REPUBLIC vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS AND OTHERS; EX PARTE WILLIAM OFORI-ATTA AND OTHERS [1987]DLHC1177

REPUBLIC vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS AND OTHERS; EX PARTE WILLIAM OFORI-ATTA AND O... [1987]DLHC1177

Date	1987-06-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC1177

AGYEPONG J.

JOE REINDORF (WITH HIM F. S. TSIKATA N. KUENYEHIA

T.T. TSIKATA AND MRS. QUAYSON) FOR THE APPLICANTS.

GYEKE-DARKO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WITH HIM E.M. YAKUBU STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1987]DLHC1177
																																						<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>DIRECTOR OF PRISONS AND OTHERS; EX PARTE WILLIAM OFORI-ATTA
AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 218<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:
19 JUNE 1978<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">

JOE REINDORF (WITH HIM F. S. TSIKATA, N.
KUENYEHIA, T.T. TSIKATA AND MRS. QUAYSON) FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

GYEKE-DARKO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WITH
HIM E.M. YAKUBU, 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AGYEPONG J.<o:p></o:p>After
hearing counsel on both sides, I think what I have to decide is: (1) what is
the effect of the Preventive Custody (Release) Instrument, 1978 (E.I. 46 of
1978), on the detention of the applicants after the date of the promulgation of
that executive instrument? (2) Is the Preventive Custody (Release) (Amendment)
Instrument, 1978 (E.I. 66 of 1978), a valid instrument?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
common ground that the first and second applicants were detained under the
Preventive Custody (No. 5) Order, 1978 (E.I. 38), and the third applicant was
detained under the Preventive Custody (No. 8) Order, 1978 (E.I. 44). E.I. 38 is
dated 5 April 1978, and took effect on the same day. E.I. 44 is dated 20 April
1978, and also took effect on the same day. E.I. 46 is dated 25 April 1978, and
took effect forthwith according to paragraph 2 which 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">“2. For
the removal of doubt, and without prejudice to paragraph 1 of this Instrument,
all persons held in preventive custody at the commencement of this Instrument
under the preventive Custody Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D 2) or any instrument made
thereunder and who have been so held since 1974 shall forthwith be released
from preventive custody under the said Decree or Instrument.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr. Joe
Reindorf, learned counsel for the applicants, contends that since the first and
second applicants were detained on 5 April 1978, they were covered by paragraph
2 of E.I. 46 and were entitled to be released with effect from 25 April 1978, a
submission which, in the absence of extrinsic evidence, at first seemed to sway
the learned Director of Public Prosecutions, learned counsel for the
respondents. However, the learned Director of Public Prosecutions, on further
reflection, parted company with Mr. Joe Reindorf.<o:p></o:p>Thus
while Mr. Joe Reindorf understands the phrase “persons held in preventive
custody . . . since 1974” appearing in E.I. 46 to include those detainees who
have been held from any point of time as from the beginning of 1974 to the date
of the promulgation of E.I. 46, i.e. 25 April 1978, Mr. Gyeke-Darko, the
learned Director of Public Prosecutions, thinks the phrase “persons held in
preventive custody . . . since 1974” applies only to detainees who were
detained in 1974 and were still in detention up to 25 April 1978.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A
reference to the Oxford Dictionary for the meaning of “since” will reveal that
both interpretations of the word “since” are correct. Used as a preposition,
“since” means throughout or in the period between now and an earlier time or
event. In other words “since 1974” could mean throughout the period between 25
April 1978 and 1974 or in the period between 25 April 1978 and 1974. I find therefore
that the phrase<o:p></o:p>“all
persons held in preventive custody . . . since 1974” admits of the two
interpretations canvassed by both counsel.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Of course
if I were to put to the first and second applicants the following question:
“Since when have you been held in preventive custody?” the answer would
probably be since 5 April 1978. But E.I. 46 is addressed to the whole world,
and it is legitimate for the applicants to claim that they are covered by that
instrument, as they have been held in detention in the period between 5 April
1978 and 1974.<o:p></o:p>