THE REPUBLIC vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE COMMUNITY TRIBUNAL EX-PARTE: OPANIN KOFI TWUMASI [2004]DLCA6624

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE COMMUNITY TRIBUNAL EX-PARTE: OPAN... [2004]DLCA6624

Date	2004-05-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 113/2001
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6624

ANSAH J.A. [PRESIDING]

TWENEBOA-KODUA J.A.

OSEI J.A.

ERIC AGBOLOSO FOR RESPONDENTS

KWASI BLAY FOR APPELLANTS

[2004]DLCA6624
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE COMMUNITY TRIBUNAL<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: OPANIN KOFI TWUMASI<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 113/2001 &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: 7TH MAY, 2004.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">KWASI BLAY FOR APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

ANSAH J.A. [PRESIDING], TWENEBOA-KODUA
J.A., OSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>TWENEBOA-KODUA,
J.A <o:p></o:p>On
6 December 1999, the High Court, Sunyani delivered a ruling dismissing an
application brought by the appellants herein for a prerogative order of
certiorari to bring up a bill of indictment filed by the Attorney-General and
pending before the Community Tribunal, Sunyani against the appellants for a
review, and [if bad] to be quashed. In the same application, the appellants had
similarly sought the order of prohibition to prevent or stop the on-going
Committal proceedings in the said Community Tribunal against the appellants.
That prayer was also firmly refused. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
decision of the High Court, the appellants launched this appeal on 8 December
1999 on grounds formulated as follows— <o:p></o:p>"(a)
since the respondents/respondents never denied or challenged the
applicants/appellants' affidavit in support of the motion, the learned High
Court Judge erred in law in not giving judgment against the
respondents/respondents. <o:p></o:p>(b)
The learned High Court Judge also seriously erred in law in not following the
decision of the Supreme Court in Republic vrs. Committee of Enquiry into Nungua
Traditional Affairs; Ex parte: Odai IV and others [1996-1997] SCGLR.401, to
which decision he was referred during the trial. <o:p></o:p>(c)
The trial Court also erred in law in concluding in effect that the
Attorney-General's exercise of his discretionary power under Section 54 of the
Criminal Code 1960 [Act.30] cannot be questioned or challenged in certiorari
proceedings. <o:p></o:p>(d)
The learned High Court judge also seriously erred in law not applying the
provisions of Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution in determining the limits of
the powers of the Attorney-General under section 54 of Act 30.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(e) In view of the lies, contradictions and
inconsistencies in the evidence of Abena Duku, Kofi Agyei and Akua Antwiwaa
during the earlier trial as contained in Exhibit 'A' and also in view of the
medical report Exhibit 'B', the Attorney-General erred in law in charging the
appellants again with murder on the basis of the said 3 alleged witnesses
mentioned herein. <o:p></o:p>(f)
Since there is a Community Tribunal at Wamfie, Dormaa, the trial judge erred
actually and in law in concluding that there is no Community Tribunal in Dormaa
(where the alleged murder took Place) and therefore the Sunyani Tribunal was
properly seised of the matter. <o:p></o:p>(g)
The costs awarded against the appellants cannot be justified in law since the
hearing of the case lasted only one hour on the first day it was called." <o:p></o:p>The
appellants gave notice of intention to file additional grounds in due course.
This shall receive the appropriate comment later in the day. <o:p></o:p>For
good purpose I think, I shall offer the crucial and interesting background to
this appeal here. There was an incident at Okrakrom near Dormaa in the
Brong-Ahafo Region on 25th October 1993 and this incident resulted in the death
of one Tano. The deceased was shot amidst " the confusion and
rioting" arising from a long drawn out destoolment dispute and its
attendant factional litigation. Several weeks after the 25th October incident
arrests were made and those picked up by the police were predominantly
supporters of the chief of Okrakrom at the centre of the dispute. The
appellants were amongst those arrested. <o:p></o:p>The
appellants were specifically granted bail on 13th January 1994 and on 8th
February 1994, the appellants herein were arraigned before the High Court
Sunyani, undoubtedly after committal proceedings in the District Court
(Community Tribunal). <o:p></o:p>The
trial began in earnest on the first day and three of the seven witnesses for
the p</main>