REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ASAMANKESE: EX PARTE IDE ZABRAMAH AND OTHERS [1972]DLHC2415

Date	1972-01-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2415

QUASHIE-SAM J.

E. OKYERE DARKO FOR AMOFAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

R. K. BRUCE ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1972]DLHC2415
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ASAMANKESE: EX PARTE IDE ZABRAMAH AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KOFORIDUA]<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;[1972]
1 GLR 398<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
31 JANUARY 1972.<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">

E. OKYERE DARKO FOR AMOFAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

R. K. BRUCE, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
REPUBLIC.<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">

QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>On 19
January 1972 I made an order quashing the order of the District Magistrate’s
Court, Asamankese, made on 27 July 1971, recommending deportation of 32 aliens
after their trial by the court and reserved my reasons. I now give my reasons
for granting the order of certiorari.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant, Ide Zabrama and 31 others were arraigned before the District Court
II at Asamankese charged with the following offence as shown in the record of
proceedings:<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">“Being in
Ghana without valid documents: Section 12 (1)(e) of Act 160/63. Being in a
Prohibited Area without permit: Section 9A (1) and (4) as amended by N.L.C.
Decree 259/68 and Regulation 9 (1) [sic.] and 2 (1) of L.I. 612/69 of Act
160/63.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Though
the record of proceedings shows only one statement of offence, it recites two
offences, namely, being in Ghana without valid documents and being in a
prohibited area without permit. Furthermore the record of proceedings shows no
particulars whatsoever in support of the offence or offences but states that
all the applicants pleaded guilty to both charges.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
face of the record the applicants were made to plead to what purported to be
two charges under one statement of offence and until then the trial court
itself was not seised with the information upon which the prosecution had been
mounted. This information was narrated verbally in the court only after the
plea, whereupon the court convicted and sentenced each person to four months’
imprisonment with hard labour with a recommendation for deportation after
serving sentence. That the charge disclosed no particulars of offence is a
gross irregularity or error on the face of the record for, especially in a
charge such as being in a prohibited area without permit, it is necessary to
disclose the particular prohibited area or areas and other particulars
necessary for giving reasonable information to the person or persons facing the
charge or charges as to the case he or they have to answer.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
mandatory provisions of section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act
30), as amended by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act 261),
s. 1. are: [His lordship here read the provisions as set out in the headnote
and continued:] It is apparent on the face of the record that these mandatory
provisions were omitted in framing the charge or charges in this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
case of the Commissioner of Police v. Wenyonu (1958) 3 W.A.L.R. 459, C.A. where
similar circumstances arose, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the
ground that there was nothing in the particulars of offence to indicate to the
accused person which of the multifarious duties he had neglected or in what respect
he had fallen short of his duty. The accused in that case, a police sergeant,
faced particulars of offence which merely recited that he had been guilty of
neglect of duty wi</main>