Conclusion

The Latif Iddrisu case represents a critical moment in the ongoing struggle for police accountability and press freedom in Ghana. The police witness’s inability to substantiate claims about an identity parade has significantly weakened the defense’s position and raised serious questions about the credibility of the police’s evidence. As the case continues, it will be closely watched by journalists, human rights organizations, and the public alike, as its outcome could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between law enforcement and the media in Ghana.

The proceedings also highlight the challenges faced by journalists in seeking justice for alleged police misconduct and underscore the need for more robust systems of accountability within law enforcement agencies. As this case unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing work needed to ensure that those who hold power are held accountable for their actions, particularly when it comes to the fundamental right to press freedom.