THE REPUBLIC vs. GREGORY AFOKO [2019]DLHC10087

Date	2019-03-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR/267/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10087

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

MARINA APPIAH OPARE (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) WITH DORIN ESI

FIADZOE AND DERRICK ACKAH-NYAMEIKE (BOTH ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEYS) FOR REPUBLIC APPLICANT PRESENT.

STEPHEN SOWAH CHARWAY FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON RESPONDENT PRESENT (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF OSAFO BUABENG)

[2019]DLHC10087
																																						<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/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GREGORY AFOKO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESP)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION, 5), 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;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. CR/267/2019&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:
22nd MARCH 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MARINA APPIAH
OPARE (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) WITH DORIN ESI FIADZOE AND DERRICK ACKAH-NYAMEIKE
(BOTH ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEYS) FOR REPUBLIC APPLICANT PRESENT.<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" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">STEPHEN SOWAH CHARWAY FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON
RESPONDENT PRESENT (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF OSAFO BUABENG)<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
GEORGE BUADI J.<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;line-height:115%;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>&nbsp;The learned
chief state attorney by this application prays this court to stay execution of
the bail the court on 15 March 2019 granted to the accused person, the
respondent herein. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the state filed notice of
appeal, and this application shortly after grant of the bail on 15 March 2019.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Lawyer for
the accused respondent raised objection to the hearing of the application.
Counsel lampooned the propriety of the application and questioned the rule of
procedure or practice that grounds the application. The learned chief state
attorney sought refuge under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Indeed,
the application is beings considered under the inherent jurisdiction of the
court.<o:p></o:p>Grounds of the
appeal appear to be three-pronged: that the grant of bail to the accused was
unreasonable without any support having regard to the nature of the offence;
that there had not been any unreasonable delay; and that the court did not
exercise its discretion judicially. With respect to the application, the main
ground appeared to be captured in paragraph 10 of the affidavit, to wit “that
in granting the bail to the respondent the court did not exercise its
discretion judicially having regard to the nature of the offence and the special
circumstances”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I have
listened to the submissions of the learned lawyers. Their submissions are based
largely on the facts disposed to in the respective affidavits. After making a
finding of unreasonable delay in the trial of the accused, I considered what the
law - section 96 clauses 5 and 6 of Act 30 has laid down as signposts for
consideration of bail. They include among others, whether applicant is
criminally known to the police, or the accused is a flight risk and may not appear
to stand trial. The court made a finding and concluded that the state provided no
proofs to these claims based on the depositions in the affidavit. I am making
references to these fact findings, as I see depositions in the present
application as nothing new or different from the old depositions contained in
the affidavit of the state.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In applications
of this nature, the requisite ingredients to influence the court has been a
beaten path since the classical case on the matter - Nana Kwesi Agyemang II v. Nana
Hima [1982-83] GLR. Indeed, the state counsel’s citation and reference of Dzokoto &amp; Amissah v. BBC Ind. Co. confirms
these landmarks the court had spelt out in Nana
Akwasi Agyemang, id. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;What learned
chief state attorney describes and claims as special circumstances that the
court did not consider in granting the bail application are captured in
paragraphs 15, 16, and 17 of the affidavit. In brief they are that: the charge
the accused faces is murder; that respondent is a flight risk; that “there had
not been any reasonable delay in the trial of the respondent to warrant the
grant of bail given to him.” Learned chief attorney appears to me to have summed
it all up in paragraph 20 of the affidavit in support that “should the
application not be granted and the risk of the flight of the respondent becomes
a reality the ends of justice will be defeated”. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I reiterate
that most if not all the facts supporting the applicati</main>