On January 26, 2017 the court acquitted and discharged Mr Asante after it held that the teacher was wrongfully convicted for defilement.

That was after a DNA test ordered by the court proved that the teacher was not the father of the baby that was the fruit of the said defilement.

Following the court’s decision Mr Asante filed for a compensation and for him to be reinstated as a teacher.

At the hearing, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Asiamah Sampong, informed the court that the processes for Mr Asante to be reinstated had commenced and also the state was working out a compensation package for him.

He, therefore, pleaded with the court to grant the state more time for all the ongoing process to be completed.

Read also: DNA proves man innocent after 10 years in prison

The five-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, granted Mr Sampong’s request and adjourned the case to January 24, 2018.

Other members of the panel were Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice Sule Gbadegbe, Mr Justice Gabriel Pwamang and Mr Justice Yaw Appau.

On September 5, 2005, Mr Asante was jailed 15 years in hard labour by the Tamale High Court for allegedly defiling and impregnating a 14-year-old girl who was his student.

The student claimed that Mr Asante was her lover and had on many occasions had sexual relations with her.

Throughout the trial and even in prison, Mr Asante consistently denied the charges levelled against him, insisting that he never had any amorous relationship with the girl.

He, therefore, initiated an appeal at the Court of Appeal to prove his innocence, but in October 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction.

Not satisfied, Mr Asante appealed to the Supreme Court in 2012.

The apex court ordered a DNA test to be conducted to ascertain whether or not the teacher was the father of the child.

In a unanimous decision on January 26, 2017, the five –member panel held that the DNA test proved that Mr Asante was not the biological father of the baby and, therefore, he could not have been responsible for the pregnancy.

According to the court, apart from the pregnancy, the prosecution in the trial that led to the conviction failed to present any other evidence that the alleged victim was defiled by the court.

The court further held that the so-called victim of the defilement, by lying that the teacher impregnated was dishonest and, therefore, her testimony was deliberately false.