THE STATE vs. AHMAD [1961]DLHC1292

Date	1961-02-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC1292

APALOO J

A. K. GIKUNOO FOR THE STATE

ACCUSED IN PERSON

[1961]DLHC1292
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >

&nbsp;[HIGH COURT]

[1961] GLR 96

DATE: 13TH FEBRUARY, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

A.
K. GIKUNOO FOR THE STATE.

</div>

APALOO, J.

</div>

&nbsp;

The accused is charged with the offence of intentional libel. In
the main, the facts of this case are not in dispute. On the 23rd April, 1960,
the accused went from his cottage to his village at Keniago to vote. He called
on the Keniagohene to do courtesy. He claims that on the orders of the
Keniagohene, he was assaulted. He reported this to the central police at Kumasi
on the 28th April. The police recorded this complaint in the station diary and
sent the accused to the hospital. He was there examined by a doctor and was
given a medical certificate. When he took this to the central police, Kumasi,
he was given an extract of the report and was asked to take this together with
the medical certificate to the Bekwai police. The reason for this is that the
alleged offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Bekwai police.

&nbsp;

The accused says he took these papers to the Bekwai police on the
4th May, 1960, and handed them to Inspector Nicol. He in turn handed them to
Detective Inspector Duncan to whom the accused says he was referred. Accused
says the police were friendly and helpful. The Bekwai police handled this
matter with admirable promptitude. On the very next day, both Inspectors Nicol
and Duncan went with the accused to Keniago village. The accused there pointed
out two persons whom he claimed were some of the people who assaulted him.
Arrangements were made for them to report to the Bekwai police on the 6th May,
1960. They both did. On that day, the accused himself called again at the
Bekwai police station and he there identified to the police four other persons
who had called at the police station on different matters. The police charged
all these six for assaulting the accused. On the very next day all six appeared
before P.W.2, Mr. Okyere Darko, district magistrate, at Kumasi. It would seem
that they all pleaded not guilty and were remanded on bail to appear at the
district court, Bekwai, on the 12th May, 1960. As is usual in these cases,
there was a series of adjournments, but the case was finally disposed of at the
district court, Bekwai, on the 4th June, 1960. All the then accused were
acquitted.

The accused was the only witness called for the prosecution. His
witness, who on the evidence, was waiting outside, was not called, nor was the
medical certificate shown to the district magistrate. The reason for this has
given rise to a conflict of evidence between P.W.2 the district magistrate, and
P.W.4 the prosecuting officer. According to the magistrate when the accused
concluded his evidence he asked for the 2nd witness. The prosecutor said there
was no other witness and closed the case for the prosecution. Inspector Nicol
on the other hand said that after the accused gave evidence the magistrate
asked him certain questions. The accused was not able to satisfy the magistrate
that the persons who assaulted him were the persons then before the court. The
magistrate then decided that there was no case against the then accused and all
six were discharged. I think that Inspector Nicol’s recollection is more likely
to be correct. The learned magistrate may have been a little impatient with the
accused, but there is, in my opinion, no foundation whatsoever for the
allegation that either the magistrate or the police inspectors were corrupted
by the Keniagohene.

The accused says that as a result of the acquittals, the accused
in the case before the magistrate jeered and scoffed at him. He therefore
returned to his village and on the 9th June, 1960, he addressed a petition to
the Attorney-General. This petition gave rise to the present prosecution. In
that petition which was tendered as exhibit B and which the accused admitted
writing, the accused said among other things that the chief of Keniago called
on the district magistrate at Kumasi and corrupted him, and similarly corrupted
the two Inspectors Nicol and Duncan. The accused implied therefore that but for
this corruption, his case would not have come to the end it did. He therefore
prayed the Attorney-General “to reopen the case by means of a law officer from Accra
to proceed to deal with necessary investigation”. In this court, the accused
made no attempt to justify any of the allegations which he made against the
officers concerned. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the allegations
of corruption are false and defamatory of the district magistrate and the two
inspectors. I am satisfied that the accused unlawfully published this to the
Attorney-General through P.W.1, Mr Tettey.

The only real question I have to decide is whether in publishing
this undoubted libel the accused acted negligently or deliberately, in the
sense that he intended to defame the officers named therein.

The accused is a man in his middle sixties and lives in a somewhat
outlandish part of the country. There can be no doubt that he was assaulted on
the 23rd April, 1960, and in the events which happened the accused thought, not
without reason, that justice was denied him. He strikes me as simple and
honest, and he fel</main>