BAWA ALIAS ISSAHAQUE vs. THE REPUBLIC [1986]DLHC557

Date	1986-09-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLHC557

OKYERE J.

M. MUMUNI FOR THE APPELLANT.

E. F. AGBOLOSU PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1986]DLHC557
																																						<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" >BAWA ALIAS ISSAHAQUE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 587<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:
6 SEPTEMBER
1989<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">

M. MUMUNI FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

OKYERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OKYERE J.<o:p></o:p>The
accused was on 15 May 1989 charged in the district Court Grade I, Tamale with
the offence of possessing forged documents, contrary to section 159 of the
criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The particulars of the offence stated are:<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">“Issahaku
Bawa alias Issahaque, agriculturalist aged 32 years: For that you on 11 May
1989, at Tamale in the Northern Magisterial District and within the
jurisdiction of this court, were found in possession of forged documents, to
wit: one General Certificate of Education ‘O’ level certificate, one
testimonial from Tamale Secondary School and one Tamale Secondary School result
slip.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He
pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with
hard labour. It is against his conviction and sentence that he appealed to this
court. The first ground of appeal is that:<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">“The
conviction is ex facie erroneous in that the charge sheet together with the
facts as presented by the prosecution and recorded by the court does not
disclose a triable offence and the appellant therefore pleaded guilty to a
non-existent offence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Mumuni, counsel for the appellant, argued that the charge should have been laid
under section 166 of Act 29, but the intent for the possession of the documents
was not disclosed in the particulars of the charge, or the facts given by the
prosecution. He submitted therefore that mere possession of forged documents
does not constitute an offence. He cited the cases of Osei Tutu v. The State
[1965] G.L.R. 593; Watara v. The Republic [1974) 2 G.L.R. 24 and R v. Muambo
(1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 27, and said that the proceedings were a nullity because the
facts did not disclose any triable offence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second ground of the appeal is: “The sentence of two years’ imprisonment with
hard labour is excessive in all the circumstances and/or is unlawful.” Dealing
with the sentence he submitted that it was a nullity, but assuming that the
conviction was lawful, it was too harsh since the maximum sentence a district
court grade I is empowered to impose is two years, and the appellant was a
first offender.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Agbolosu, counsel for the Republic, in opposing the appeal, said that there
were sufficient grounds to support the charge because anybody going to Cuba is
expected to possess a school certificate. Therefore, since the accused was found
in possession of a forged G.C.E. certificate he must be deemed to have the intent
in section 166 of Act 129. He submitted that the accused forged the documents
with the intent to evade the requirements of the law. He cited Akowuah v.
Commissioner of Police [1964) G.L.R. 475, S.C. to support his submission.<o:p></o:p>Section
159 of Act 29 under which the charge of possessing forged documents was laid
provides:<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">“159.
Whoever forges any document whatsoever, with intent to defraud or injure any
person, or with intent to evade the requirements of the law, or with intent to
commit, or to facilitate the commission of, any crime, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanour.”<o:p></o:p>