ELLIS TAMAKLOE vs. THE REPUBLIC [2011]DLSC4122

Date	2011-01-20
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J7A/1/2010
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC4122

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ANSAH J.S.C

ADINYIRA (MS) J.S.C.

DOTSE J.S.C.

YEBOAH. J.S.C.

BONNIE J.S.C.

ARYEETEY J.S.C.

SAM OKUDZETO WITH NENE AMEGATCHER ASINI OKUDZETO PATRICK BOAMAH KWESI KELLY DELATA FOR THE APPLICANT.

EVELYN KEELSON (MRS) P. S. A. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2011]DLSC4122
																																						<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" >ELLIS TAMAKLOE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT,
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">

CIVIL MOTION NO. J7A/1/2010&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:
20TH JANUARY,
2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>SAM OKUDZETO WITH NENE
AMEGATCHER, ASINI OKUDZETO, <o:p></o:p>PATRICK BOAMAH, KWESI
KELLY DELATA FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

EVELYN
KEELSON (MRS) P. S. A. FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

ATUGUBA
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), ANSAH J.S.C, ADINYIRA (MS) J.S.C., DOTSE J.S.C.,YEBOAH.
J.S.C., BONNIE J.S.C., AND ARYEETEY J.S.C.<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>The
applicant was convicted by the High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra of two
charges of attempted exportation and possession of a narcotic drug, namely Cannabis
Sativa weighing 695 grammes and sentenced to a minimum mandatory sentence of 10
years IHL on each count to run concurrently.&nbsp;
His appeals to the Court of Appeal and to this court were dismissed.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant now applies for review of this court’s ordinary decision on the
grounds that; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>“(a)
The Supreme Court occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice in its
interpretation and application of the nature and quality of circumstantial
evidence used in convicting an accused person.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp; The Supreme Court inadvertently fell into
grave error in its consideration of the requisite mental blameworthiness for
convictions under Section 2 of the Narcotic Drug (Control Enforcement and
Sanctions) Law, 1990 (PNDCL 236), resulting in a grave miscarriage of
justice.”&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
his supplementary statement of case he identifies the issues raised for review
as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Summary
of the Argument<o:p></o:p>Your
Lordships, the gist of our argument is that on all four issues raised above,
this Court committed fundamental errors of law that have resulted in a
miscarriage of justice in the sense that its verdict, as a whole, undermined the
constitutionally guaranteed liberty interest of the Applicant.&nbsp; On the issue of possession, this Court erred
fundamentally when it held that the Applicant was in legal possession of a
narcotic drug because he engaged in acts
that were inconsistent with innocence.&nbsp;
We submit that disbelieving the
Applicant is not an automatic call to guilt- the defence may be incredible but
that is not synonymous with proof beyond reasonable doubt, a burden
squarely placed on the prosecution with respect to the offence of possession of
a narcotic drug.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>With
respect to the second issue, Your Lordships, we argue that this Court
fundamentally erred in its judgment when it
glossed over the critical issue of the reversed burden of proof placed on the
Applicant under section 2 of PNDC Law 236, to wit, proof of the lawfulness of
the possession of a narcotic drug.&nbsp;
The gravamen of our argument on this issue is that this Court should have held the aforesaid reverse onus clause
unconstitutional because it is an unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate
limitation on the right of the Applicant to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty and his right to a fair trial under article 19 of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Your
Lordships, we argue with respect to the third issue that this Court has power, ex proprio
motu, to have held that a critical element of the offence created under
section 2 of PNDC Law 236, to wit, proof of lawful possession of a narcotic
drug, was not established at the trial and therefore the conviction and
sentence of the Applicant were unlawful.&nbsp;
Having glossed ov</main>