IDDI DRAMANI vs. THE REPUBLIC [2013]DLCA3161

Date	2013-02-28
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: H2/02/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA3161

JUSTICE E K AYEBI JA [PRESIDING]

JUSTICE IRENE C. DANQUAH JA

JUSTICE I O TANKO AMADU JA

KWABENA AMPEM DARKO ESQ FOR APPELLANT

ANNA FRANKLINA OPOKU (ASA) LED WILLIAM KPOBI AND ISAAC OTCHERE ANTWI FOR RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA3161
																																						<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" >IDDI DRAMANI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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">

CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO: H2/02/2013&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:
28TH FEBRUARY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWABENA AMPEM DARKO ESQ FOR APPELLANT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE E K AYEBI JA
[PRESIDING], JUSTICE IRENE C. DANQUAH JA, JUSTICE I O TANKO AMADU JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>IRENE
C. DANQUAH, JA<o:p></o:p>Iddi Dramani, the
Appellant herein was arraigned before the Regional Tribunal, Kumasi on 29th
March, 2001 on three different charges all related to possession of narcotic
drugs.&nbsp; All the charges were brought
under Section 2 (1) (Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement &amp; Sanctions) Law,
P N D C L236/90.&nbsp; The Appellant
pleaded not guilty to all the three charges.&nbsp;
After a full trial but before sentence, the Appellant indicated that he
wanted to change his plea.&nbsp; The charges
were read to him again and he changed his plea in all the three charges from not
guilty to guilty.<o:p></o:p>The panel members found
the Appellant guilty of all the three charges.&nbsp;
The Chairman of the Tribunal then proceeded to read the judgment as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“After considering the plea of
mitigation the Court has come to the conclusion that the accused who is a
notorious drug dealer deserves an additional sentence.&nbsp; The range of serious crime be attributed to
the increase of drug taking in the country.&nbsp;
Accused is a notorious drug dealer who must be kept out from society for
a long time.&nbsp; Each of the three cases
carries a minimal sentence of 10 years and accused has pleaded guilty to the
three offences.&nbsp; The Tribunal convicts
accused and sentence him to Twenty five (25) years imprisonment with hard
labour.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 24th January,
2012 this Court upon an application filed by the Appellant granted an extension
of time to the Appellant to file his notice of appeal.&nbsp; The grounds of appeal on the Notice are as
follows:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Tribunal erred in combining three cases and making the
sentences consecutive.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;
2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The sentence is
excessive and ought to run concurrently.”<o:p></o:p>The Appellant sought by
way of reliefs for:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order from the Appeal Court releasing
the Appellant from prison having served more than 10 years in prison
concurrently and;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the sentence imposed be reduced as the
sentence ought to have been concurrent.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We noticed that although the
Attorney General for the Republic was served with the written submission of the
Appellant case, it did not file any answer to it.&nbsp; We will therefore deem it that the Republic
does not oppose the appeal.&nbsp; This however
does not preclude this Court from determining the appeal on its merit.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The grief of the Appellant
in this appeal is simply that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in
sentencing the accused is completely wrong in that the Tribunal failed to
pronounce a definite sentence on each of the charges the Appellant was
arraigned before the Tribunal.&nbsp; Counsel
for the Appellant submitted that the failure has caused substantial miscarriage
of justice to the Appellant.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>As stated earlier, three
separate charges were preferred against the Appellant. &nbsp;The first charge reads as follows:<o:p></o:p>R T Case No: 158/99<o:p></o:p>The Republ</main>