The Republic Vrs Bubey and 2 Others [2023] GHACC 112 (10 May 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT JASIKAN ON WEDNESSDAY THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2023 BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE ALFRED KWABENA ASIEDU ESQ. SUIT NO. D5/9/2022 THE REPUBLIC VRS. 1. MUBAABA BUBEY 2. GARIBA BAAME ABUBAKARI 3. OSMANU SULLEY J U D G M E N T The accused persons were charged with Four counts of offences as follows: COUNT ONE STATEMENT OF OFFENCE CONSPIRACY to commit crime, to wit kidnapping: Contrary to sections 23(1) and 89 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 1. MUBAABA BUBEY, 24 YEARS, HERDSMAN, 2. GARIBA BAAME ABUBAKAR SIDI, 20 YEARS, A HERDSMAN AND 3. OSMANU SULLEY 22 YEARS, HERDSMAN that you and four others on the run on the 15th day of January 2022 about 3.00am at Sibi Botor No.2 near Damanko in the Oti Region of the Republic of Ghana and within the jurisdiction of this court did agree to act together with a common purpose to commit a criminal offence to wit Kidnapping. COUNT TWO STATEMENT OF OFFENCE ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT CRIME TO WIT, KIDNAPPING: Contrary to sections 18 and 89 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 1. MUBAABA BUBEY, 24 YEARS, HERDSMAN, 2. GARIBA BAAME ABUBAKAR SIDI, 20 YEARS, A HERDSMAN AND 3. OSMANU SULLEY 22 YEARS, HERDSMAN that you and four others on the run on the 15th day of January 2022 about 1:30am at Sibi Botor No.2 near Damanko in the Oti region of the Republic of Ghana and within the jurisdiction of this court you intentionally struggled and shot Alhaji Bellow Mohammed with a gun in an attempt to kidnap him. COUNT THREE STATEMENT OF OFFENCE CAUSING HARM: Contrary to section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 1. MUBAABA BUBEY, 24 YEARS, HERDSMAN that you, on the 15th day of January 2022 about 1:30am at Sibi Botor. No.2 near Damanko in the Oti region of the Republic of Ghana and within the jurisdiction of this court, intentionally and unlawfully caused harm to the left shoulder of Alhaji Bellow Mohammed. COUNT FOUR STATEMENT OF OFFENCE CAUSING HARM: Contrary to section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 1. GARIBA BAAME ABUBAKAR SIDI, 20 YEARS, that you, on the 15th day of January 2022 about 1:30am at Sibi Botor No.2 near Damanko in the Oti region of the Republic of Ghana and within the jurisdiction of this court intentionally and unlawfully caused harm to the hand of Alhaji Bellow Mohammed. THE BRIEF FACTS. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Alhaji Bellow Mohammed aged 55 is a Fulani herdsman resident of Sibi Botor No.2 near Damanko whilst the accused persons Mubaaba Bubey aged 24, Gariba Baame Abubakar Sidi alias Bathor, 20 years and Osmanu Sulley 22 years are also Fulani herdsmen staying at Damanko and Apedwa. That on January 15, 2022 the accused person and their cohorts Mumuni, Gyideh, and Jouli now at large armed with locally manufactured guns and cutlasses hatched a plan to kidnap the complainant and take ransom before releasing him. On the said date at about 3.00am the accused persons and their accomplices went to the complainant’s village at Sibi Bator No,2 to kidnap him from his room in the clear view of his wife Mariama Mohammadu. Whilst the accused persons were taking the complainant out of his room, he struggled with them and managed to escape but in the process A1 shot him with a gun on his shoulder whilst A2 also slashed him with a cutlass on the right hand. The complainant and his wife identified the accused persons during the act and lodged a complaint to the Police. A1 was subsequently arrested and he admitted the offence in his caution statement and mentioned A2, A3, Mumuni, Baba Mohammed, Gyideh and Jouli as his accomplices. A1 further stated that Baba Mohammed was the leader of the team who has the guns they used in their operation. A1 led the Police to apprehend A2 and A3. A2 also admitted the offence and confirmed the identities of the accomplices as stated by A1. A1 admitted shooting the complainant and identifies A2 as the one who inflicted the cutlass wounds on the complainant. On January 19, 2022 an identification parade was conducted at the Oti regional Police headquarters and the complainant and the wife identified the accused persons. The accused persons were charged with the offences and put before Court. The first accused person Mubaaba Bubey pleaded guilty simpliciter to all the charges on him viz; conspiracy to kidnap, count 1, attempt at kidnapping, Count 2 and causing harm, count 3 and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced. The remaining two accused persons went into full trial. THE CASE OF PROSECUTION. The prosecution called in all Three (3) witnesses in support of its case, the complainant Alhaji Bellow as PW1, Mariama Mohammadu, the wife of PW1, as PW2, and the investigator of the case, D/Corporal Joseph Amewuda as the PW3. The evidence of PW1, was that on January 15,2022 he was asleep in his room wife his wife and two children when suddenly around 1.30am he was awoken only to find three Fulani men in his room. One holding a gun and the other two holding cutlasses. That they kidnapped him and ordered him to walk out of his room but he declined and started pleading with them and his wife woke up and started pleading with them too to spare his life. That they started pulling him out of his room and at the entrance to his room he held unto the door and started struggling with them. That he identified the attackers as Mubaaba Bubey A1, the person holding the gun and Gariba alias Batho, A2 and Osmanu Sulley A3, the two persons who were holding the cutlasses. That he and his wife started shouting for help from the neighbours and in the process Mubaaba shot him on his left shoulder and Gariba slashed him on his right hand with the cutlass and the attackers took to their heels. That the assemblyman of the area was called, and he led him to Kpassa Police station to lodge a complaint with the Police. The police gave him a form to attend hospital. That he attended the hospital and returned the endorsed forms to the Police. That he led Police to arrest Mubaaba. That on January 19, 2022, he was called to the regional Police headquarters Dambai and identified all the three accused persons during an identification parade. During cross examination on him PW1 admitted that Gariba A2 is his nephew. And stated that he could not identify who slashed him with the cutlass since that happened in course of his struggling with the attackers. Save this fact of who slashed him with the cutlass all the evidence of PW1 stood firm during cross examination. The testimony of PW2, Mariama Mohammadu was that on the January 15, 2022 around 1.30am she was sleeping with the husband and two of their children in their room and she was awoken by noise from the husband. That she was sleeping on one mat with the kids while the husband slept on another mat in the room. That when she woke, she saw the accused person A1 holding a gun and A2 and A3 holding cutlasses. That the accused persons started pulling the husband out of the room but the husband held unto the door and was struggling with them. That she pleaded with the accused persons not to kill the husband. That the accused persons shouted at them to keep quiet and insisted the husband should follow them outside but the husband held unto the wood of the door and Mubaaba A1 shot the husband on the shoulder and A2 Gariba also used the cutlass to inflict wounds on the hands of the husband. That she and the husband started shouting for help and neighbours came to the scene but the accused persons had run away before the people got there. That the husband reported the case to the Police and A1 was arrested. That on January 19, 2022 she identified all the accused persons during an identification parade at the regional Police headquarters at Dambai. During cross examination, PW2 also admitted that she knows A2 as the nephew of her husband and that they were living and working at the same village till she and the husband relocated. PW2 further stated that she was so scared that she could not identify the particular person who slashed the husband with the cutlass contrary to her saying earlier that it was A2 who slashed the husband with the cutlass. Again, apart from the identity of who slashed PW1 with the cutlass the evidence of PW2 stood firm. The evidence of PW3, the investigator, was materially the summary of the testimonies of the first two witnesses. PW3 tendered into evidence the Cautioned and Charge statements of A2 as Exhibits A and B respectively, Cautioned and Charge statements of A3 as Exhibits C and D respectively, Identification Parade Report as Exhibit E, Medical Report as Exhibit F, Photographs of identification of A2 and A3 by PW1 as Exhibit G and G1 respectively, Photographs of identification of A2 and A3 by PW2 as Exhibit H and H1 respectively. THE CASE OF SECOND ACCUSED, A2, GARIBA BAAME ABUBAKARI SIDI aka BATHO. The case of the second accused was that on the January 15. 2022 he was in the house with parents i.e., both the father and mother. That as at 1.30am he was asleep after the days hard work of taking care of cattle. That he went for morning prayers at 5.00am with the father and after the prayers went to the Kraal around 6.00am to milk the cow for the mother sell. That around 9.00am as he usually does, he sent the cattle for grazing and returned to the house around 5. 00pm. That he was surprised to be arrested by the Police at Opejua quite a distance from the scene of the crime. That he told the Police he was not among the persons who committed the crime and that he is innocent. That a search conducted by the police in his room and that of the father revealed no implement used in committing the crime. That he knows the victim as his maternal uncle who lives at Sibi Bator No.2 but he has personally never been to Sibi No.2 before. That he only saw his uncle the victim when the victim came to visit them at Opejua. That he does not even know the other accused persons, he does not stay at the same place with them, and they are not his friends. That he met them the first time in his life at the Dambai Police station when he was sent there after his arrest. During cross examination A2 admitted giving statements to the Police upon his arrest and is aware the statements are already in evidence. That he sleeps in his room with his brother by name Umaru Babuba. A2 called his father Amadu Aliu as his first with first witness A2DW1, and the mother Awule Mahamadu as his second witness A2DW2 The evidence of the A2DW1 was recount of what he claims to be the daily activities of A2 in the house where they live at Opejua. That A2 leaves home for grazing with the animals at 9 am and comes back home at 5pm. That between 8pm and 9pm they sit as family and discuss issues and they depart to their respective rooms to sleep. That A2 must milk the cow by 6am for the mother to sell. That A2 has a junior brother he sleeps with and always moves with. That where they live is about 300 km from where the crime occurred so A2 could not have been part of the people who tried to kidnap the victim who is his brother-in-law. That A2 slept in the house because he met with A2 at the mosque by 5am. Witness admitted that he doesn’t know the date and time the crime occurred and that all that he knows is that A2 was arrested 7 am in the morning. He admitted that he stays in the same house but does not sleep in the same room with the A2. The evidence of the A2DW2 was materially the same as that of A2DW1 and she stated that the victim is his biological brother, and her son was not one of the people who kidnapped the victim. She admitted she does not know when the crime occurred but only knows when the son was arrested which arrest was a surprise to her. She answered during cross examination that though she does not sleep in the same room with A2 their respective rooms are close to each other and that the A2 is in the room with his wife. THE CASE OF THE THIRD ACCUSED, A3, OSMANU SULLEY. The case of the third accused person was that he knows nothing about all the charges on him. That the day the complainant was kidnapped he A3 was with the elder son and the brother in-law of the of the complainant elsewhere attending to some animals and he could not have at the same time been involved in the crimes being alleged against him. That it was the next morning that the son of complainant told him that he the son had had a call about the kidnapping incidence on his father, Alhaji Bellow. That the next day they went to where Alhaji Below is and he A3 decided to make a complaint about their missing cattle to the Police. That Police asked him to come the next day. That the next day he went with the son of Alhaji Bellow by name Kiro. That while waiting at the Police station at Wulensi to lodge his complain, another group of police officers came to the station and arrested him, saying that some people who have been arrested in connection with the attempted kidnapping of Alhaji Bellow have mentioned his name as a member of the group that tried to kidnap Alhaji. That upon his arrest he asked the police to give his 5 cattle to Kiro and he wants Kiro to come and testify since Kiro knows that he A3 knows nothing about Alhaji’s kidnapping case. But Kiro doesn’t want to come and testify because it involves his father. And that he would want the brother-in-law of Alhaji too to come and testify for him. That he was there with him when the incidence happened and had been with him tendering his cattle since 2017. That he had never thought of offending Alhaji Bellow, so he is innocent about the charges on him. A2 stated during cross examination that he knows the victim and the wife very and they in turn also know him very well and they can easily identify him anywhere. That it is true they identified him during the identification parade, but Alhaji told him he was pointed at him as a person he knows, as the Police had requested him to do, but not as a person who took part in the kidnapping. That he knows A1 and A2 very well as they have all lived together for a long time. A3 called the said son of the complainant into evidence and treated him as an adverse witness after Kiro had testified in chief that he cannot tell whether A3 participated in the attempt at kidnapping his father. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF Section 14 of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323 places the burden of producing evidence in criminal cases on the prosecution. And the cases have held that there is no burden at all on the accused to prove his or her innocence. All that the accused needs do is to create doubt in the mind of the court as to facts of the prosecution when a prima facie case has been found against the accused person. In the case COP vs. Isaac Antwi (1961) GLR the Supreme Court held materially the same as above stated. The case of Donkor Vs. The State (1964) GLR598 SC held that in criminal trials the burden of proof in the sense of the burden of establishing the quilt of the accused is generally on the prosecution. The failure to discharge the burden should lead to the acquittal of the accused. The cases of Lutterodt v. Commissioner of Police (1963)1GLR.429, SC holding 3, Amartey v. The State (1964) GLR256@ 295 SC, and Darko v. The Republic (1968) GLR203 provide authoritative guide as to how criminal evidence should be evaluated by the trail court. The Republic vs. Francis Ike Uyanwune (2013) 58 GMJ 162 @181to 182 Adjei JA as he then was stated thus ‘The trial Court rightly discussed the burden of proof in criminal law in accordance with section 13(1) of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 which provides as follows; in any civil or criminal action the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond reasonable doubt’. And this court will accordingly be guided by these authorities in this judgement. THE CHARGE OF CAUSING HARM ON A2 As stated, above A2 is charged with causing harm to PW1 by intentionally and unlawfully inflicting cutlass wound on his hands. Section 69 of Act 29 provides; ‘A person who intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to any person commits a second-degree felony’. The case of the prosecution is that while accused persons were trying to kidnap the victim, PW1 he resisted them and as a result A1 shot at him on the shoulder and A2 in turn also inflicted cutlass wounds on his hands. A1 in all sincerity admitted shooting the PW1 but A2 denied inflicting the cutlass wounds on the complainant. In proof of the allegation Prosecution called in the victim and his wife and then the investigator of the case, into evidence. Exhibit F, the medical report in respect of the wounds in issue states ‘Right lower arm with deep laceration, which is sutured, active bleeding noted; thumb with deep cut as well’. From the Exhibit F the fact of the existence of the wound and for that matter harm is not in doubt. The question for resolution is who unlawfully caused the harm. It is said that ‘Harm is unlawful which is intentionally caused’ FOLI VIII AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC (1968) GLR 768 – 773. The evidence of the complainant, the victim PW1 was that ‘in the process of the struggling A1 shot me on my left shoulder whilst A2 also slashed me on my right hand with his cutlass’. PW2 the wife of the PW1 also stated that ‘my husband struggled with them and A1 shot him on his shoulder. A2 Gariba Baame Abubakr Sidi who was holding cutlass also used the cutlass to inflict wound on my husband Bello Mohamadu’s hand’. PW3 the investigator also posited that during his interaction with A2, A2 rather stated that it was rather A3 who inflicted the cutlass wound and for that matter caused the said harm to the complainant. And at the same time A1 had informed him that it was A2 who inflicted the cutlass wound on the victim. But armed with this contrasting information he did not dig deep to establish who indeed amongst the accused persons caused the said harm using the cutlass and yet for reasons best known to him charged the A2 with the offence. The victim PW1 and the PW2 during cross examination answered as follows on who used the cutlass to cause the harm to the victim. PW1 was asked; Q. Tell the Court which of the accused persons slashed you with the cutlass. A. I cannot tell which of them slashed me because we were struggling. The PW2 the wife of the victim also said when she was asked; Q. Can you tell the court which of them used the cutlass on your husband. A. I was so afraid that I could not identify who slashed my husband. These answers from PW1 and PW2 are firm admissions on their part that their earlier statements that it was A2 who used the cutlass to cause the harm on the hand of the victim cannot be true and that they could not best tell who slashed the victim with the cutlass. Which means also that complainant could have suffered the cut because of the struggle but not necessarily that one of the accused persons had intentionally used the cutlass on him as alleged. With this doubt I am unable to hold that prosecution has proven the guilt of A2 to the charge of causing harm to Alhaji Bellow as charged. He is accordingly not found guilty and he A2 is therefore acquitted. THE CHARGE OF ATTEMP TO KIDNAP Th accused persons were charged with attempt to kidnap the victim Alhaji Mohammed Bellow from his bedroom at Sibi Bator No.2 on the January 15, 2022 at around 1:30am. Section 18 of Act 29 provides; 18(1). A person who attempts to commit a criminal offence by any means shall not be acquitted on the ground that, the criminal offence could not according to the intent (a) by reason of the imperfection or other condition of the means, or (b) by reason of the circumstances under which they are used, or (c) by reason of the circumstances affecting the person against whom, or the thing in respect of which, the criminal offence is intended to be committed, or (d) by reason of the absence of that person or thing. (2) A person who attempts to commit a criminal offence, and except as otherwise provided in this Act, is liable to be convicted and punished as if the criminal offence has been completed. THE OFFENCE OF KIDNAPPING Section 89 of Act 29 provides; A person who kidnaps another person commits a second-degree felony. Section 90 of Act 29 defines kidnapping as; A person commits a criminal offence of kidnapping— (a) who unlawfully imprisons any other person, and takes that person out of the jurisdiction of the Court, without the consent of the other person; (b) who unlawfully imprisons any other person within the jurisdiction of the Court, in a manner that prevents the other person from applying to a Court for release or from discovering to any other person the place of the imprisonment, or in a manner that prevents a person entitled to have access from discovering the place where the other person is imprisoned. The case of the prosecution in our present case as above stated is that the accused persons armed with a gun in the custody of A1 and A2 and A3 holding cutlasses on January 15, 2022 entered the bedroom of the complainant at around 1:30am to kidnap him to an unknown destination. That when the accused persons were Commented [A1]: forcibly pulling the complainant away from his room he held on the wood on his door and struggled with them. That the complainant and the wife shouted for help where upon the A1 shot at the complainant on the shoulder and the A2 slashed the hands of the complainant with a cutlass and they fled away aborting their enterprise. That the complainant and the wife did see the accused persons in the process. Accused persons are Fulani men known very well to the victim and the wife. That at an identification parade at the Oti regional Police headquarters the accused persons particularly A2 and A3 were easily identified. Exhibits G, G1, H and H1 refer. That indeed A1 was arrested first and he assisted for A2 and A3 to be arrested. A1 mentioned the names of all the people who took part in the enterprise and the others are yet to be apprehended. A1 was very forthright in his admission and stated that ‘if you are a criminal and you commit a crime you have to say the truth boldly that you are part and that I did so’. Beside the fact that the victim and the wife firmly identified A2and A3 during the identification parade, the prosecution tendered into evidence the Cautioned Statement Exhibits C and Charge Statement Exhibits D of the second accused person in proof of his admissions. In Exhibits C and D A2 recounted their earlier kidnapping enterprise on one Alhaji Abbul Rahman through which they got a ransom of GHS40,000,00 after which event A2 amongst others stated that ‘myself, Mubaaba Bubey A1, Osmanu Sulley A3, Mamaata, Gyideh and Mumuni went to kidnap Alhaji Bellow Mohammed at his place at Sibi Bator No.2 but he struggled with us and created a scene by making noise and so Mubaaba shot him with his gun and we run away’. In his defence A2 led by his learned counsel sought to say that he was at Opejua which is nowhere near the crime scene at Sibi Bator No.2. That on the January 15, 2022 he was asleep at 1;30am. That at 5:00am he went for the morning prayers with his father and later after 6:00am milked the cattle for the mother to sell. That he does not even know Sibi Bator No.2 and denied knowing the other accused persons. A2 called his father and mother to testify for him. The parents’ testimonies were materially the same to the effect that A2 was in the house with them on the day of the incidence. A2’s account that he was with the parent does not appear to account for the period up to the 5:00am when he claims to have gone to the mosques with the father. It seems to me that it is not even true that A2 went with the father to the mosque as he wants the court to believe. I say so because the father in turn stated that he rather met A2 at the mosque in contrast to A2 claims that they went together to the mosque. The mother did not come out as someone who knew anything about the attendance of the A2 for the morning prayers on that day and so said nothing about it. In fact, the parents gave a general overview of what A2 possibly do daily but not specific reference to the day of the incidence which they both admitted did not know and only got to know of when their son was arrested. As stated A2 claims that by the 1:30am that the incidence happened he was asleep. He did not tell the court with whom he sleeps in his room or either he slept alone on that day. The father however, introduced the fact that the A2 sleeps with his younger brother in his room. Interestingly the mother also stated that A2 sleeps rather with the wife in his room implying, according to the mother, it is the wife, and according to the father it is the junior brother, who can best tell whether A2 was asleep as he claimed. Neither the wife nor the junior brother of A2 was called into evidence. From the above I believe it is not probable that A2 was asleep as he claims at 1:30am on the January 15,2022. Furthermore, A2 though sought to say that he only got to know the victim as his uncle when the mother told him and personally saw the victim when victim visited them at the place where they live, during cross examination on the PW2, the wife of the victim, the A2 through his learned counsel admitted that A2 had actually worked with the victim and the wife before at the same place. In contrast to the claim of A2 that he never knew the other accused persons till he met them at the police station, he admitted through his counsel that they had all worked at the same place before. The following amongst others ensued. Q. Can you tell the court what tools accused persons were holding. A. A2 was holding a cutlass. Q. You said you know the accused persons is that not so. A. Yes, I knew them long before they came to attack my husband. Q. How do you know them. A. We were working with them at the same place before we moved to Sibi No.2 Q. I suggest to you that A2 is a nephew to your husband. A. That is correct. From the above I am of the opinion and hold strongly that the denial by the A2 and the defence subsequently put up by him supported by the parents are all afterthoughts and unable to create any doubt in the evidence of the prosecution firmly established against him as to his involvement in the attempt at kidnapping Commented [A2]: Alhaji bellow Mohammed. A2 was identified by the victim and his wife. He A2 himself upon caution admitted taking part in the kidnapping of the victim and his subsequent defence created no shadow of doubt on facts as found against him. The original intention of kidnapping Alhaji Bellow was not successful and in accordance with Section 18(1) of Act 29 as above quoted, accused persons have committed an offence of attempt to commit a crime to wit kidnapping. Prosecution has therefore satisfactorily established the quilt of A2 on the charge of Attempt to Kidnap the victim and I accordingly find A2 guilty as charged. On the third accused person A3, Osmanu Sulley. The A3 on the other hand consistently denied taking part in the kidnapping attempt on Alhaji Bellow in both his cautioned and charge statements and insisted that at the time of the incidence he was with the son of the victim at Damanko preparing to move cattle to where the victim was and that it was the said son of the victim by name Kiro who informed him of the attempt at kidnapping of his father. That A1 told him at the Police station that he A1 mentioned his name because he A3 may have betrayed him in an earlier kidnapping of one Alhaji Abdul Rahama. A3 never called A1 in proof of that fact. And in the cautioned statement of A1 Exhibit A, contrary to A3’s claim, A1 was rather emphatic that ‘It was I , Gariba Abubakari alias Bathor, Osmanu Sulley and three others at large who went to kidnap Alhaji Bellow at Sibi Bator No.2’. Not Commented [A3]: only was A1 emphatic on the involvement of A3, A2 too confirmed A3’s involvement. Assuming without admitting that A1 mentioned him A3 because A1 suspected him to be a betrayal the evidence of A2 was never disputed and I find the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 corroborative of that of A1 and A2 against A3. A3 called Kiro the son of the victim whom he claims to be with at the time of the incidence and treated him as an adverse witness. The witness was very firm in his answers and denied that he was with the A3 as A3 claimed. A3 had sought to say that Kiro is refusing to say the truth because the incidence concerns his father. I dare say that Kiro did not come out as someone who was not being truthful. The following amongst others ensued during cross examination on Kiro by A3. He was very firm and there was nothing suggestive that he was not being truthful. Q. You are aware that on the day of the kidnapping of your dad I was with you at the house. A. On that day I was not with you at all. Q. That you told me your father had been kidnapped and your father saw Bubey. A. I had not talked to you days before the incidence, and I called you on phone to inform you about the incidence. Q. You know I take care of your uncle’s cattle. A. Yes but at the time of the incidence you were not taking care of the animals. Q. Tell the truth to the Court if I were not with you and your uncle how could I have gone with your uncle to the Police station at Wulensi to report. A. You went with my uncle to make the report two days after the kidnapping incidence. Q. I put it to you that on the night the incidence happened at Sibi I was there with you in your uncle’s house. A. That is not correct, that day you were not with me. A3 was seen by the victim and his wife at the crime scene at the time the event happened. They subsequently identified him during the identification parade. His accomplices A1 and A2 firmly confirmed his involvement. His claim of being with the Kiro at the time of the crime has not been established and his evidence has created no shadow of doubt on the prosecution case against him. I hold from the above that A3 took part in the failed kidnapping of Alhaji Bellow Mohammed and therefore is guilty as charged of attempt at Kidnapping Alhaji Bellow Mohammed. A3 is therefore convicted as charged. THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE The accused persons were together charged with conspiracy to Kidnap. A1 pleaded guilty simpliciter and the two other accused persons have been found guilty of attempt to kidnap the victim. Section 24 of Act 29 provides as follows; Section 24(1) where two or more persons are convicted of conspiracy for the commission or abetment of criminal offence, each of them shall, where the criminal offence is committed, be punished for that criminal offence, or shall, where the criminal offence is not committed, be punished as if each had abetted that criminal offence. In our instance case all the accused persons have been convicted as above of the attempt at kidnapping. And from the above provision of section 24(1) of Act 29, the accused persons can be punished only once even if they are convicted of the conspiracy. It seems to me joining conspiracy to a substantive offence will be safe where not all the conspirators engaged in the commission of the substantive offence. I do not, therefore, find it expedient to consider the charge of conspiracy and same is accordingly struck out and the accused persons discharged on same. (SGD) ALFRED KWABENA ASIEDU ESQ (CIRCUIT JUDGE )