THE REPUBLIC vs. AUGUSTINA ABU, YAW ATTAH NKANSAH, ALFRED AMEDZI, KENNEDY OSEI, SIMON FAFA BEDY AND FRANCIS ABBEY [2009]DLHC7811

THE REPUBLIC vs. AUGUSTINA ABU, YAW ATTAH NKANSAH, ALFRED AMEDZI, KENNEDY OSEI,... [2009]DLHC7811

Date	2009-06-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: AC40/2009
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC7811

JUSTICE C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE

[2009]DLHC7811
																																						<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><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>AUGUSTINA ABU, YAW ATTAH NKANSAH, ALFRED
AMEDZI, KENNEDY OSEI, SIMON FAFA BEDY AND FRANCIS ABBEY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (FAST
TRACK DIVISION),
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.: AC40/2009&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
19TH JUNE, 2009<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

JUSTICE
C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>On the 8th day of June 2009, I refused
an oral application for bail for the accused persons who were charged with
various counts under the Narcotics Drub (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions)
Act, 1990 PNDCL 236.<o:p></o:p>In that ruling, I made it clear that by section 96
(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, Act 30 as amended by the Criminal
Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2006, Act 714 by its section (b) prohibited
bail to be granted in cases of Narcotics and that this was supported by case
law.<o:p></o:p>Now, after my refusal to grant bail to the accused
persons the case was adjourned to 18th June 2009 for hearing.&nbsp; On this date, Mr. Asiama-Sampong, Principal
State Attorney contended that investigations were still going on and that some
International Collaborators in the United States of America, UNDOC and their
British counterparts have been contacted to assist in the investigations.&nbsp; The Principal State Attorney then asked for
the case to be adjourned to enable the investigations to be completed.&nbsp; It was at this juncture that all Counsel
acting for the accused persons made further oral submissions for bail to be
granted to all the accused persons.<o:p></o:p>I am wondering whether this further application is
a repeat application, an appeal or that I was being called upon to review my
earlier decision refusing bail in the circumstances.&nbsp; This was because the same arguments were made
before me in the earlier oral application.<o:p></o:p>Having heard arguments put forth for and against
the grant of bail, the issue running through the arguments for bail is whether
there has been unreasonable delay in the trial of the accused persons and
therefore were entitled to bail under Article 14 (4) of the 1992
Constitution.&nbsp; It is provided in Article
14 (4) of the 1992 Constitution that:<o:p></o:p>“14(4)&nbsp; Where a person arrested, restricted or
detained under paragraph (a) or (b) of Clause (3) of this article is not tried
within a reasonable time, then, without prejudice to any further proceedings
that may be brought against him, he shall be released, either unconditionally
or upon reasonable conditions, including in particular.&nbsp; Conditions reasonably necessary to ensure
that he appears at a later date for trial or for proceedings preliminary to
trial”.<o:p></o:p>It is noteworthy that Article 14 (4) of the
Constitution did not define what “a reasonable time” was.&nbsp; As already noted in my earlier ruling, the
Supreme Court considered Article 14 (4) of the Constitution in Gorman and
Others vs The Republic [2003-2004] SCGLR 784 and in holding 4 held as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“Article 14 (4) of the 1992 Constitution dealt with
the question of bail in a specific situation where the person arrested or
detained was not tried within a reasonable time.&nbsp; ……. Thus even in cases of offences mentioned
in section 96 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, bail must be granted if there
was no trial within a reasonable time”.<o:p></o:p>In the Republic vs Arthur [1982-83] GLR 249, the
Court had to determine what constituted a reasonable time in the trial of the
applicants therein under Article 21 (4) of the 1979 Constitution, which is a
verbatim reproduction of Article 14 (4) of the 1992 Constitution.&nbsp; The Court held that what constituted
“unreasonable period” had to be determined within the particular context.<o:p></o:p>What is the particular context in the instant
application?&nbsp; A recourse to the facts
would resolve the issue.&nbsp; From the facts,
the accused persons were charged with the offences on the 19th day
of May 2009 and had to date not been granted bail.&nbsp; Incidentally, today, the 19th June
2009 constituted a month since their arrest and detention.&nbsp; The Principal State Attorney had contended
that investigations were on-going with some International Investigation
Collaborators.&nbsp; Would a month’s arrest
and detention of the accused persons constitute a reasonable time for which
they ought to be granted bail?&nbsp; I am
mindful of Mr. Asiama-Sampong, Principal State Attorney’s submission that if
there should be any consideration for bail, then the 2nd to 6th
accused persons could be considered but the conditions attached should be very
strict.&nbsp; I must state that the Principal
State Attorney’s submission is not binding on the court.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Moreover, he offered no reasons why he made that
submission.&nbsp; If the Principal State
Attorney feels he has no evidence to offer against the 2nd to 6th
accused persons, he knows what best to do.&nbsp;
Further, if he actually wanted the court to grant bail, he should have
expressly stated so.<o:p></o:p>To answer the question I posed, I think that
certain crimes like the instant one involving Narcotics tool longer time to
investigate due to their complex domestic and international connections as
earlier contended by Mr. Asiama-Sampong.&nbsp;
Considering the particular context in which the accused were charged and
detained, I think that Art</main>