REPUBLIC vs. YEBBI & AVALIFO [2000]DLSC471

Date	2000-04-12
Suit No.	-
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC471

AMPIAH JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ACQUAH JSC

AKUFFO JSC

GYAMBIBY PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

CAPTAIN EFFAH-DARTEY FOR THE ACCUSED.

[2000]DLSC471
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">YEBBI &amp; AVALIFO<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 50<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: 12 APRIL
2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>GYAMBIBY, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.<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">

CAPTAIN EFFAH-DARTEY FOR THE
ACCUSED. <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 1.0pt 0in">

AMPIAH, KPEGAH, ADJABENG,
ACQUAH AND AKUFFO JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Acquah JSC. <o:p></o:p>Delivered the ruling of the court. On 15 July 1997, Constable
Yebbi and Corporal Avalifo were arraigned before the Greater Accra Regional
Tribunal on charges of conspiracy to steal and stealing ¢100,000,000, contrary
to section 23(1) and 124(1) respectively of the Criminal Code 1960 (Act 29).
The money is said to belong to the National Democratic Congress (NDC), a
political party registered under the Political Parties Registration Laws, 1992
(PNDCL 281).<o:p></o:p>In the course of the trial, the accused challenged the
jurisdiction of the tribunal. They pointed out that under article 143(1) of the
Constitution, 1992 a Regional Tribunal has jurisdiction “to try such offences
against the State and public interest as Parliament may by law prescribe.” But
the offences they were facing could not be said to be against the State or
public interest since the money involved was admitted to belong to a political
party which obviously is not a state institution; neither is the theft of a
political party’s money, an offence against public interest. A Regional
Tribunal can therefore not try such an offence.<o:p></o:p>The prosecution sought to resist the objection by contending that
once Parliament has exercised its discretion by enacting in section 24(1) of
the Courts (Act 459) that a Regional Tribunal has jurisdiction in all criminal
matters, it follows that the tribunal was seised with jurisdiction in the
matter. But the accused in reply submitted that section 24(1) of Act 459 is not
consistent with Article 143(1) of the Constitution, 1992 and consequently null
and void. They supported their contention with the Court of Appeal’s decision
in Dey v The Republic [1997-98] GLR 919, CA.<o:p></o:p>The trial Regional Tribunal accordingly referred the following
issues to this court under article 130(2) of the Constitution, 1992:<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">“(i) Whether on a true and property interpretation of article
143(1) Parliament had power to provide that a Regional Tribunal had
jurisdiction in all criminal matters. <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">(ii) Whether section 24(1) of the Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) is
inconsistent with the said article 143(1) of the Constitution, 1992 and to the
extent of such inconsistency void. <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">(iii) Whether or not the stealing of moneys belonging to a
political party is a crime against the State or the public interest.”<o:p></o:p>In Dey v The Republic (supra), relied on by the accused at the
Regional Tribunal, the appellant who was a storekeeper of the complainant, one
Mrs Bertha Nunyuie at Ho, was charged with one count of stealing ¢4,999,400 and
¢2,224,600 being the proceeds from the sale of cement and drinks respectively.
The offence was alleged to have been committed between 19 March and 4 April
1996. He was tried and convicted by the Regional Tribunal, Ho and sentenced to
three years imprisonment with hard labour. In his appeal at the Court of
Appeal, he contended, inter alia, that the Regional Tribunal had no
jurisdiction in so far as the offence levelled against him was not against the
State or public interest as provided for in article 143(1) of the Constitution,
1992. He submitted that the offence was against Mrs Bertha Nunyuie, a private
person, and that section 24(1) of Act 459 which gave the Regional Tribunal
jurisdiction in all criminal matters subject to the Constitution and the
provisions of Act 459, was inconsistent with Article 143(1) of the
Constitution, 1992.<o:p></o:p>The Court of Appeal upheld the arguments of Jonathan Dey and
concluded that the Regional Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. As
Foster JA put it:<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 property char</main>