DONKOR vs. THE STATE [1964]DLSC1898

Date	1964-11-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1898

OLLENNU JSC

ACOLATSE JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

K. D. POODO FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. N. K. TAYLOR SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1964]DLSC1898
																																						<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" >DONKOR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 598<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
20 NOVEMBER 1964.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

K. D. POODO FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. N. K. TAYLOR, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU, ACOLATSE AND SIRIBOE JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On 10 November 1964 we allowed the
appeal in this case, quashed the conviction and the sentence passed upon the
appellant, and acquitted and discharged him. The following are the reasons for
our decision.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant was convicted by his honour Judge Okyere-Darko (as he then was) in
the Circuit Court, Kumasi on four counts of extortion contrary to section 239
of the Criminal Code, 1960.1 The first count reads as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Samuel
Kwame Donkor, road section officer, on the 1st day of December 1963, at Central
Market, Kumasi, in the Ashanti Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction
of this Court, did extort cash the sum of £G1 from one Aliborsha Mali.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second count is as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Samuel
Kwame Donkor, on the 16th day of December 1963, at Central Market, Kumasi, in
the Ashanti Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did
extort cash the sum of £G20 from one Abdulai Mali.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
wording of the third and fourth counts is identical with that of the second
count, save as to the dates of the alleged offences.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
close of the case for the prosecution it was submitted for the appellant that
the charges were defective, that they disclosed no triable offence, and further
that no evidence had been led to prove that the appellant took money under the
colour of any office. The circuit court judge overruled the submissions and
gave as his reason for doing so that, “The evidence adduced, if believed,
clearly shows that the accused obtained the said sums mentioned in the charge
under colour of his office.” The learned circuit court judge had earlier in his
ruling, referred to the case of Commissioner of Police v. Wemah,2 and said that
upon the authority of that case, “the accused has used his occupancy of an
office, either by representing or misrepresenting his duties or powers, to
obtain advantage. This is acting ‘under colour of his office’ and it follows
that it is not necessary to show any particular duty owed within, or by virtue
of the office.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>With due
deference to the learned circuit court judge, we must point out that his ruling
does not show that he appreciates the principles discussed in the Wemah case
(supra). That case showed the difference which exists between the offences of
corruption and extortion by a public officer, and emphasized that an essential
element of the offence of extortion by a public officer is the demanding or
obtaining money under the colour of a public office which he holds. It means
therefore that a charge of extortion by a public officer must aver: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-sha</main>