THE REPUBLIC vs. KWAME AMPONSAH AND 4 OTHERS [2019]DLSC6360

Date	2019-05-28
Suit No.	REFERENCE NO. J6/01/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6360

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

PWAMANG JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

KOTEY J.S.C

KWAME AKUFFO FOR THE 1ST ACCUSED PERSON

DAVID KATO FOR THE 2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED PERSONS

JERRY AVENOGBO FOR THE 4TH ACCUSED PERSON

PROSPER DOE SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC

[2019]DLSC6360
																																						<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>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAME
AMPONSAH AND 4 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">REFERENCE
NO. J6/01/2019&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;DATE: 28TH MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>KWAME AKUFFO FOR THE 1ST ACCUSED
PERSON.<o:p></o:p>DAVID KATO FOR THE 2ND
AND 3RD ACCUSED PERSONS.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JERRY AVENOGBO FOR THE 4TH
ACCUSED PERSON.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

PROSPER
DOE, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ANSAH
JSC (PRESIDING), DOTSE JSC, YEBOAH JSC, PWAMANG JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, DORDZIE
(MRS.) JSC, KOTEY J.S.C&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; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

&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;
<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>PWAMANG, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>My Lords, this case comes before us upon a reference pursuant to
Article 130(2) of the 1992 Constitution by Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe J, sitting
in the Financial Division “2” of the High Court, Accra. Before the court is
Suit No FT/0012/2017 in which the accused persons stated in the title of the
case, at all times material to the reference, were being tried on the offences
of conspiracy to commit crime, defrauding by false pretences, money laundering
and uttering forged documents, all in relation to a claim by the accused
persons that they had gold which they offered to sell to the complainants who
are foreigners.<o:p></o:p>In the course of the trial, the prosecution sought to tender evidence
in the form of a DVD-CD Rom which contained information extracted from
computers and mobile phones belonging to the accused persons and a pen drive
containing footage from a CCTV camera at HFC Bank, Accra, which captured some
of the accused persons in circumstances alleged to be related to the commission
of the offences for which they were being tried.<o:p></o:p>In apparent compliance with Rule 67 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996
(C.I.16), the referring Judge presented us with a case stated but in the summary
of the action pursuant to R 67(2)(a), we are not specifically told that there
was an objection to the tendering of these pieces of evidence. However, the
case stated went ahead to state arguments of counsel which implies that an
objection was taken against the tendering by counsel for the accused persons on
stated grounds and counsel for the prosecution responded to the grounds of the
objection. This is what has been recorded in the case stated by the judge;<o:p></o:p>“ THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL,
IF ANY;<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
No foundation was laid to the effect that, the
prosecution had an order of the court to enter or access the devices of the
accused persons and as such they cannot seek to tender the content of the
devices.<o:p></o:p>Mr
Akuffo submits that any tampering with electronic devices without the proper
and adequate safeguards when it is left alone to the prosecution, can lead to
contamination of the evidence. He states that when leave is obtained for the
purposes of invading privacy, the court will set parameters to set the supervisory
network so they know what they were extracting.<o:p></o:p>According
to Mr Akuffo, it is unsafe for the prosecution of a case of this nature for the
police investigator to go to EOCO without the accused persons or their
representatives and obtain documentation that has never been seen before.<o:p></o:p>