OJO AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [1999]DLCA11123

Date	1999-02-18
Suit No.	[1999-2000] 1 GLR 169
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA11123

WOOD J.A

BROBBEY J.A

BENIN JA

DANKWA WIAFE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

J C AMONOO-MONNEY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WITH HIM MRS ACQUAH STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1999]DLCA11123
																																						<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" ><div class="WordSection1">

OJO AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>

[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

[1999-2000] 1 GLR 169
&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:18 FEBRUARY
1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>

<h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">COUNSEL<o:p></o:p></h2>

DANKWA WIAFE
FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;
line-height:103%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">J C AMONOO-MONNEY, DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WITH HIM MRS ACQUAH,
STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE REPUBLIC.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM:<o:p></o:p>

WOOD J.A, BROBBEY J.A, BENIN JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>

&nbsp;

<h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">JUDGMENT OF BENIN
JA<o:p></o:p></h2>

Benin JA delivered
the first judgment at the invitation of Wood JA. The appellants were among four persons who were arraigned before the
erstwhile National Public Tribunal in connection with narcotic drug offences.&nbsp; They were
found guilty, convicted and
sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of ten year’s imprisonment. That
was on 6 July 1993. On 8 December 1997
this court, differently constituted, granted the appellant’s application for
extension of time within which to
appeal. Pursuant to the said order the appellants filed their notice of appeal
raising just one legal ground which
reads: “That the tribunal erred in law in failing to take into account article
14 (6) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana”.<o:p></o:p>

Article 14 (6) of the Constitution, 1992 provides:<o:p></o:p>

“(6) Where a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence,
any period he has
spent in lawful custody in respect of that offence before the completion of his
trial shall be taken into account in imposing
the term of imprisonment.”<o:p></o:p>

It
is the contention of counsel for the applLants that if this constitutional
provision had been taken into account,
the sentence imposed would have begun to run from the date they were first
taken into lawful custody, which in
their case was 14 February 1991. And the trial court must say that it has taken
this constitutional provision into account in imposing the sentence.<o:p></o:p>

Counsel
for the Republic, however, argued that by section 315(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30) the
court cannot impose a retroactive sentence. And in respect of the narcotic
offence with which the appellants
were charged, the minimum sentence is ten years, so the trial court had no
discretion in the matter other than
to impose a minimum sentence of ten years from the date of their conviction. So
that all that this court can do is to affirm
the sentence which was not illegal.<o:p></o:p>

Section
315(2) of Act 30 provides: “A sentence of imprisonment shall commence on and
include the whole of the day on which
it is pronounced.” Clearly, this provision does not entitle a court to
back-date a sentence. Thus a court
cannot impose a sentence today and say it should take effect from yesterday. Article
14 (6) of the Constitution only enjoins a court before sentencing a convicted person<span</main>