THE REPUBLIC vs. CLEMENT NARTEY AND CHRISTOPHER NARTEY [2016]DLHC7674

Date	2016-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FT/0004/2015
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC7674

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AFIA SERWAH ASARE-BOTWE (MRS.)

MS. DORM FIADZOE FOR THE REPUBLIC AND ROBERT APAYA FOR THE

NATIONAL COMMUNICATION AUTHORITY

MR. ELLIS QUARSHIGAH FOR THE ACCUSED PERSONS

[2016]DLHC7674
																																						<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-US" 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>CLEMENT NARTEY AND CHRISTOPHER NARTEY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVISION 2), 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. FT/0004/2015&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:
28TH NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MS.
DORM FIADZOE FOR THE REPUBLIC AND ROBERT APAYA FOR THE NATIONAL COMMUNICATION
AUTHORITY <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">

MR.
ELLIS QUARSHIGAH FOR THE ACCUSED PERSONS <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">

HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE AFIA SERWAH ASARE-BOTWE (MRS.) <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>The accused persons are charged with the
following offences; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:11.5pt;margin-right:.2pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:18.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">1. Count One: Providing electronic
communication service without license contrary to section 3(1) and section
73(1)(a) ,(c)of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775) <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:19.9pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:18.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">2. Count two: Being in possession, without
lawful excuse, of devices designed or adapted for the purpose of committing an
offence contrary to section 135 of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 (Act
772). <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:36.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:18.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">3. Count Three: Knowingly obstructing and
interfering with the sending, transmission, delivery and reception of
communication contrary to section 73(1) (e) of the Electronic Communications
Act, 2008 (Act 775). <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>FACTS <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:11.5pt;margin-right:-.2pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">The facts of the case as presented to the
Court are that on the 21st of March, 2015, an Anti-Fraud Telecom
Task Force consisting of personnel from the Police, National Communication
Authority and telecommunication service providers with the assistance of a SIM
box detecting device traced the two accused persons to a shop at the Tema Light
Industrial Area near Unilever. The accused persons had mounted and activated
SIM box equipment and were illegally terminating international calls. The team
searched the shop from which the accused persons were operating and retrieved
the following equipment: one 64- modem SIM box; internal antennae, one 4G
Surfline internet router, one D-link internet router, two Linksys internet
router, one MTN modem, one Nokia 105 mobile phone, one iPhone, one Techno T20
mobile phone, one TP-link switch, one Dell desktop computer, one HP mini
laptop, one Honda generator, and the following SIM cards: 11 Airtel, 42 Tigo, 4
MTN and 20 Vodafone cards. <o:p></o:p>The prosecution stated further that the SIM
box equipment had not been approved for use in Ghana, neither had the National
Communication Authority approved its importation into Ghana. The accused
persons had similarly not been granted authorization or license to operate any
communication service in Ghana. The prosecution say that the revenue estimated
to have been lost to the telecommunication service providers for the 3-month
period that the accused persons admitted having used the equipment was
estimated at the cedi equivalent of $393,984. <o:p></o:p>At the close of the case of the Prosecution,
lawyer for the accused indicated that he would like to make a submission of no
case to answer for the Court’s consideration. The Court eventually ruled that
the accused persons did have a case to answer and they proceeded to open their
defence. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:36.0pt;margin-right:299.75pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">THE BURDEN OF PROOF <o:p></o:p>THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED The required standard of proof is codified under the Evidence Act
(NRCD 323) in at least three sections; Sections 11(2), 13(1) and 22. It is, to
sum up, the duty of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable
doubt. <o:p></o:p>