QUAYSON vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1980]DLCA1619

Date	1980-07-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1619

EDUSEI JA

MENSA BOISON JA

EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

DR. S. TWUM FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. BOATENG SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLCA1619
																																						<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" >QUAYSON <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 295<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 JULY 1981<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">

DR. S. TWUM FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. BOATENG, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<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">

EDUSEI, MENSA BOISON AND EDWARD WIREDU
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>Edusei
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The government appointed a commission
of inquiry to investigate the escape of five prisoners from the Ussher Fort
Prison on 12 November 1979. A number of prison officers including the appellant
appeared before the commission. A report was, in due course, submitted to the
government. The government also released a White Paper on the commission’s
report and insofar as the appellant, who was Deputy Director of Prisons, was
concerned, the government made the following statement:<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">“As
regards Mr. S. B. Quayson, the commission found that he showed lack of concern
and duty consciousness with respect to instructions to draft a letter to the
Superintendent of Ussher Fort Prison to disperse the five escaped prisoners.
However, the commission made no recommendation concerning him as to punishment
which must have been an oversight or unintended omission. The government
therefore directs that Mr. Quayson’s services should be dispensed with. In line
not only with action ordered against others involved in the whole sordid
episode of the jail-break but also with the principles on house-cleaning and
accountability as emphasised by the A.F.R.C. of which he was an enforcing
officer.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
quite clear from the White Paper that the government dispensed with the
services of the appellant purporting to act on the findings made against him by
the Jail-break Commission. It becomes necessary therefore to consider whether
there was evidence to support the commission’s findings on which the government
supposedly relied.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
leading to the appellant’s involvement in the jail-break affair may briefly be
stated as follows: The appellant had instructions from the Director of Prisons
to draft a letter to disperse the five prisoners in Ussher Fort Prison. He did
draft the letter and gave it to the director’s own secretary who typed the
letter for the director’s signature. This in a nutshell was what was expected
of the appellant; he carried out his assignment to draft the letter to be
typed, and it was signed by his immediate superior - the Director of Prisons.<o:p></o:p>There is
no evidence that he delayed in drafting the letter, and the director himself
who gave instructions for the draft letter was aware of the restlessness of the
five prisoners at Ussher Fort Prison, and they had even requested him to see
them. In these circumstances, it was, in our view, the responsibility of the
director to see to it that the letter went to the superintendent at the Ussher
Fort Prison since there is no evidence that the appellant was expected to send
the letter to the Ussher Fort Prison.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In view
of the evidence on record, we are unable to appreciate the basis for the
commission’s finding that “having regard to the restricted nature of the communication,
Mr. Quayson showed lack of concern and appreciation which is regrettable.”
Surely the typing was not to be done by the appellant and he was not to sign
the letter either. It seems strange to us that the appellant could be
castigated in the manner the commission did. The finding cannot therefore, by
any stretch of legal ingenuity, be supported by any acceptable evidence on
record. We hold therefore that it cannot stand and we accordingly set it aside.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As
regards the issue of permits to relations of prisoners to visit them in prison,
the evidence clearly established that it was within the competence of the
appellant, and we are at a loss to appreciate the need for the commission in
tacking on this fact to the drafting episode, to say what is contained in
paragraph 130 of the commission’s report, which states:<o:p></o:p>