The Republic Vrs Amadu & 2 Others [2023] GHACC 342 (9 May 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT TARKWA WESTERN REGION ON TUESDAY THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2023 BEFORE HER HONOUR HATHIA AMA MANU, ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. COURT CASE NO. B1/31/22 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS 1. 2. 3. KWAKU AMADU SAMUEL KOJO AFUM KWADWO OSEI JUDGMENT Accused persons (A1 and A2) – Present. A3 – Absent. Supt. Juliana Essel Dadzie – Prosecution. The accused persons stand charged for the following offices: Count One: Conspiracy to Commit Crime to wit: Felling Timber without a written permission of a Competent Forestry Authority: Contrary to Section 23[1] of the Criminal Offences Act, Act 29/60 and 1[1] (a) of the Forest Protection Amendment Act, Act 624/2002. Count Two: Use of Chainsaw Machine to fell timber when same chainsaw machine is not registered with the District Forestry Commission – Tarkwa: Contrary to Section 41[1] (e) of the Timber Resource Management Regulation 2002. Count Three: Felling and Processing Timber without written permission from a Competent Forestry Authority: Contrary to section 1[1] (a) of the Forest Protection Amendment Act, Act 642/2002. Count Four: Causing Unlawful Damage to Neang Forest Reserve by Felling Dahoma Timber: Contrary to Section 1[1] (c) of the Forest Protection and Amendment Act, Act 642/2002. The ingredients needed to prove the charges were that:- - - - - The accused fell trees without written permission. That same was done with an unregistered chainsaw. That same was without permission of a competent forestry authority. That the accused persons’ action caused damage to dahoma timber and the most important part, that the accused and no other person is liable for the offences that occurred. Prosecution in seeking to adduce evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt called the Forestry Officials that effected arrest against A2 and A3 to give evidence. The Forestry Officer gave evidence to the effect that A2 and A3 when questioned explained that A1 brought them to the forest to cut down trees for him. During cross-examination, A1, A2 and A3 did not dispute the evidence presented except that A1 asked if he was caught in the forest as well. A2 and A3 on the other hand all asked the prosecution’s witness if they had not explained that the first accused brought them into the forest. Thus, prosecution’s first witness was part of the arresting team. The investigative officer was the second witness to testify. This witness tendered the statements taken from all accused persons and same was not disputed by any of the accused persons. Apart from the fact that accused persons can be said to have given a valid and properly executed statement to the police, no objections were raised by the accused persons. Based on their statements given to the police alone I find that the accused persons can be convicted of the charges levelled against them. Just as A2 was directed to open his defence he prayed to the Court that he was guilty of the charges against him. I directed the interpreter to explain the charges to him and also explain the legal implication of the responses that he may opt to give. Based on this A2 was convicted on his own plea of guilt for count 1, 3 and 4 but he opted to explain in count 2. Based on his explanation a plea of Not Guilty was entered in respect of count 2 and the accused was directed to open his defence. In his defence he stated that his chainsaw got spoilt and A1 gave him a new one. He also stated that he did not know that their actions were unsanctioned as A1 told them that if anyone asked he was to mention his name. From the defence raised by A2 in respect of count 2, I find that he has not created any doubt in the mind of the court as to his guilt. A2 also failed to raise any doubt on the charge of using a chainsaw machine which was unregistered. A3 all through the trial had exhibit attributes of an accused who was unwilling to stand trial. A3 initially absconded and the last two adjourned days leading to the conclusion of the trial he was absent. A bench warrant was issued but the investigative officer in the case did not effect same. The accused persons are hereby convicted. PRE-SENTENCING TRIAL: BY COURT: Accused persons, I find you guilty of all the charges against. Before I sentence you is there something you would like to say by way of mitigation? A1: I beg for leniency. A2: We beg the Court for leniency. BY COURT: A1 your case has a lot of aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. You are sentenced as follows: Count 1: 500 penalty units or in default 5 years imprisonment. Count 2: 500 penalty units or in default 5 years imprisonment. Count 3: 200 penalty units or in default 5 years imprisonment. Count 4: 200 penalty units or in default 5 years imprisonment. The sentences will run concurrently. A1, you are banned from cutting down any timber without authority for 2 years. A2: There are some mitigating factors in your case although the nature of your work is one that makes it difficult to believe that you were not aware the forest was a reserved area. You are sentenced as follows: Count 1: 400 penalty units or in default 3 years imprisonment. Count 2: 400 penalty units or in default 3 years imprisonment. Count 3: 200 penalty units or in default 3 years imprisonment. Count 4: 200 penalty units or in default 3 years imprisonment. The sentences will run concurrently. A2 is directed to ensure that he registers and obtains permission before using a chainsaw in this country. A3 has absconded and trial concluded in his absence. He is sentenced to the following: Count 1: 500 penalty units or in default 5 years imprisonment. Count 2: 500 penalty units or in default 5 years imprisonment. Count 3: 200 penalty units or in default 3 years imprisonment. Count 4: 200 penalty units or in default 3 years imprisonment. A3 is banned from using a chainsaw in any capacity for 12 months. This is the judgment of the Court. The chainsaw machines are to be sold through a court auction and the proceeds paid into Judicial Service account. The 20 pieces of wood should be given to the Forestry Department to be sold off and put into the consolidated accounts. (SGD.) H/H. HATHIA AMA MANU, ESQ. (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) 5