DEBRAH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1991]DLHC2229

Date	1991-12-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLHC2229

ACQUAH J

ADZOVIE FOR THE ACCUSED.

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC.

[1991]DLHC2229
																																						<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" >DEBRAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, HOHOE]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 2
GLR 517<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 20 DECEMBER 1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ADZOVIE
FOR THE ACCUSED.<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">

NO
APPEARANCE FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF ACQUAH J.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal deals with the offence of disrespect to a chief, contrary to section
53(a) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). The Act only creates the offence
but does not define what language or conduct constitutes disrespect or insult
to a chief. My researches also had not revealed any reported decision on this
section. Hence, counsel for the appellant had appealed for some guidance to the
lower courts on what is involved in this offence and what the prosecution are
to prove in order to sustain this charge.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant was charged under the said section 53(a) of Act 370, and the
particulars of his offence read: <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">“Yaw
Debrah alias Atikpo; mason: For that you on 13 July 1990 at Kadjebi in the
Volta magisterial district and within the jurisdiction of this court did insult
the chief of Kadjebi, Nana Ogyeabour Akopim Finam II by way of conduct.”<o:p></o:p>In proof
of their case the prosecution called three witnesses, including the police
investigator. Strangely enough, the person who is named in the charge sheet as
having been insulted was never called to testify. And the facts as narrated by
the police prosecutor show that the complainant is not the person alleged to
have been insulted, but the first prosecution witness who claims to be the
linguist of the person named in the charge sheet.<o:p></o:p>Be that
as it may, the evidence of the first prosecution witness is that in July 1990 a
complaint was made to him, in his capacity as the linguist to Nana Ogyeabour
Akopim Finam II, by one Kodwo Sekyere that the appellant herein was found in
the early hours of the morning collecting stone particles in front of the
palace. He said such conduct was against custom and so he reported the incident
to the said Nana Finam II. Following this complaint, an arbitration headed by
this same Nana Finam II was held to afford the appellant an opportunity to
explain his conduct. The appellant was found liable and ordered to pay four
bottles schnapps, one live sheep and a pot of palm wine. But the appellant,
without speaking through the linguist nor the odawuro, announced that he would
not pay the fine. This, according to the first prosecution witness, was equally
against custom. Thereafter the appellant, without permission, left the
arbitrators - a conduct which is also against custom. And considering the
appellant’s conduct to be disrespectful to the chief and traditional authority,
he reported same to the police.<o:p></o:p>Under
cross-examination, the first prosecution witness said that the conduct of the
appellant which led him to lodge a complaint with the police consisted in:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1). “refusing to talk through the okyeame
but speaking to the chief directly; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2). leaving the palace without asking for
leave from the okyeame as tradition demands; and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3). picking particles of stone from the
chief’s palace without seeking permission.”<o:p></o:p>