Republic Vrs Boakye and 2 Others (B1/06/2023) [2023] GHACC 975 (17 October 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT DUNKWA-ON-OFFIN; SITTING ON 17TH OCTOBER 2023 CORAM: HIS HONOUR YAW POKU ACHAMPONG CASE NO.: B1/06/2023 THE REPUBLIC VS 1. NICHOLAS BOAKYE @ VIRUS 2. SAMUEL ADJEI @ OPPONG 3. DOMINIC BOATENG @ KWAME 1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED PERSONS PRESENT 3RD ACCUSED PERSON ACQUITTED AND DISCHARGED EARLIER DETECTIVE CHIEF INSPECTOR PETER SADAARI PRESENT HOLDING THE BRIEF OF SERGEANT PRINCE ADU AMOAKO FOR PROSECUTION JAMES KOJO TSIN FOR ACCUSED PERSONS, PRESENT JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION Accused persons were arraigned before this court charged as follows: COUNT ONE STATEMENT OF OFFENCE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIME TO WIT; ROBBERY: CONTRAY TO SECTION 23(1) OF ACT 29/60 AND ACT 149 OF ACY 29/60 AS AMENDED BY ACT 646/2003 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE NICHOLAS BOAKYE @ VIRUS, GALAMSEY WORKER, 20 YEARS , 2. SAMUEL ADJEI @ OPPONG, 21 YEARS For that you and three others now at large on the 12th day of November, 2022 at about 4:30pm between Mmreteweso and Achiase in the Central Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, did conspire to commit crime to wit; robbery. COUNT TWO STATEMENT OF OFFENCE CARRYING OFFENSIVE WEAPON: CONTRARY TO SECTION 206(1) OF ACT 29/60 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE SAMUEL ADEI @ OPPONG, GALAMSEY WORKER, 21 YEARS: For that you and three others now at large on 12th day of November, 2022 at about 4:30pm between Mmreteweso and Achiase in the Central Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, without lawful authority you had in your possession an offensive weapon to wit; cutlass, motor chain, gun. COUNT THREE STATEMENT OF OFFENCE ABETMENT OF CRIME TO WIT; ROBBERY: CONTRARY TO SECTION 20(1) OF ACT 29/60 AND SECTION 149 OF ACT 29/60 AS AMENDED BY ACT 646/2003. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE NICHOLAS BOAKYE @ VIRUS, GALAMSEY WORKER, 20 YEARS: For that you on the 12th day of November, 2022 at about 4:30pm between Mmreteweso and Achiase in the Central Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, did aid and abet one Samuel Adjei @ Oppong and two others now at large to commit crime to wit; robbery. COUNT FOUR STATEMENT OF OFFENCE ROBBERY: CONTRARY TO SECTION 149 OF ACT 29/60 AS AMENDED BY ACT 646/2003. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE SAMUEL ADJEI @ OPPONG, GALAMSEY WORKER, 21 YEARS: For that you and three others now at large on 12th day of November, 2022 at about 4:30pm between Mmreteweso and Achiase in the Central Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, did rob Daniel Korankye of his cash sum of GHȻ10,000.00. COUNT FIVE STATEMENT OF OFFENCE ROBBERY: CONTRARY TO SECTION 149 OF ACT 29/60 AS AMENDED BY ACT 646/2003. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE SAMUEL ADJEI @ OPPONG, GALAMSEY WORKER, 21 YEARS: For that you and three others now at large on 12th day of November, 2022 at about 4:30pm between Mmreteweso and Achiase in the Central Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, did rob William Anokye of his itel keypad mobile phone with 16gb memory card all value GHȻ100.00. COUNT SIX STATEMENT OF OFFENCE POSSESSION OF NARCOTIC DRUG WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY: CONTRARY TO SECTION 37(1) OF NARCOTIC CONTROL COMMISSION ACT 3 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 1. NICHOLAS BOAKYE @ VIRUS, GALAMSEY WORKER, 20 YEARS , 2. SAMUEL ADJEI @ OPPONG, GALAMSEY WORKER, 21 YEARS, 3. DOMINIC BOATENG @ KWAME, GALAMSEY WORKER, 25 YEARS: For that you on the 17th day of November, 2022 at about 2:00am at Mmreteweso in the Central Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, did have in your possession quantities of dried leaves suspected to be narcotic drugs. COUNT SEVEN STATEMENT OF OFFENCE POSSESSION OF NARCOTIC DRUG WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY: CONTRARY TO SECTION 37(1) OF NARCOTIC CONTROL COMMISSION ACT PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 1. NICHOLAS BOAKYE @ VIRUS, GALAMSEY WORKER, 20 YEARS , 2. SAMUEL ADJEI @ OPPONG, GALAMSEY WORKER 21 YEARS, 3. DOMINIC BOATENG @ KWAME, GALAMSEY WORKER, 25 YEARS: For that you on the 17th day of November, 2022 at about 2:00am at Mmreteweso in the Central Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, did have in your possession local gin (Akpeteshi) laced with dried leaves suspected to be narcotic drugs in a Voltic rubber container. Section 23(1) of Act 29 states: Where two or more persons agree to[sic] act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a crime, whether with or without any previous concert or deliberation, each of them is guilty of conspiracy to commit or abet that crime, as the case may be. Section 206(1) of Act 29 states: Any person who, without lawful authority the proof where, of shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. Section 20 of Act 29 states, inter alia: (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, instigates, commands, counsels, procures, solicits, or in any manner purposely aids, facilitates, encourages, or promotes, whether by his act or presence or otherwise, and every person who does any act for the purpose of aiding, facilitating, encouraging or promoting the commission of a crime by any other person, whether known or unknown, certain or uncertain, is guilty of abetting that crime, and of abetting the other person in respect of that crime. (2) Every person who abets a crime shall, if the crime is actually committed in pursuance or during the continuance of the abetment, be deemed guilty of that crime. Section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29) states, inter alia: (1) Whoever commits robbery is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction on trial summarily or on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, and where the offence is committed by the use of an offensive weapon or offensive missile, the offender shall upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years. (3) In this section "offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use to cause injury to the person or damage to property or intended by the person who has the weapon to use it to cause injury or damage; and "offensive missile" includes a stone, brick or any article or thing likely to cause harm, damage or injury if thrown. Robbery is defined under section 150 of Act 29 as: A person who steals a thing is guilty of robbery if in and for the purpose of stealing the thing, he uses any force or causes any harm to any person, or if he uses any threat or criminal assault or harm to any person, with intent thereby to prevent or overcome the resistance of that or of other person to the stealing of the thing. Section 37(1) of Act 1019 states: A person who, without lawful authority, proof of which lies on that person, has possession or control of a narcotic drug for use or for trafficking commits an offence. The police relied on the following as the key facts based on which they charged Accused persons, as itemized below: 1. Complainant Daniel Korankye is a businessman – a supplier of assorted drinks and a resident of Dunkwa-On-Offin. 2. Complainant Williams Anokye is a sales boy of Complainant Daniel Korankye and a resident of Denkyira Abesewa. 3. The 1st and 2nd Accused persons are resident at Denkyira Meretweso and 3rd Accused is resident at Denkyira Ayanfuri. There are three suspects who are at large. 4. On 15/10/2022 at about 7:30pm, Complainant Daniel Korankye (hereinafter referred to simply as Daniel) was in a certain vehicle and was returning from his business trip together with Complainant Williams Anokye(hereinafter referred to simply as Williams) and one other sales boy. 5. On reaching a section of the road between Denkyira Asikuma and Meretweso, they got attacked by armed robbers numbering about five. 6. The robbers collected the sales that the Complainants had made i.e. GH¢30 000.00 and bolted. 7. On 12th November 2022 at about 4:30pm, whilst the complainants were returning from their usual business trip with the said vehicle, upon reaching a section of the road between Achiase and Meretweso, Daniel saw 1st Accused making a call with a mobile phone; suddenly about five men with face masks armed with motor chain, cutlass and unspecified gun emerged from the nearby bush and some also emerged from the back of a heap of sand. 8. One of the armed men pointed a gun at Daniel’s direction and in the process they attacked Daniel and robbed him of his money – a sum of GH¢10000.00. 9. The armed men also robbed Williams of his itel keypad mobile phone with an external 16 GB memory card loaded with videos and pictures of Daniel’s marriage ceremony and pictures of other sales boys and also pictures of Daniel’s senior brother called Amissah Candy. 10. Daniel later saw 1st Accused joining the robbers in picking some monies he(Daniel) threw on the ground upon seeing the robbers. 11. On 13th November 2022 at about 11:00am, 2nd Accused went and sold a keypad phone with external memory card to One Nana Kofi Asamoah alias Anomaa at his shop at Denkyira Meretweso at a price of GH¢50.00. 12. On 14th November 2022 at about 6:00am, Anomaa went to Daniel’s house and told him that he bought a keypad mobile phone together with external memory card from 1st Accused[sic] at a price of GH¢50.00 which contains videos and pictures of his(Daniel’s) sales boys. 13. On 17th November 2022 at about 02:30am, Williams led the police to arrest the accused persons herein at Denkyira Meretweso. 14. A2 and A3 were arrested in the same room; a search conducted in that room revealed a quantity of dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp, cutlass, a pair of scissors, a jack knife, a bread knife and a Voltic container containing a local gin mixed with dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp. 15. A1 claimed ownership of the dried leaves and 2nd Accused claimed ownership of some other items. Prosecution called five witnesses including the investigator herein who testified fifth. Daniel testified first and Williams testified second. Anomaa testified third and Detective Inspector George Kwasi Baah(as he now is) testified fourth. They were referred to as PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 the order they testified. PROSECUTION’S CASE Witness Statements in criminal cases hit the scene from 01st November 2018. The essence is to put to the other side on notice as to the evidence to be led. If it is prepared by professionals and in this regard – lawyers, fair enough but if it is prepared by amateurs or people who do not have enough knowledge about admissibility of evidence, it can be problematic. In the past, the court could make use of section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323) to ensure that the evidence is streamlined to assist the court determine the matter. Section 69 of NRCD 323 states: The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to— (a) make the interrogation and presentation as rapid, as distinct, and as readily understandable as may be, and (b) protect witnesses from being unduly intimidated, harassed or embarrassed. However, it appears to me that with the advent of Witness Statements, the court’s mandate under section 69 of the Evidence Act when it comes to examination-in-chief of witnesses is somehow taken away. The court may, however, be able to apply section 69 of NRCD 323 effectively when it comes to cross-examination. Having said the foregoing and considering the nature of the evidence-in-chief of the various prosecution witnesses, I will produce the salient parts of the witness statements of the prosecution witnesses which metamorphosed into their evidence-in-chief, in this write up, verbatim. Testimonial Account of PW1 “... 3. On 15th October, 2022 about 7:30pm whilst I was in charge of my vehicle with registration No. AW1187-11 with three sales boys on board, and upon reaching the section of the road in between Denkyira Meretweso and Asikuma we were attacked by armed men and robbed our belongings including GH₵30,000.00 and they bolted. 4. They were with face mask and single barrel gun. 5. On 12th November, 2022 at 4:30pm whilst I and my two sales boys from Achiase heading home towards Meretweso I saw Al making a call and suddenly five men wearing mask on their faces and emerged from the bush and a heaped sand back and one of them pointed a gun at my direction. 6. I quickly alighted from my vehicle together with one of my boys and I intentionally put some amount of money on the ground and we run[sic] to a distance to save our life[sic]. 7. That I saw the armed robbers beating up my other boy who could not escape with a motorbike chain and cutlass. One of the armed robbers collected William Anokye the complainant in count five itel keypad phone with 16GB memory card which contains my marriage ceremony and his brothers’ videos and pictures. 8. They opened my vehicle door and stole an amount of GH₵10,000.00 from the vehicle. 9. Some three men on their motorbike from Meretweso direction were also robbed by them. 10. Later I called one of my boys and he brought the vehicle to me and later reported the case to police. 11. On 14th November, 2022 at about 6:00am I was in my house with my wife Nana Yaa when one man popularly known as Asokwa chief at Meretweso brought in his personal mobile phone and told us that A2 sold one keypad phone to him at a price of GH₵50.00 with a memory card which contain videos and picture of William Anokye the complainant in count five who was also robbed by the armed robbers. 12. He showed me some of the pictures and the videos of my marriage ceremony. 13. I gave the 16GB memory card to the police and subsequently, the accused persons were arrested. ...” Testimonial Account of PW2 “ 1. I am William Anokye and a resident of Abesewa near Dunkwa-On-Offin. 2. The complainant Daniel Korankye is my master and we deal in supplying of assorted drinks to many people in and out of Dunkwa municipality. 3. On 12th November, 2021 I, together with the complainant in count four and other one sales boy was attacked by armed robbers at a section of the road between Achiase 4. and Meretweso.[sic] 5. The vehicle is a Kia truck with a registration No. AW1187-11. I saw six or seven men which one of them was wielding pump action gun and two wielding unspecified gun and other also wielding cutlass and motorbike chain. They were with face mask except one who was not wearing face mask. 6. The complainant in count four threw some of his money on the ground and took to his heels. 7. I could not run away so I was subjected to severe beating by the armed robbers with motorbike chain. 8. They robbed me of my itel mobile phone containing my 16GB memory card containing the complainant in count four marriage ceremony pictures, pictures of my brother and I. 9. That they entered the car and stole all the monies in the car. 10. Certain young men on a motorbike were also robbed by the armed robbers. 11. Later when they left I went to Police station to lodge a complaint and medical form was issued to me for treatment and endorsement. 12. I later received information from the complainant in count four that Asokwa chief at Meretweso had brought my memory card which was robbed together with my mobile phone to him. 13. That based on that information was given to police and they were arrested. ….” Testimonial Account of PW3 “1. I am Nana Kofi Asamoah @ Asokwa Chief and a resident of Meretweso 2. On 12th November, 2021 I heard that complainant had been robbed at a section of road in between Achiase and Meretweso. 3. The following day 13th November , 2022 at about 11:00am the accused person Samauel Adjei @ Oppong came to sell Tecno phone with 16Ggb external memory card inserted in it. 4. A2 sold the phone to me at a price of GHȼ50.00. 5. That on the same day in the evening I remove the external memory card from the said phone I bought from A2 and inserted same into Lumia Tecno smart phone. 6. That I saw the pictures and videos of the complainant in count four. 7. I quickly informed the complainant of the memory card. 8. Akwasi Anyam @ Bob was there when A2 brought the mobile phone. ...” Testimonial Account of PW4 1. I am No. 40391 G/Sgt Goerge Kwasi Baah Station at Dunkwa-On-Offin Divisional Headquarters. 2. I know the accused person. 3. On 17-11-2022 I was in charge of Police Patrol team. 4. I received information from my Divisional Command to the effect that that had received information in connection of robbery that happened in between Achiase and Meretweso near Dunkwa-On-Offin. 5. Base on the information the informants led us to A2’S place of abode and A2and A3 were met in A2’S room. 6. A2 was identified to us by the informants as the once the command said we should arrest him. 7. A search was conducted in the presence of A2 & A3 in the room and the search revealed quantity of dried leave suspected to be Indian hemp. 8. The search also revealed Voltic bottle with local gin (Akpeteshie laced with dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp.) 9. That when A2 and A3 were questioned over it A2 claimed ownership of the exhibit in the bottle containing the local gin laced with dried leave suspected to be Indian hemp but in the quantity of the dried leave suspected to be Indian hemp belong to A1. 10. A2 led us to the A1’s house and identified him to us as the one who brought the suspected Indian hemp to his house. 11. When A1 was questioned over it he told us that he was the one who sent the quantity of the dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp to A2’S house. 12. A1 was also arrested and brought to the station together with A2 and A3 and the exhibits and handed them over to the command. 13. I submitted my statement to the police Investigator. Evidence Adduced by PW5 PW5 stated the following, inter alia, in his witness statement: “... 4. On 12th November, 2022 the complainant in count four and count five reported that the same day at about 4:30pm whilst they were returning from their usual business trip with vehicle registration no AW-1187-11 they were attacked by armed robbers numbering about five when they reached a section of the road between Achiase and Meretweso and they robbed them of their cash GHC 10,000.00 and Itel mobile phone with his Adata 16 GB memory card having his pictures on it. In the process the complainant in count five was beaten up with chains by the armed robbers. ... 6. Police medical report form was issued to the complainant in count five for treatment and endorsement which he did. 7. Later the complainant in count four gave information to us to the effect that on 13th November, 2022 A2 sold key pad Tecno mobile phone with external memory card containing pictures of his wedding ceremony and complainant in count five to Nana Kofi Asamoah @ Asokwa chief. 8. Nana Kofi Asamoah showed to the complainant in count four the picture of his wedding ceremony at Kwame Prakrom to him, pictures of complainant in count five and his family members. 9. The complainant in count four handed over the tecno keypad mobile phone to us with 16GB memory card. 10. The memory card was inserted in a different mobile phone and the pictures of complainant in count four wedding ceremony, his own pictures and pictures of complainant in count five and his family members were extracted for evidential purposes. 11. Complainants statements were obtained. 12. Later through our informant the accused persons were arrested by the divisional patrol team after they have received information from the command. 13. During the arrest A2 and A3 were arrested in A2 house and when spot searched was conducted it revealed a white polythene bag containing a quantity of dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp and a voltic container containing a local gin laced with dried leave suspected to be Indian hemp. 14. When A2 and A3 were questioned over the exhibit that is the dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp and the one in the bottle A2 claimed the ownership of the one in the bottle and the quantity of the dried leaves in the polythene suspected to be Indian hemp belonged to A1. 15. A2 led the police patrol team to A1 place of abode and he was arrested when A2 identified him to the police. A1 was questioned if he knows A2 and he said A2 is his friend and the exhibit to wit quantity of the dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp was shown to him and he claimed ownership of it and he told police that he was the one who deposited it in A2 house and he was also arrested. 16. A1, A2 and A3 were brought to the police station and handed over together with the exhibits to the command and the exhibits were photographed. 17. A1, A2 and A3 were paraded before our commander and the complainant in count four identified A1 as the one who made the call and suddenly the armed robbers came to attacked them and robbed his cash GHȼ 10,000.00 and the Itel mobile phone belong to complainant in count five. 18. Nana Kofi Asamoah was also called in and he identified A2 as the one who sold the keypad mobile phone at a price of GHȼ 50.00 which was containing the complainant in count five memory card. A2 confessed and told Police that he was the one who sold the Tecno keypad mobile phone with the memory card to him. … 22. I visited the place where A2 went to sell the keypad Tecno mobile phone with the memory card to Nana Kofi Asamoah @ Asokwa. 23. The exhibits were sealed in the presence of the accused persons and independent witness and the exhibits were sent to forensic laboratory in Accra for testing. 24. On 14/03/2023 I received the test report of the dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp and the one in the voltic container from forensic laboratory in Accra which all tested positive. ... When the PW5 was seeking to tender in evidence the document he said contained the investigation cautioned statement of A1, Counsel for accused persons objected but it was admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit H. The statement PW5 attributed to A1 in Exhibit H reads: “My name is Nicholas Boakye resides at Meretweso in the Upper Denkyira East. I did not robbe[sic] any one and I don’t know anything about robbery case at Asikuma and Meretweso.” PW5 tendered in evidence the investigation cautioned statement of A2 and without objection from the defence, it was admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit K. The statement PW5 attributes of A2 reads: “My name is Samuel Adjei @ Nana Oppong resids[sic] at Meretweso Dudnkwa-On- Offin[.] I don’t know anything about that robbery case [that] happened at Meretweso. I did not robbe[sic] the said complainant and I don’t know his name. I did not take his keypard[sic] phone. I know Nicholas Boakye and [I] am free with him but not my closer[sic] friend.” PW5 tendered further statements of Accused persons:- That of A1 reads: “I was the one who place the indian hemps or weeds in the valander[sic] for Samuel Adjei to be use[sic] and he accordily[sic] possesse[sic] same for his use. On the day of robbery, thus I was in the house when I heard that there was robbery between meretweso[sic] and Achiase at around 7pm on 12/11/2022. I must state that I was not part of the robbery but I must confirst[sic] that I was the one who place the dried leaves or indian hemps to[sic] suspected to be weeds for used[sic] by Samuel Adjei @ Oppong. I do also smoke indian hemps suspect[sic] to be weeds. I don’t deal in salls[sic] of narcotic drugs.” That of A2 reads: “I know suspect Nichlas Boateng @ Virus and suspect Dominic Boateng @ Kwame is my bossom[sic] friend. I was at Meretweso on that very day when I was arrested I was in the same room with suspect Dominic Boateng @ Kwame. I want to embody[sic] that on the day [of] robbery I was together with Dominic Boateng @ Kwame. The exhibit in the Voltic robber container is my personal belonging lace[sic] with indian hemp. The indian hemp in the Voltic container is not priscribed[sic] by any medical officer but I have choosen[sic] to do so. I also have in my possession two kniefs[sic], two jack knief[sic], a pairs of scissor[sic], one screw driver, two spanners, one player[sic], one face tourch[sic] light and I used one of the knief[sic] to prepare food at home and other knief[sic] was been[sic] using[sic] by my sister Hannah Adjei for selling bread at Meretweso and the[sic] later I received the knief[sic] from my sister Hannah Adjei. I picked the bread knief[sic] which was being used by my senior sister who stay with my mother Abena Sarpomaa together with my father Nana Adjei. I picked a Tecno Keypad phone with memory card in it on the 13 day of November 2022 at 5-6pm between Meretweso and Achiase road. I gave same to Anomaa for a profit of GH₵20.00 in the presence of Bob and one other at Meretweso. There is a police station at Dunkwa-On-Offin. I should have brought the exhibit mobile phone to the police station [or to] any openion[sic] leader at Meretweso. I must confirst[sic] that I must also admit that it was suspect Nicholas Boakye @ Virus who placed the indian hemp at the valandar[sic] of the room of me[sic] and suspect Dominic Boateng @ Kwame so he made me aware of the indian hemp suspected to be weed placed same. Upon hearing that message, I did not report the matter to the police but I was in possession of it. Suspect Dominic Boateng @ Kwame also realised or saw the indian hemp at valander[sic] in front of our room in which we live together and informed me accordily[sic]. I have committed an offence for not handing over the Tecno mobile phone to police or police station. I must emphasized[sic] that the Voltic container robber[sic] laced with indian hemp or weeds belongs to me.” SUBMISSION OF NO CASE After the prosecution had closed their case, counsel for Accused persons filed submission of no case. Section 173 of the Criminal and Other Offences(Procedure)Act, 1960(Act 30) states: If at the close of the evidence in support of the charge, it appears to the Court that a case is not made out against the accused sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the Court shall, as to that particular charge, acquit him. The court concluded on section 173 of Act 30 supra as follows: “I hold that Counsel has punched some holes in the prosecution’s evidence. It must be said, however, that there was no submission filed by the prosecution in response to the said submission of Counsel for Accused persons. The submission of Counsel vis-a-vis my own assessment of Prosecution’s case require me to make the following findings and pronouncements. I find that: 1. The prosecution have woefully failed to lead any evidence on the criminality of A3 in this case. 2. The prosecution have failed to establish the guilt of A1 beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1 and 3 I hereby acquit and discharge A3. I hereby acquit A1 on counts 1 and 3. ... I also find that the prosecution have made out a case against A1 on count 6 to require him to put up his defence, if he so desires. ... I further find that prosecution have made out a case against A2 on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. I hereby call on A2 to open his defence, if he so desires...” A CASE TO ANSWER The court then proceeded to explain section 174(1) of Act 30/ section 63 of NRCD 323 vis-a- vis Article 19 (10) of the Constitution, 1992 to Accused. Section 174(1) of Act 30: At the close of the evidence in support of the charge, if it appears to the Court that a case is made out against the accused sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the Court shall call upon him to enter into his defence and shall remind him of the charge and inform him that, if he so desires, he may give evidence himself on oath or may make a statement. The Court shall then hear the accused if he desires to be heard and any evidence he may adduce in his defence. Section 63 of NRCD 323 states: (1) An accused in a criminal action may make a statement in his own defence without first taking an oath or affirmation that he will testify truthfully and without being subject to the examination of all parties to the action. (2) Such a statement by an accused is admissible to the same extent as if it had been made under oath or affirmation and subject to examination in accordance with sections 61 and 62. (3) The fact that the evidence was given without oath or affirmation, or that there was no possibility of examination, may be considered in ascertaining the weight and credibility of the statement, and may be the subject of comment by the court, the prosecution or the defence. Article 19(10) of the Constitution, 1992 states: No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence. DEFENCE A2 chose to give a statement from the dock and the following is what he said: “I do not know anything about the robbery for which charges have been levelled against me. The phone which I gave to Anomaa which the police referred to was a tecno keypad mobile phone but the phone one of the complainants said he had been robbed of was an itel keypad mobile phone as according to that complainant. When I gave the phone to Anomaa, there was no memory card in it. I do not know anything about the robbery that Daniel Korankye alleges against me. The police did not take any “wee” in my room and the police did not show me any “wee”. I also do not know anything about the local gin laced with dried leaves. I am innocent on all the charges against me.” A1 chose to testify on oath(from the witness box). According to A1, he and A2 hailed from and lived in the same town – Meretweso; on 17th November 2022, he was at home asleep. He said the dried leaves and the local gin laced with dried leaves that the police referred to in Court were not found in his room; It is some of the dried leaves that A2 mixed with akpeteshie to form a substance known as “lakka” and kept same in a voltic container. A1 admitted that he gave the dried leaves in white polythene bag to A2 and that he gave it to A2 free of charge. It is the case of A1 that he did not know how to use the substance and so he gave it to A2 for A2 to use and that if he(A1) knew how to use the said substance, he would have kept same in his(A1’s) room and used it. A1 stated further that when the police came to conduct a search in his(A1’s) room, they did not find anything incriminating. A1 also stated that when he(A1) gave the substance to A2, he(A2) willingly received it and said he would use it to prepare “lakka”. A1 concluded his evidence-in- chief by praying the court to have mercy on him. ANALYSIS Cross-examination done by Counsel for Accused persons was instrumental in punching holes in the prosecution’s case that culminated in the acquittal of some accused persons herein on some counts pursuant to section 173 of Act 30. I hereby produce certain material aspects of the cross-examination of the various witnesses of the prosecution by Counsel for Accused persons that I find helpful in the analysis of the case:- Of PW1: ... Q. You agree with me that the alleged robbery took place at 04:30pm on 12th November 2022. A. Yes. Q) And you also said that there were about seven (7) masked men at the crime scene. A) I said five (5) masked men. Q) Did you hear what A1 said on the phone when he was making a call as referred to in paragraph 5 of your witness statement. A) Yes. I heard A1 saying in Twi “Oba Oba” meaning “He’s coming He’s coming”. Q) You agree with me that this “Oba Oba” i.e. He’s coming He’s coming is not stated in this witness statement. A) I agree with you. Q) And that the “Oba Oba” i.e. “He’s coming He’s coming” is also not in the statement you gave to the police. A) I agree with you. Q) I am putting it to you that this assertion that A1 was saying on phone “Oba Oba” is an afterthought. A) It is NOT true. Q) If it were to be so, you would have told the police when the facts were fresh in your memory and also when giving your witness statement to the police. A) What I said is that A1 was making a call. Q) You will agree with me that you assisted the police to effect the arrest of A2 first, followed by A3 and finally A1 after Nana Asokwa of Meretweso allegedly bought a Techno phone from A2 and also showed you an alleged Adata 16GB memory card. A) After I had given the information to the police, I did not go with them to effect the arrests. Q) I put it to you that A2 was arrested first and in the same room that A2 was arrested, A3 was arrested at the said time and later A1 was arrested. A) It is NOT true. Q) You agree with me that the alleged robbery took place on 12/11/2022 and the Accused persons were arrested on 14/11/2022. A) I do not agree with you. Q) When were they arrested. A) A week after the robbery. Q) You agree with me that Nana Asokwa of Meretweso alleged that A2 sold a Techno phone with 16GB memory card to him and that was why A2 was arrested. A) Yes. Q) And that A1 was arrested when the arresting team had information that a suspected Indian hemp laced with alcohol belongs to A1 and that was why he was arrested. A) I do not agree with you. Q) I am putting it to you that A1 was arrested because it was alleged that he was the owner of the alleged Indian hemp substance laced with alcohol. A) When the police went to arrest A1 I did not go with them. Q) So you cannot tell. A) Yes. Q) You agree with me Nana Asokwa allegedly bought a Techno phone from A2 and not an Itel keypad phone. A) Yes. Q) I am putting it to you that the Accused persons i.e. A1, A2 and A3 know nothing about the alleged robbery that took place on 12/11/2022. A) They know about it.” Of PW2: Q) By paragraph 12 of your witness statement, your 16GB memory card was sent to your master together with your phone. A) That is so. Q) Can you tell the court the brand of phone which was sent to your master i.e. Daniel Korankye together with your 16GB memory card. A) Yes the brand of that phone is Techno keypad. Q) But you agree with me that by paragraph 8 of your witness statement your phone which you allege was stolen by the robbers was an Itel mobile phone. A) I agree with you. Q) You also agree with me that there is a difference between a Techno mobile phone and an itel mobile phone. A) I agree with you. Q) You agree with me that when you were giving your statement to the police you told the police that it was your Itel keypad mobile phone that was taken away by the alleged robbers. A) I agree with you. Q) Finally I am putting it to you that, your alleged phone that was taken away by the alleged robbers was an Itel keypad mobile but not a Techno phone which was allegedly sold to the said Asokwa chief of Meretweso. A) It is true that my phone which got lost was an Itel mobile phone but when the police did their investigations and the phone came, the phone turned into a Techno phone. Of PW3: Q) What is the type of phone that is alleged to have been stolen by the robbers. A) Keypad Techno mobile phone. Q) In your statement to the police, what is the brand of phone that you told the Police that A2 sold to you. A) Keypad Techno phone. Q) Can you tell the court the brand of phone which was allegedly stolen by the robbers. A) Techno Keypad phone. Q) I am putting it to you that William Anokye i.e PW2 alleged that it was his Itel keypad mobile phone which was stolen by the robbers. A) I do not know the phone that was stolen because I was not there but the phone A2 came to sell to me is what I know. Q) How did the 16GB memory card get into the Techno phone which A2 sold to you. A) I cannot tell. Q) You agree with me that A2 never sold an Itel keypad mobile phone to you. A) I do not agree with you. He sold it to me. Q) Earlier on you told this court that the phone that was sold to you by A2 is a Techno Keypad mobile phone. Is that not the case. A) Yes I said so. Q) And just now you have also admitted that A2 sold an Itel keypad mobile to you. Is that not the case. A) That is not so. The phone A2 sold to me was Techno keypad phone. Q) I put it to you that you are not helping the court to arrive at the truth because in one breadth you said A2 sold a Techno keypad mobile phone to you and in another breadth you said A2 sold an Itel keypad mobile phone to you. A) I have not said that it was an itel keypad mobile phone which was sold to me. The phone sold to me is Techno keypad mobile phone. Q) For how long have you known Daniel Korankye i.e PW1. A) I have been seeing him at Meretweso for about between 5-7 years Q) Then it means you know complainant in count 4 very well. A) I know him to be someone who comes to the town to sell drinks. Q) I am putting it to you that all the evidence you have given to the court except your name and your residence are calculated attempt to throw dust into the eyes of the court. A) That is not so. What I saw in this matter is what I have come to tell the court.” Of PW4: Q) You agree with me that your thirteen (13) paragraphed witness statement has nothing to do with robbery. A) Yes Q) You also agree with me that the dried substance was not found with A1. A) Yes. But A1 claimed ownership of it. Q) I am putting it to you that A1 never claimed ownership about the said dried substance. A) He claimed ownership of it. Q) I am putting it to you that A1 never sent any substance to A2’s house. A) A1 confessed to that in front of a lot of police officers who are witnesses. Q) I am putting it to you that A1 never confessed to that before any witnesses. A) He did. Q) I am also putting it to you that A2 never claimed ownership of the said substance in the bottle. A) A2 claimed ownership of it. Q) I am also putting it to you that there was no liquid in the bottle as you are alleging. A) There was liquid in it. Q) You said it was akpeteshie how did you know it was akpeteshie. A) The police have crime lab and so anything concerning drugs is sent there to be tested and so when the substance was sent to the crime lab and it was tested it was detected that it was akpeteshie mixed with Indian hemp. Q) Do you have a copy of the test result. A) No. Q) I am putting it to your earlier assertion that the substance is akpeteshie laced with Indian hemp is not true. A) That assertion of mine is the truth. Q) That answer of yours is not true because you have no proof. A) That should be answered by the investigator. Of PW5: Q) And you came across A1’s network provider in the work of your investigations A) No Q) I am putting it to you complainant Daniel Korankye stated in his evidence-in-chief that A1 made a phone call and the robbers appeared from the bush. A) Yes Q) As an investigating officer, did you investigate that A) No. Q) Did your investigation reveal the charged statement made by A1 that made the robbers appear at the scene. A) No Q) Do you agree with me that by contacting the network provider of A1, you could know why the robbers appeared at the scene. A) I don’t know. Q) I am putting it to you that in this case you did not do proper investigations A) I did proper investigation Q) During investigation did you take A1’s mobile phone from him A) Yes, But A1’s mobile phone was blocked by the network service. After I had taken it from him because he did register the SIM card with Ghana card. Q) Can you tell the court the type of network of A1 whether MTN, Vodafone or Glo. A) I can’t tell Q) I am putting it to you that A1’s network is Vodafone. A) I can’t tell. Q) I Put it to you that A1’s sim card was not blocked by the network provider and it is still active. A) A1’s sim card was not working as at the time I took the phone from him. A1 asked to make a call to his mother and that was the time I detected in his presence that his card was not working. Q) What do you mean by his sim card was not working. A) I made the call and the call was rejected and he (A1) told me that his sim card was not working because he did not register with Ghana card because he was not having Ghana card. Q) Did you find out when A1’s sim card was blocked as you are alleging. A) No. Q) Don’t you agree with me that with that an itemized bill from A1’s network provider, you would establish as a fact that A1’s sim card was blocked. A) I don’t know. Q) And that the itemized bills could have made you to know the times A1 made calls on 12/11/2022. A) I don’t know. Q) And that the itemized bills could also made you know those A1 made calls to on 12/11/2022. A) I don’t know. Q) I am putting it to you that you did not investigate this case properly because you only relied on the complaints told you. A) I did perfect investigation. Q) Why did you not charge PW4 i.e. Asokwa chief with dishonestly receiving. A) Because he is the one who assisted me in investigating about the Adata 16GB memory card and the Techno keypad mobile phone. Q) Did your investigation reveal that A2 sold only the Techno keypad mobile without the 16GB Adata memory card to Asokwa chief. A) My investigation revealed that A2 sold the Techno keypad mobile phone leaving the Adata 16GB memory card in it to witness Nana Kyei Asamoah alias Asokwa chief. Q) I put it to you that you did not do proper investigation as far as the Techno Keypad mobile together with the 16GB Adata memory card found with the Asokwa chief. A) I did perfect investigation. Q) I am putting it to you that you only relied on what PW4 told you and you did not probe further as an investigator. A) I probed further. Q) If you say you probed further, what did you do to probe further as an investigator. A) After I had got the Adata memory card, I inserted in a Techno lumia smart phone and helped me to know the pictures and videos of complainant Daniel Korankye and Williams Anokye’s pictures and pictures of Williams Anokye’s family members in the said Adata 16GB memory card. Q) What did you do to establish the truth that PW3 actually bought the Techno keypad mobile phone with 16GB Adata memory card as an investigator. A) I did further investigation and A2 told me that he sold the Techno keypad mobile phone having Adata 16GB memory card in it to Nana Kyei Asamoah @ Asokwa chief at a price of GH¢50.00. Q) I am putting it to you that A2 never told you that he sold the Techno keypad mobile phone together with a 16GB memory card to Asokwa chief. A) A2 told me that he sold the Techno keypad mobile phone which had Adata 16GB memory card in it to Nana Kofi Asamoah alias Asokwa chief. Q) I am putting it to you that A2 never confessed anywhere that he sold the Techno keypad mobile phone together with the 16GB Adata memory card to Nana Asokwa. A) A2 in his investigation cautioned statement stated that he sold Techno keypad mobile phone having 16GB Adata memory card to Nana Asokwa on 13/11/2022 at Nana Asokwa’s workshop at Meretweso. Q) I am putting it to you that it is nowhere stated in A2’s investigation cautioned statement to that effect. A) It is there. Q) Can you read to the Court the part of the investigation cautioned statement of A2 which captures the fact that A2 confessed selling Techno keypad mobile together with 16GB Adata memory card to Nana Asokwa. A) Yes. NOTE: The witness read a portion of Exhibit L on the second paper i.e. from line 31- sentence beginning “I picked a Techno mobile phone . . .” to the end of that page. Q) You agree with me that the 16GB Adata memory card is not part of the statement you have just read to the Court. A) Yes. The memory card A2 picked from the scene is the same memory card A2 sold to Nana Kofi Asamoah on 13/11/2022 at a price of GH¢20.00. Q) I am putting it to you that the fact that the memory card mentioned in A2’s cautioned statement is the same as the 16GB Adata memory card is an afterthought. A) In my investigation I detected that the memory card A2 picked from the scene is the same memory card A2 sold to Nana Kofi Asamoah aka Asokwa chief. Q) You agree with me that you are the one who wrote the further statement of A2. A) Yes. Q) How did you detect that the memory card mentioned in A2’s cautioned statement is the same as the 16GB Adata card. A) I saw a name written on the memory card and that is the Adata 16GB memory card. Q) When was the Techno keypad mobile phone together with memory card sold to Nana Kofi Asamoah alias Asokwa chief. A) 13/11/2022. Q) When was the said phone together with the memory card sent to the complainant Wlliams Anokye in Dunkwa-On-Offin. A) 14/11/2022. Q) You agree with me that between when A2 sold the phone together with the memory card to Nana Kofi Asamoah and when he sent the phone together with the memory card to Williams Anokye, something could have been done to the phone and memory card. A) No. Q) I am putting it to you that between the time A2 sold the phone together with the memory card to Nana Kofi Asamoah and the time Nana Kofi Asamoah gave same to Wlliam Anokye, Nana Kofi Asamoah could have done something to the phone and memory card. A) No. Q) I am putting it to you that Nana Kofi Asamoah could have changed the memory card which was supposedly in the phone when A2 sold same to him with the 16GB Adata memory card. A. No. Q) I put it to you that the substance in the bottle does not belong to A2. A) It belongs to A2 and even A2 in his investigation cautioned statement admitted that the substance in voltic rubber container suspected to be Indian hemp belongs to him. Q) Can you read from the further investigation cautioned statement of A2 where precisely he stated that the substance in the voltic rubber container belongs to him. A) I am reading from line 14 of the statement on the second page of the document the sentence that reads “ the exhibit in the voltic rubber…” NOTE: The witness read that sentence. Q) I am also putting it to you that A1 does not own the dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp. A) A1 is the owner of dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp which was in plain polythene bag. Q) How did you get to know that A1 was the owner of the dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp which was in the plain polythene bag. A) It is A2 who told the police that it belonged to A1. Q) So your own investigation could not determine whether A1 was the owner of the said dried leaves. A) A1 admitted in his further statement that the said dried leaves belonged to him and that he deposited it in A2’s room. Q. Can you read where in A1’s further statement where he admitted that he was the owner of the dried leaves. A) I am reading from line 13 of the second page from the clause but I must confirst[sic]… to the end. NOTE: The witness read that portion of the statement. Q) You agree with me that what you just read does not make mention of ownership of dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp. A) No. Q) I am putting it to you that what you have just read does not make mention of ownership of dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp. A) It does. Q) I am finally putting it to you that you did not do proper investigation as far as this case is concerned. A) I did perfect investigation. In section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323), Burden of Persuasion is defined. Subseciton 1 states: For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court. Section 10(2) of the Evidence Act adds that: The burden of persuasion may require a party to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or non-existence of a fact or that he establishes the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 11 of NRCD 323 defines “Burden of Producing Evidence” and states further as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue. (2) In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. (3) In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the accused as to any fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires the accused to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence. In Ackah v. Pergah Transport Limited and Others[2010] SCGLR 728; Sophia Adinyira JSC stated at page 736 that: “It is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. The method of producing evidence is varied and it includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and things(often described as real evidence), without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of the court or tribunal of fact such as a jury. It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable[sic] than its non-existence. This is a requirement of the law on evidence under sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Decree[sic].” I must say that the presentation of PW5 an officer of the state was so messy. I must also say that English Language level of PW5 is below the belt. English is our lingua franca and as official duty is presumed to have been regularly performed, such an officer should be able to communicate reasonably properly in our lingua franca to assist the court sufficiently. See section 37(1) of NRCD 323. It was held in Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi[1961] GLR 408 SC, per Korsah CJ that: “The fundamental principles underlying the rule of law that the burden of proof remains throughout on the prosecution and that the evidential burden rests on the accused where at the end of the case of the prosecution an explanation is required of him, are illustrated by a series of cases. Burden of proof in this context is used in two senses. It may mean the burden of establishing a case or it may mean the burden of introducing evidence. In the first sense it always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; but the burden of proof of introducing evidence rests on the prosecution in the first instance but may subsequently shift to the defence, especially where the subject-matter is peculiarly within the accused's knowledge and the circumstances are such as to call for some explanation.” In cross-examination of A1 by Prosecution, only the following transpired: Q. In Exhibit J, you stated that you were the one who placed the indian hemp in the verandah for Samuel Adjei to be used; I am putting it to you. A. It is not true. Section 62(1) of NRCD 323 states: At the trial of an action, a witness can testify only if he is subject to the examination of all parties to the action, if they choose to attend and examine. It is worth noting that A2 did not cross-examine A1, upon all that A1 said that seek to incriminate him(A2). I find by the evidence adduced at the trial that A1 possessed the plant materials and that he handed them to A2. The evidence adduced at the trial suggest that A2 possessed the substance for his use to prepare what A1 referred to as lakka. A criminal case cannot be proved on a balance of probabilities as stated by Ollennu JSC in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Oteng v. The State [1966] GLR 352 @ 354, SC as: “One significant respect in which our criminal law differs from our civil law is that, while in civil law a plaintiff may win on a balance of probabilities, in a criminal case the prosecution cannot obtain conviction upon mere probabilities.” Section 13(1) of NRCD 323 states: 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 a reasonable doubt. See also Fenuku v John - Teye [2001-2002] SCGLR 985 and Sasu Bamfo v Sintim [2012] 1 SCGLR 136 at 138 Section 14 of NRCD 323 allocates the Burden of Persuasion as: Except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting. Section 15(1) of NRCD 323 states: Unless and until it is shifted, the party claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden of persuasion on that issue. Section 17 of NRCD 323 allocates the Burden of Producing Evidence as: (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is on the party against whom a finding on that fact would be required in the absence of further proof. (2) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is initially on the party with the burden of persuasion as to that fact. Section 22 of NRCD 323 states: In a criminal action a presumption operates against the accused as to a fact which is essential to guilt only if the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption are found or otherwise established beyond a reasonable doubt, and thereupon, in the case of a rebuttable presumption, the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the presumed fact. CONCLUSION In Dexter Johnson v. The Republic [2011] 2 SCGLR 601 @ 663 Dotse JSC referred to Lord Viscount Sankey’s statement in Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462, as follows: “Throughout the web of the English Criminal law, the golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…if at the end of, and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner… the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” Prosecution’s evidence as regards the robbery does not have adequate substance to secure the conviction of A2 on the charges of robbery. Section 80 of the Evidence Act states: (1) Except as otherwise provided by this Decree, the court or jury may, in determining the credibility of a witness, consider any matter that is relevant to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the trial. (2) Matters which may be relevant to the determination of the credibility of the witness include, but are not limited to the following: (a) the demeanour of the witness; (b) the substance of the testimony; (c) the existence or non-existence of any fact testified to by the witness; (d) the capacity and opportunity of the witness to perceive, recollect or relate any matter about which he testifies; (e) the existence or non-existence of bias, interest or other motive; (f) the character of the witness as to traits of honesty or truthfulness or their opposites; (g) a statement or conduct which is consistent or inconsistent with the testimony of the witness at the trial; (h) the statement of the witness admitting untruthfulness or asserting truthfulness. I find the prosecution's evidence lacks consistency as regards the robbery. It also lacks credibility. In Ntiri v. Essien [2001-2002] SCGLR 451, it was held that the trial judge has the duty to ascertain credibility of a witness. I find both A1 and A2 guilty under section 37(1) of Act 1019. For A2, I find that he had it for use. For A1, he denied engaging in sale of those plant materials. Though he stated in the further investigation cautioned statement he gave to the police(Exhibit J) supra that he smoked indian hemp, when he testified he stated that the substances were not for his use. By the totality of the evidence viewed under the microscope of section 80 of NRCD 323 supra, I find that A1 also had the substances for his use and he gave some to A2 for him to also use. A2 is acquitted on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. A1 is acquitted on count 7 as well. A1 is convicted on count 6. A2 is convicted on count 7. I sentence A2 to pay a fine two hundred(200) penalty units and in default he will serve six(6) months imprisonment in hard labour, on count 7. I sentence A1 to pay a fine of three hundred(300) penalty units and in default he will serve one(1) year imprisonment in hard labour, on count 6. HH YAW POKU ACHAMPONG CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 17/10/2023 38