EOCO vs. STEPHEN MEKEI OTONNAH [2013]DLHC12092

Date	2013-07-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM 81/12
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC12092

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

JACQUELINE AVOTRI FOR RESPONDENT

ALEXANDER AFENYO-MARTIN FOR APPLICANT

[2013]DLHC12092
																																						<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" >EOCO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STEPHEN MEKEI OTONNAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. FTRM 81/12&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&nbsp;&nbsp;JULY 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&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; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In this instant
application, the applicant prays the Court to defeeze his account that has been
confirmed frozen by the respondent on 19/04/12. Under Section 38 (2) (a) it
provides:<o:p></o:p>“where an
investigation has commenced against&nbsp; a
person for a serious &nbsp;offence and the
property related to that offence is frozen or restrained, the Court shall order
the release of the frozen or restrained property if <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:45.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">a.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
person is not charged with a serious offence within twelve months after the
date of commencement of the investigation.<o:p></o:p>In this
application, there is no doubt that the applicant’s account had been confirmed
frozen for over a year ie twelve months. The law says within twelve month and
not after twelve months. To this end therefore, it behoves on the respondent to
lead evidence by way of affidavit evidence to the effect that it has charged
the applicant with a serious offence within the twelve months. The respondent to
discharge this burden, amongst other deposed in its paragraph 14 as follows:<o:p></o:p>“14” That the
applicant has not been charged and put before court for prosecution&nbsp; because&nbsp;
a letter of request was sent as far back as July 24th 2012,
which we has not received a response. There have been several follow ups. A
copy of the letter of request is attached here to as Exhibit EOCO 2”.<o:p></o:p>I have looked
at Exhibit EOCO 2 and it confirms such assertion. But until when will the
applicant be charged? Our law says within twelve months. The respondent says
the applicant had confessed that, he represented himself to the remitter as a
fifty year old Scottish and so the applicant has no moral justification to
claim the money. Morality is different from law, they are not bed fellows.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel
raised the issue that, the exhibit EOCO was taken without an independent
witness when counsel for respondent was asked to defend that issue, she could
not offer any reason. Every statement taken on caution or to be used as evidence,
need an independent witness.&nbsp; It is
against our criminal jurisprudence for such procedure to be frowned upon by the
investigators of EOCO and to go ahead to take this confession.&nbsp;&nbsp; I therefore set aside the said Exhibit EOCO
2 and conclude that, the procedure adopted by not having an independent witness
to witness the statement is bad in law.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;

Based upon the
above, I hereby revoke the order I made on the 19/04/12. The applicant should
avail himself for tax by the Ghana Revenue Authority.<o:p></o:p></main>