REPUBLIC vs. ASIAMAH [1971]DLSC2151

Date	1971-07-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLSC2151

BANNERMAN C.J

KOI LARBI JSC

SIRIBOE JSC

CHARLES CRABBE JSC

APALOO J.S.C.

GYEKE-DARKO CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC

OKYERE DARKO FOR THE ACCUSED.

[1971]DLSC2151
																																						<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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ASIAMAH <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 478<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:
30 JULY 1971.<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">

GYEKE-DARKO CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>

OKYERE DARKO FOR THE ACCUSED.<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">

BANNERMAN C.J., KOI LARBI, SIRIBOE,
CHARLES CRABBE AND APALOO JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BANNERMAN C.J.<o:p></o:p>Bannerman
C.J. delivered the judgment of the court. In this case referred to this court
by way of a case stated under article 106 (2) of the Constitution, 1969, the
points raised for determination are as to:<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">“(1)
Whether by virtue of article 20 (2) (a) of the Constitution, 1969 this court
has no jurisdiction to try this case on indictment with a jury; <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">(2)
Whether article 1 (2) of the Constitution overrides section 404 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), as a provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. <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">(3)
Whether article 20 (2) (a) of the Constitution overrides the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure (Trial by Jury) Instrument, 1966 (L.I. 499), and section 204
of Act 30 as provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>These
issues arose during the trial on indictment of the accused person on various
counts of conspiracy to steal contrary to section 23 (1) and 124 of the
Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), stealing contrary to section 124 of Act 29 and
forgery contrary to section 159 of Act 29. The trial was before a judge of the
High Court with a jury and proceeded until the close of the case for the
defence when, in opening his address to the court prior to summing-up by the
judge, defence counsel for the first time referred to article 20 (2) of the
Constitution, 1969, and submitted that the trial by jury was a nullity since
the offences with which the accused person was charged were not punishable with
death or life imprisonment. He referred to section 243 (1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), and argued that the accused person was not
charged with any offence punishable with death or life imprisonment and the
minister has not, by legislative instrument made under section 242 (1) of Act
30, appropriated the offences with which the accused person was charged to be
tried by jury, and therefore the trial could only be with assessors, unless the
court, under section 243 (2) of Act 30, for stated reasons, decided to try the
case with a jury instead of with the aid of assessors. He concluded that since
no reasons were stated by the court in the minutes before deciding to try the
accused person with a jury, section 243 (2) could not be said to have been
properly applied and the trial so far was a nullity. Counsel for the
prosecution, in reply, contended that article 20 (2) makes all offences other
than treason (and including those with which the accused is charged) triable by
a judge with a jury, and that the phrase “the punishment for which is death or
imprisonment for life” refers to treason only. He submitted further that even
if the offences in the instant case are not triable by jury the defence did not
object to the trial with jury and section 404 of Act 30 must be applied so as
not to make such a trial invalid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It has
already been decided by this court in the case of Republic v. Maikankan [1971]
2 G.L.R. 473, S.C. that the meaning of article 20 (2) (a) of the Constitution,
1969, is clearly to make trial by a judge with a jury mandatory in offences
punishable with death or life imprisonment, with the exception of treason for
which a different mode of trial is provided by article 20 (2) (h) of the
Constitution. The submission in the court below that treason is punishable by
death or life imprisonment is incorrect. Section 180 (1) of the Criminal Code,
1960 (Act 29), is the appropriate law that determines the punishment for
treason, which is death, and sections 181 and 182 of Act 29 which were cited are
quite irrelevant.<o:p></o:p>