SULEMANA vs. THE REPUBLIC [2001]DLCA1269

Date	2001-06-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLCA1269

ARYEETEY JA

OWUSU JA

OWUSU-ANSAH JA

DWAMENA BAMFO FOR THE APPELLANTS.

MRS MERLEY WOOD STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[2001]DLCA1269
																																						<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">SULEMANA<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">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
2 GLR 243<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">

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>DWAMENA
BAMFO FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

MRS
MERLEY WOOD, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

ARYEETEY,
OWUSU AND OWUSU-ANSAH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Aryeetey JA. <o:p></o:p>In
this appeal, according to the available scanty record, on 30 May 1988 the four
appellants and two others, Charles Bannerman and Kwadwo alias Frafra, who were
at large, were found guilty on the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery
contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29) and
section 16 of the Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78) as well as the charge
of robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29 and section 16 of PNDCL 78 and
“sentenced to death by shooting by firing squad.” The two main grounds of
appeal are as follows: (1) the conviction is wrong in law and cannot be
supported by the evidence on record; and (2) the sentence is harsh and
excessive. However, counsel for the appellants abandoned the first ground of
appeal and restricted himself to only the second ground, namely “the sentence
is too harsh and excessive.”<o:p></o:p>In
arguing that ground of appeal, learned counsel for the appellants made the
following submissions: since nobody was killed or hurt in the course of the
alleged armed robbery, the sentence of death by shooting by firing squad was
wrong in law and therefore ought to be set aside and in its place a custodial
sentence imposed. The appellants at the time of the commission of the offence
were young offenders and after spending thirteen years in prison they have
become wiser and presumably, more responsible members of society. As they have
learned some trade while in prison they would be gainfully employed upon their
release from prison. Also, if they are released from prison, they would be in a
position to take good care of their children.<o:p></o:p>Section
16 of PNDCL 78 which is referred to in the charges against the four appellants
contains some relevant provisions, which we ought to look at when it comes to
sentencing of the appellants. The applicable provisions are subsections (1),
(2) and (5). They read as follows:<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">“16.
(1) Subject to subsection (7) of this section, the death penalty may be imposed
by a Public Tribunal for such offences as may be specified in writing by the
Council and in respect of cases where the Tribunal is satisfied that very grave
circumstances meriting such a penalty have been revealed. <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)
Subject to subsection (8) of this section, any person who is convicted by a
Public Tribunal of an offence shall be liable to a term of imprisonment no less
than three years or to pay such fine as the Tribunal may determine, or both
such imprisonment and fine . . . <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">(5)
Where a Public Tribunal determines that an offence triable under this Law</main>