THE REPUBLIC vs. DANIEL DUKU & 5 ORS [2019]DLHC16445

Date	2019-08-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR/0411/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC16445

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

FRANCES MULLEN ANSAH PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY WITH HILDA CRAIG SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

ADDO ATUAH FOR 1ST ACCUSED/APPLICANT.

[2019]DLHC16445
																																						<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>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DANIEL DUKU &amp; 5 ORS<o:p></o:p>(1ST
ACCUSED/ 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. CR/0411/2019&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;&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:
16TH&nbsp;AUGUST 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>FRANCES
MULLEN ANSAH PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY WITH HILDA CRAIG SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY
FOR THE REPUBLIC.<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><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>&nbsp;<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;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;Article 21 of the Constitution of
Ghana, 1992 provides, inter alia, as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“21.&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp; (1) All persons shall have the
right to …<o:p></o:p>(g) freedom of movement which means the
right to move freely in Ghana, the right to leave and to enter Ghana and
immunity from expulsion from Ghana. <o:p></o:p>(4) Nothing in, or done under the
authority of, a law shall be held to be inconsistent with, or in contravention
of, this article to the extent that the law in question makes provision …<o:p></o:p>(b) for the imposition of restrictions, by order of a court, on the
movement or residence within Ghana of any person either as a result of his
having been found guilty of a criminal offence under the laws of Ghana or for the purposes of ensuring that he
appears before a court at a later date for trial for a criminal offence or
for proceedings relating to his extradition or lawful removal from Ghana.” [Emphasis mine.]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The applicant and six others have been
charged with various offences and they have all been admitted to bail. In
granting bail, this court, differently constituted, ordered the applicant and
the other accused persons to deposit their passports with the Registrar of the
court. The court further ordered as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“It is again ordered that the accused
persons will be at liberty to apply to
the Court on notice to the Republic for the release of the passports for
purposes of any necessary travel outside the country.” [Emphasis mine.]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is to be noted that the court did
not state that the applicant has an automatic right to be granted permission
for any travel outside the country.&nbsp; He
rather stated that the passports will be released ‘for any necessary travel outside the country’.&nbsp; It is apparently pursuant to this direction
that the applicant has brought this application for permission to travel
outside the country.&nbsp; For this
application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that the purpose
for the travel is necessary. The court will therefore have to assess the
reasons given in support of the application together with the reasons given by
the Republic in opposition to the application in order to determine whether the
intended travel of the applicant outside the jurisdiction is necessary. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The main reasons given by the applicant
in support of his application are captured in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in
support of the motion which states as follows:<o:p></o:p></span</main>