GREGORY AFOKO vs. THE REPUBLIC [2019]DLHC10113

Date	2019-03-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR/267/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10113

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

STEPHEN SOWAH CHARWAY FOR THE ACCUSED APPLICANT PRESENT LILY ATUTIGAH

WITH DORIN ESI FIADZO

AND DERRICK ACKAH-NYAMIKE FOR THE

REPUBLIC/RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10113
																																						<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" >IN THE MATTER FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION (1992), AND<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR
BAIL PENDING TRIAL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;GREGORY AFOKO<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<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:150%;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;DATE:
14TH MARCH 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>STEPHEN SOWAH
CHARWAY FOR THE ACCUSED APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>LILY ATUTIGAH,
WITH DORIN ESI FIADZO, AND DERRICK ACKAH-NYAMIKE FOR THE<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:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">REPUBLIC/RESPONDENT
PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;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;I have had ample time to peruse the affidavits<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/GREGORY%20AFOKO%20VRS%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>
filed in support of the application filed on 7 February 2019. I have also read the
affidavit the Attorney General (AG) filed in opposition dated 19 February 2019.
Counsel for the State provides proof of late service of the supplementary
affidavit. Nonetheless, counsel gave the court a pass to continue hearing the
application, the evident late service notwithstanding. The waiver paved way for
the court to hear the matter.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I have listened to submissions of the learned lawyers on the matter based
clearly on facts on the respective affidavits. The facts of the matter simply
are that the accused, suspected to have committed crime was arrested in his house
on 20 May 2015. He had since been detained by the security and law enforcement
agencies. He stands presently charged together with one other person on counts
of conspiracy to commit murder, and murder contrary to s.23(1), and s.46 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;According to counsel, the applicant has on the basis of the incarceration
been denied access to his lawyers all these years. In her submission, counsel
for the state denied this claim as lacking support. I agree with counsel.
Indeed, I find no evidential support for this assertion. I find that
prosecution or trial of the accused proceeded before this court differently
constituted. The AG had truncated the trial at the very end of the indictment
trial by means of a nolle prosequi.
The legitimacy, indeed the constitutional basis of the nolle prosequi is presently a subject matter before the Supreme Court,
commenced by the applicant<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;None of the lawyer makes claim that the proceedings before the Supreme Court
has any effect on the matter before this court. I agree with both lawyers on
this. Besides, none of the lawyers questions the power of the court to grant
bail in all criminal offences including the one under consideration in the
matter. The truth of the matter is that within the overarching constitutional
presumption of innocence, and the liberty of an accused person, as well as right
of the accused to fair trial within reasonable time, applications for bail
pending trial of all manner of offences, including indeed bail pending appeal
after conviction is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. See article 19(2)c, and 19(1) of the
Constitution.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;