KWAME OFORI AND NANA KWAME KWAKYE vs. THE REPUBLIC [2020]DLHC10126

Date	2020-11-11
Suit No.	CC NO. CR 0031/2021
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10126

JUSTICE RUBY ARYEETEY

J. K. YEBOAH (For ACCUSED PERSONS)

DORM ESI FIADZOE (For REPUBLIC)

[2020]DLHC10126
																																						<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" >KWAME OFORI AND NANA KWAME KWAKYE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT,(CRIMINAL COURT 1), 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">CC
NO. CR 0031/2021&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:
11TH
NOVEMBER, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>J. K. YEBOAH (For ACCUSED PERSONS) <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;">

DORM ESI
FIADZOE (For REPUBLIC) <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE RUBY
ARYEETEY<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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This is a motion on notice for bail pending trial
Counsel in his submission gave facts upon which the Applicants were charged and
stated that the 2nd applicant has seriously denied this allegation
and this was manifested in the statement submitted to the Police. Counsel
argued that his clients are therefore innocent of this allegation. They
attached two affidavits indicating that persons who had sworn the affidavit are
ready to stand as surety for the 1st applicant.&nbsp; The 1st applicant is a pastor and
the 2nd applicant is the Sumankwahene of Kwawu Traditional
area.&nbsp; He is responsible person and has
children.&nbsp; Counsel also argued that of
the case are purely conjectural and highly spurious and a court of law should
not deny an applicant bail just because he had been mentioned in the charge
sheet as the one who has committed offence.&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>Prosecution opposed the application and relied on
their affidavit in opposition filed on the 2nd of November 2020.
They submitted that there has been no unreasonable delay in the trial of this
case and that the Applicants have not demonstrated that they have persons of
sufficient means and good character to stand surety in case bail is granted.
They have also not demonstrated that they have fixed place of abode and or are
gainfully employed. They further submitted that due to the seriousness of the
offence the applicants are charged with they may not appear to stand trial if admitted
to bail. Thus they prayed the application ought to be dismissed<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A court of
competent jurisdiction in granting or refusing bail though discretionary must
be exercised according to law by complying with section 96 (1) – (6) of Act 30.
The factors which should be taken into consideration when granting bail are the
nature of the accusation, the nature of the evidence supporting the accusation
and whether the evidence is strong as well as the punishment for the sentence.
Bail however shall not be used as a punishment but merely to ensure the
attendance of the accused person in court. Counsel in his submission<o:p></o:p>Since the 1992
Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, to the extent that Article 14
(3) and (4) mandates bail for all offences, one requirement which is apparent
is the provision that a person charged with an offence is entitled to bail if
he is not tried “within a reasonable time”. Counsel for the applicants
submitted that <o:p></o:p>There are four main
grounds based on which a court may refuse to grant bail under section 96 (5) of
Act 30. Prosecution shall prove anyone of the four grounds to oppose an
application for bail to the satisfaction of the court. In this case Prosecution
has established under section 96 (6) that Accused the due to the seriousness of
the offence the Applicants are charged with, they may not appear to stand trial.
<o:p></o:p>I have considered the application before me
and the submissions made by both sides. In exercising my discretion in the
matter I have looked at the facts of the matter, Counsel’s submission that the
Accused persons are innocent and as such must be granted bail is yet to be
determined. Again I have looked at the facts in support of the case and I do
not agree with Counsel’s argument the facts implicating his client are just a
conjecture. In view of the above I am not inclined to grant the present
application at this point because the charge is a serious one and considering
the sentence it attracts I do not think the Accused persons when admitted to
bail will appear to stand trial. The bail application is hereby refused.&nbsp; Counsel may however repeat this application.<o:p></o:p>&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; RUBY
ARYEETEY (MS)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)<o:p></o:p>