[2008]DLSC2470 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#2E74B5;mso-themecolor:accent1; mso-themeshade:191">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#2E74B5;mso-themecolor:accent1; mso-themeshade:191">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#2E74B5;mso-themecolor:accent1; mso-themeshade:191">NANA OSEI KWADJO II<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2/2000<o:p></o:p></span></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="text-align:right;line-height:115%; border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in; mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">DATE: 11TH JULY 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">SAM WOODE FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p></span></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" style="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"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">ERIC FRANCIS AMISON AGBOLOSU CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></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" style="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"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MRS. WOOD C.J. (PRESIDING), KPEGAH J.S.C. , ATUGUBA J.S.C., MISS AKUFFO J.S.C., DR. DATE-BAH J.S.C.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">KPEGAH, J.S.C: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">My Lords, I am not certain whether to describe this judgment as a valedictory judgment or not. However, since there may be a good possibility of it turning out to be so because I have to start listening to my body and the advice of my doctors after my spinal surgery. I have been advised that long hours of sitting is not advisable for a person who has the type of surgery that I had, and since this job is mainly sedentary, I have to start considering bowing out and find myself a more convenient way of life in the future. I will therefore be candid and frank in my views on a series of legal issues which I consider not only relevant to the appeal before us but also very critical to the development of our jurisprudence in the area of the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual as enshrined in chapter Five of our Constitution, 1992. Some of the legal issues I have in mind greatly informed my position in this case. And, since this might be the last time I may be sitting with my colleagues and speak from this court; that is to say, “EX-CHATHEDRA’, I cannot possibly suffer the judgment to be without my D.N.A. I will therefore be examining some of the decisions of the court which I have reservations about; especially those in which we have declined jurisdiction on grounds which appear to me to be too technical, or to be a clear case of misapprehension of the relevant law. The first of such cases is the case of: IN RE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS FOR WULENSI CONSTITUENCY; ZAKARIA v NYIMAKAN [2003-2004] SCGLR 1. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The issue in this case before the Supreme Court was whether or not there is a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of an election petition in the High Court as to whether a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament. A person aggrieved by the decision of the High Court has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal but the article which gives the right of appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal is silent on whether there is a further right of appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. In a 4:1 decision the Supreme Court held that no such right of appeal exists. This, in my humble view, is most regretable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">My reason for so saying will become apparent when I come to discuss the case vis-à-vis our jurisdiction as the final Court of the land. For the moment, however, I can say that I am in full agreement with the dissenting views expressed by my learned and respected Sister Sophia Akuffo JSC, and regret that it is not the majority decision.I will now therefore focus on the case before us.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">I have read the judgment about to be delivered by my learned and respected brother Date – Bah, JSC. When I last discussed the case with him, he indicated that he was still firm in his views that the appeal was without merit and should be dismissed. I, on the other hand, reiterated my views, which I had expressed at all our judgment conferences, in favour of allowing the appeal. This is as it should be since it not only inures to the benefit of the law; that is to say the development of our criminal jurisprudence. I have read the record of proceedings several times and regret to say, with much respect to my learned and respected brother that certain vital and relevant pieces of evidence on record had escaped his usually keen and critical analysis. I must, however, emphasise that his statement of the facts are basically correct and borne out by the record. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">But whenever the need arises for me to review the evidence as a way of elucidating my thought-process, I will do so. I must say immediately, without fear of contradiction, that both on the available evidence and the applicable law, the conviction of the Appellant is seriously and woefully flawed and cannot be sustained. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">I am firmly of the view that the appellant ought not to have been called upon to enter his defence since he has no obligation to prove his innocence because the burden of proof is on the prosecution throughout a criminal trial. This time-honoured principle or rule of evidence has now been restated in section 15(1) of the Evidence Decree (1970) NRCD 323 as follows:-<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">“Unless and until it is shifted the party claiming that a person is guilty of a crime or wrong doing has the burden of persuasion on that issue”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The implication of this provision is that if an accused is either wrongly called upon by the court or decided himself to enter a defence, the subsequent evidence cannot be used against him when, in law no prima facie case has actually been made against him. This should be so because unless and until a prima facie case has first been made out against an accused the burden of persuasion on his guilt could not be said to have shifted. I therefore consider it as a sheer dissipation of valuable time to discuss cases like THE STATE VRS. ALI KASSENA on a submission of no case to answer because of my view on the full import of section 15(1) of NRCD (1970) 323.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">My lords, for reasons which will be apparent in due course, I cannot accept my learned brother’s views on the defence of “claim of right in good faith” as espoused by him. This claim, in my humble view, is a complete defence to a charge of stealing. This is so because any appropriation in such circumstances cannot amount to a misappropriation; or a fraudulent, and, or a dishonest appropriation to constitute stealing as defined under section 120 of our Criminal Code (ACT 29/60).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In rejecting the Appellant’s contention that the prosecution failed to prove a dishonest appropriation on his part, my learned and respected brother Date-Bah JSC, properly considered the import of Section 120(1) of the Criminal code, 1960 (Act 29) which defines what act or conduct amounts to stealing; but unf