The case of Daniel Owusu Koranteng, charged with the murder of investigative journalist Ahmed Suale, has taken a new turn with his lawyer, Kofi Essel, vehemently denying allegations of his client’s evasion of justice. Koranteng’s alleged presence near Suale’s Madina residence around the time of the shooting, coupled with his subsequent departure for Amasaman later that night, has placed him squarely in the crosshairs of the investigation. Authorities contend that Koranteng ignored police summons and fled to the United Kingdom in 2019, only to be apprehended upon his return to Ghana in 2025 after a period of surveillance. However, Essel’s assertions paint a drastically different picture, claiming Koranteng’s continuous presence in Ghana and his active involvement in undercover investigative journalism during the period in question.
Essel’s counter-narrative challenges the official account, arguing that Koranteng has not only remained in Ghana since the incident but has also been diligently pursuing investigative work, leading to publications, television appearances, and even arrests related to the sale of contaminated food and pharmaceuticals. This portrayal of Koranteng as an active and contributing member of society stands in stark contrast to the image of a fugitive evading the law. The lawyer’s insistence on Koranteng’s continuous presence within Ghana raises questions about the efficacy of the police investigation and their claims of attempted contact. The conflicting accounts now necessitate a thorough examination to determine the veracity of each side’s claims.
The crux of the disagreement lies in the timeline and nature of Koranteng’s activities following Suale’s murder. The prosecution’s narrative depicts Koranteng as fleeing the country to avoid questioning, while the defense portrays him as remaining in Ghana, pursuing his investigative journalism career. This divergence raises critical questions: did Koranteng indeed flee to the UK, or was he continuously present in Ghana as his lawyer claims? Were the police attempts to contact him genuine and sufficiently diligent, or were there oversights in their investigative process? The answers to these questions will be crucial in establishing the truth and ensuring a fair trial.
Essel’s argument hinges on the demonstrable nature of Koranteng’s investigative work during the period he was allegedly on the run. He points to publications, television broadcasts, and successful arrests stemming from Koranteng’s investigations as evidence of his continuous presence and active engagement within Ghana. This presents a compelling challenge to the prosecution’s narrative, as it requires an explanation for how Koranteng could simultaneously be evading authorities while publicly conducting investigative work and contributing to law enforcement efforts. The apparent contradiction inherent in these two versions of events demands further scrutiny.
The implications of this case extend beyond the immediate legal proceedings. The murder of Ahmed Suale, a renowned investigative journalist, has cast a long shadow over press freedom and the safety of journalists in Ghana. The trial of Daniel Owusu Koranteng carries significant weight, as it represents an opportunity to bring those responsible to justice and to reaffirm the importance of protecting journalists and their work. However, the conflicting narratives presented by the prosecution and defense raise concerns about the thoroughness and impartiality of the investigation, emphasizing the need for a transparent and meticulous judicial process.
The unfolding legal battle between the prosecution and defense promises to be a complex and closely watched affair. The contrasting portrayals of Daniel Owusu Koranteng, as either a fugitive from justice or a dedicated investigative journalist, present a formidable challenge to the court. Unraveling the truth amidst these conflicting narratives will require a careful examination of the evidence, thorough cross-examination of witnesses, and a commitment to uncovering the facts, regardless of where they lead. The outcome of this trial will have profound implications, not only for the individuals involved but also for the broader landscape of press freedom and the pursuit of justice in Ghana.
