THE REPUBLIC vs. MOHAMMED SHAFIC HIJAZI, WALID HIJAZI AND JIHAD HIJAZI [2019]DLCA11484

Date	2019-03-15
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.H2/7/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA11484

AGNES M. A. DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC (SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL COULT OF APPEAL JUDGE) (PRESIDING)

F.G. KORBIEH J.A.

I.O. TANKO AMADU J.A.

[2019]DLCA11484
																																						<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>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MOHAMMED SHAFIC HIJAZI, WALID HIJAZI AND JIHAD HIJAZI<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.H2/7/2018 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
15TH MARCH, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>AGNES M. A. DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC
(SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL COULT OF APPEAL JUDGE) (PRESIDING), F.G. KORBIEH J.A., I.O. TANKO AMADU
J.A.<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
background facts to this case are as follows. Three persons were initially
arraigned before the trial High Court on two charges of "Failure to pay
tax" and "Making false and misleading statement to an officer of the
Ghana Revenue Authority" contrary to sections 80 and 81 of the Revenue
Administration Act, 2016, (Act 915) respectively. Upon the application of the
prosecution, the second accused person was discharged thus leaving the 1st and
3rd respondents who both pleaded not guilty to the charges. Not too long into
the trial, they changed their lawyer and the new lawyer raised a preliminary
objection to the power of the prosecutor (who was a lawyer employed by the
Ghana Revenue Authority) to prosecute the respondents. In raising the
objection, the lawyer for the respondents argued that Executive Instrument
(E.1.) 5 under which the prosecutor purported to be operating had no legal
basis hence the whole prosecution was null and void. Naturally the prosecutor objected
to this position taken by the new lawyer for the respondents and the learned
trial judge was called upon to make a ruling on the matter. The trial judge
upheld the preliminary legal objection; saying that in view of the fact that
E.1. 5 of 2004 had repealed E.I. 10 of 1994, once the enabling enactments of
E.I. 5 had themselves been repealed, then the Attorney-General needed a new
executive instrument to appoint prosecutors to prosecute alleged tax defaulters
such as the accused persons before her. Accordingly, the accused persons were
discharged.<o:p></o:p>The
Republic, being dissatisfied with the ruling, proceeded to file a notice of
appeal on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The, ruling is
against the affidavit evidence and arguments adduced at the hearing.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
II.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial judge erred
in holding that despite the 'savings' provision in the Ghana Revenue Authority
Act, 2009 (Act 791) and the relevant provision in the interpretation Act, 2009,
(Act 792), E.I 5 is not sufficient to enable lawyers of the Ghana Revenue
Authority to be public prosecutors in any cause or matter.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">&nbsp;
III.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial judge erred
in holding that the fact that E</main>