AMARTEY vs. THE STATE

The appellant was convicted by the Circuit Court, Accra, for possessing narcotics contrary to section 47(1) of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The prosecution case was that during a police search of the appellant’s room on 27 October 1961, officers found under her bed a parcel neatly wrapped in paper and enclosed in a pillow case. When the police tore it open, it was found to contain plant material later examined by the Senior Government Chemist. The appellant consistently explained that the parcel had been given to her the previous evening by one Tijani Sani, the fourth prosecution witness, for safe keeping, and that because of the way it was wrapped she neither knew nor could have known its contents. This factual basis appears in the opening and middle portions of the judgment beginning with: “The prosecution arose in the following circumstances...” and the passages stating that “The appellant did not deny that the parcel was found in her room...” and that she maintained throughout her defence that she did not know its contents.

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C. Ollennu J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. We allowed the appeal in this case on 3 April 1964 after hearing the submissions of counsel, and now proceed to give our reasons. The appellant was convicted by the circuit court judge, Accra, sitting with assessors, upon an indictment charging her with possessing narcotics contrary to section 47 (1) of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961,1 and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with hard labour. She appealed against her conviction on four grounds grouped into three which may be summarised as follows: (1) The learned circuit court judge failed to direct himself on the ingredients of the charge preferred against the appellant, and consequently erred in holding that the charge was proved; (2) The circuit court judge failed to direct himself and the assessors on the evidence of the fourth prosecution witness, and in particular failed to give proper consideration to the explanation of the appellant that .....