REPUBLIC VRS AHMED (B6/07/2024) [2023] GHACC 1159 (2 October 2023)

IN THE UPPER WEST CIRCUIT HELD AT WA ON MONDAY THE 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 BEFORE HIS HONOUR JONATHAN AVOGO ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE B6/07/2024 THE REPUBLIC VRS RASHID AHMED @ ANAATA JUDGMENT On 15th August 2023, the office of the Attorney General in Wa, the Upper West Regional Capital, registered a docket containing six counts of defilement against the accused person. The victims of the offences were three and the law office proferred two charges involving each victim against the accused, totaling the six (6) counts of defilement, contrary to Section 101 (2) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) as Amended by the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Act, 1998, Act 554. Section 101 of Act 29 under which the accused person was charged defines defilement of child under sixteen years of age as follows: “(i) For the purposes of this Act, defilement is the natural or unnatural carnal knowledge of a child under sixteen years of age. (2) A person wo naturally or unnaturally carnally knows a child under sixteen years of age, whether with or without the consent of the child, commits a criminal offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than seven years and not more that twenty-five years”. With this understanding of what the offence means, prosecution alleges accused person has been on the run since the incidents went viral in a video. In the evening of 23rd May 2023, accused was arrested when he sneaked into town from neighboring Burkina Faso. The summary of the facts however was that the complainant, a public spirited indigene of Wa chanced upon a video that had gone viral in which three victims were seen disembarking from ‘Pragia’ tricycle with one weeping, with a voice over asking them where they were from and it emerged that they had just left accused person’s residence where he had sex with them. Further details emerged that the accused person, a popular Master of Ceremonies (MC) during Islamic weddings and social events, attended a Community Based Organization (CBO) meeting after which he met with one of the victims, from whom he enquired about the second victim, who is a school mate of the former. That he asked the first victim to deliver a message to the second that he needed her to pick up some items (gifts) from him for the mother, who was nursing a baby and so the two called another friend, the third victim along and they visited the accused person at his residence. That when they got to accused person’s house, he asked two of the three to wait outside of his room and he went ahead to engage the victim who needed to take the items (gifts) to her mother. That accused went ahead to have sexual intercourse with her and repeated the same conduct on the other two girls, after which he gave them GHC10.00 each but failed to give the second victim the items he had earlier promised delivering to her for her mother. Accused however asked that they returned the next day, which all three did. That the next day when they visited, he again had sex with them in turns but yet did not give the items (gifts) for the second victim’s mum as promised. On the third occasion, the 23/5/23, he again had sex with them in turns but some young men, seeing they were coming out from accused person’s residence, stopped them and interrogated them about what they were there for. The responses of two of the girls were that accused person had sex with them and that was the recording in a video that had gone viral. Upon the arraignment in court of the accused person for six counts of defilement on the three girls, accused person pleaded not guilty to all six counts of defilement and was denied bail because the risk remained he could flee and was so remanded into Police custody for prosecution to furnish the accused with all that they had discovered in respect of the case. When accused was then arraigned for a Case Management Conference (CMC), he told the court he was in the process of seeking the services of a lawyer, who had gotten in touch with prosecution but prosecution asked the court to proceed with the case since the lawyer had not filed any processes in the matter. Prosecution then disclosed during CMC that it would invite the following as witnesses; complainant, a concerned citizen of the municipality who lodged the complaint with the Police after sighting the video when it went viral, the three victims of the alleged offence, the medical officer who examined the victims on the 25/5/23 and the Police investigator. Their various witness statements and attendant annexures were then filed and served on accused well ahead of the trial. On 15/08/23 when prosecution called its first witness in chambers [name withheld], she did not appreciate what taking an oath meant and so gave evidence without swearing to an oath. PW1 told the court she was a class six pupil of Wa Basic School and that she knew the accused through her sister, who usually attended Community Based Organization (CBO) Meetings with accused . PW1 told the court it was after one of such meetings that she enquired from her if she knew PW2 [Name withheld] and she indeed knew her because they both attended the same school. Thus, accused asked her to relay a message to her that he needed her to pick some items (gifts) for her nursing mother. The message PW1 said was relayed to her friend and the next day PW1, her friend who delivered the message to her and a third friend decided to honor the accused person’s invitation to PW2. PW1 said when they arrived accused person jokingly told them he wanted all three of them to be his wives and made two i.e. PW1 & PW3 to wait outside of his room whilst PW2 the one he had a message for the mother to come into the room with him. PW1 said out of curiosity she and her friend peeped through the windows of the room and saw accused fondling the breast of PW2 and eventually had sex with her. That PW2 emerged from the room after the accused had sex with her and gave her a GHC10.00. This was the narration of PW1 as to what they observed when they arrived in the house of the accused person but as to what happened to her when she was invited into the room of accused, she will give that narration in due course. PW2, the victim who accused asked of from PW1, told the court she was first to enter the room of the accused whilst her two friends waited outside of the room and when she entered the room, accused was naked and asked her to sit on his thighs which she did and he begun fondling her breasts. She said she was again asked to remove her school uniform she was wearing at the time, which she obliged and removed her under pant as well when accused demanded that she did so. PW2, looking well composed, continued her vivid narration of events of the day and told the court that after she had undressed she was led to lie on the accused person’s bed whereupon accused person removed his penis and tried inserting it into her vagina but it was difficult penetrating, until he put saliva on the tip of his penis and tried again, whereupon his penis entered her vagina and accused had unprotected sexual intercourse with her. That when he was done, he gave her GHC10.00 and asked that she called PW1 in for him, who also went in and accused had sexual intercourse with her. She was given GHC10.00 too whilst she and the third friend were waiting outside. PW3 recounted that she was invited by PW1 and PW2 to accompany them to visit the accused person sometime in 2021 and when they arrived, he took PW2 in and after having sex with her, led her out of the room after giving her GHC10.00. PW3 narrated how accused dispatched them on this encounter by telling PW2 the items (gifts) for her mum were not ready and that she would pick themup the next day when they visited. PW3 said accused person however met PW2 at a food joint the following day and asked her to come home for the items (gifts) for her mother and she again called them and they went to accused person’s house, where he again had sex with all of them separately, beginning with the friend who had the items to pick from him. That after having sex will all three of them, accused person still did not give the items (gifts) he had promised delivering to the mother of PW2 and so they left. PW3 in summing up her sexual engagements with the accused person burst out during her narration that infact, she was a second cousin to accused because her mum was a cousin to accused person’s mother and that accused person has had sex with her twice in his room at Adabia, a suburb of Wa. That she has had other first sexual encounters with accused person on 9/03/23 this very year and later in 20/5/23 under circumstances that she narrated to the court. PW3 concluded her evidence by stating that accused would ask for them anytime he desired and would either take them home or to a bush close to his house to have sex with them in turns and listed a number of other girls the accused had had sex with, who were also in court for having been defiled by the accused person. She ended her evidence by recollecting that accused warned them all to keep his sexual encounters with them a secret else he risks being exposed and arrested. PW4 was the complainant in the case. He gave his name as Eliasu Yussif Baba, a native of Wa and a business man. He told the court that he saw a video that had gone viral in the evening of 24/05/23 at about 11pm, where two of the victims admitted the accused had sexual intercourse with them and so he reported the case to the Wa Police, who sought from him if he was prepared to assist the police to unravel the entire myster,y by getting the victims and their families to cooperate with the police. PW4 said he gave the Police his word that he would assist them and indeed he did, by looking for all the victims involved in all the cases accused was accused of defilement and about 12 girls were taken for medical examination. PW5 was the medical officer at the UBIDS Medical Centre who examined the three victims. He told the court that when all three girls were presented individually before him, each appeared healthy with no visible signs of any sexual injury. He said all three girls did not have their hymen in their vaginas, meaning it was possible they had previously had sex, where they lost their virginity. That, none had any abrasions or lacerations within their vaginal canals and no deposits of sperm were also seen when he examined them on 25/05/23. The last of prosecution’s witnesses was the Police investigator NO. 47998 D/CPL Emmanuel Banyesere, an investigator with the Domestic Violence Unit at the Regional Police Command. PW6 told the court he was on duty when PW4 came to the unit with a footage of a video in which three girls could be seen and heard saying they were sexually known by the name mentioned in the video. That he obtained a statement from PW4 and his assurances that he would assist the Police to locate and identify the victims for interrogation and later medical examination. PW6 in his witness statement stated that PW4 and other stakeholders assisted the Police to locate twelve (12) victims in all but three (3) in this docket who saw the medical officer at the UBIDS Health Centre for medical examinations and their medical reports were returned to the police. That just as the video of the three girls went viral, the accused left Wa into hiding and that whilst away, he granted two radio interviews to Home Radio and Radio Mark on the allegations against him and that he was advised to leave town till the attention the matter attracted died down. The investigator told the court that on 25/05/23 another video was intercepted by the police in which one Hajia Sawieba Iddrisu was heard and seen advising the accused not to return to Wa because he would be arrested. PW6 said, he immediately caused the arrest of Hajia Sawieba for the offence of abetment and during her interrogation, she admitted recording the footage to send to the accused person privately but she made a mistake and sent it to a group platform. PW6 told the court he maintained surveillance around the residence of the accused person whilst he was away and on the 30/05/23 at about 9:30pm the accused’s person’s wife was on phone with someone they suspected to be the accused person. That the wife salamatu from the call monitored by PW6 made him form the opinion she knew the whereabouts of the husband and so was arrested to aid the Police to locate the accused person. That as part of Police efforts to trace the location of accused, exparte motions were filed at the District Court to compel some disclosures on the phone records of accused person’s wife and eventually Police got some useful information on the whereabouts of him. However, accused returned to Wa on 4/08/23 and upon intelligence he was arrested at his residence by the Police. PW6 went on to add that on the 7/08/23 accused together with his victims returned to the scene of crime that is his room where the victims variously recounted how he brought them in at various times to have sex with them and again led Police to the nearby bush where sometimes he took them to have sex. By the evidence of PW6, prosecution closed its case and the court asked prosecution to make arguments before it to convince it that the elements of defilement were proven. After prosecution had drawn on the evidence and the law on sections 173, submitted that it had indeed satisfied the conditions to ask the accused person to open his defense because prosecution had proven that all three essential ingredients in the offence of defilement had been established against the accused person. When the case was adjourned to allow accused person to put himself together to put up his defense, he arrived in court hearty but yet without counsel, with the indication that he was as usual going to conduct his case himself. He chose the option of giving evidence on oath and was sworn in and led in evidence by the judge. Accused described himself as a local master of ceremonies who had access to women because he officiated functions such as weddings, engagements, naming ceremonies etc. He described how a video had gone viral with some young girls claiming he had had sex with them in the video. Accused person responded to each count by denying having had sexual intercourse with any of the three girls in the six count docket. He specifically admitted knowing the victim in count one because he usually attended CBO meetings with her sister and wouldl see her at home. Accused was not forthcoming with who the second victim was until he was confronted in cross examination that he had earlier admitted to her being his cousin because their mothers were sisters. The accused kept his defense short by denying having any sexual engagements with all three victims but was confronted in cross examination to respond to questions on whether or not the wife had had course to remove from the matrimonial home to her sister as a result of a misunderstanding he had with her regarding how he received girls in their matrimonial home. This accused denied that at no point had the wife left the matrimonial home to her sisters but prosecution pressed on till accused gave responses agreeing that the wife at some time in April 2023 left to her sister. Extracts from the cross examination of the accused will be drawn later to support the various submissions. The onus rests on prosecution to prove its case, the essential elements of the i offence of defilement being that; : (i) (ii) (iii) The victim is under the age of 16 years (as provided for in Act 554). Someone had sexual intercourse with her; and That person is the accused. See the case of REPUBLIC V YEBOAH [1968] GLR 248. REPUBLIC VRS. NANA OSEI KWADJO II (2008) 1 GMJ 4 SC. TANO VS. ALIAS OBENG VS. THE REPUBLIC [1971] 2 GLR 482 and DAM VS. ADDO [1962] 2 GLR 200 SC It is also useful to remind ourselves of some fundamental legal principles pertaining to criminal trials in Ghana and Pwamang JSC in ERIC ASANTE vs. THE REPUBLIC [SUPREME COURT, ACCRA] CIVIL APPEAL NO. J3/7/2013 unreported succinctly restated the law on criminal prosecution as follows: “Our criminal law is that when a person is charged with a criminal offence it shall be the duty of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, meaning the prosecution has the burden to lead sufficient admissible evidence such that on an assessment of the totality of the evidence adduced in court, including that led by the accused person, the court would believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed and that it is the accused who committed it. Apart from specific cases of strict liability offences, the general rule is that throughout a criminal trial the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person remains with the prosecution. Therefore, though the accused person may testify and call witnesses to explain his side of the case, where at the close of the case of the prosecution a prima facie case is made against him, he is generally not required by the law to prove anything. He is only to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as to the commission of the offence and his complicity in it except where he relies on a statutory or special defence. See Sections 11(2) 13(1), 15(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and COP v Antwi [1961] GLR 408” The Jurist continued as follows: “However, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond a shadow of doubt. The guilt of an accused person is sufficiently proved if the tribunal of fact is convinced that he committed the offence though there remains a lingering possibility that he is not guilty. See Oteng v The State [1966] GLR 352. To achieve the dictates of the law as stated above, prosecution set forth to prove that the accused person defiled all three victims and led all three victims to give evidence in court. PW1 whose name the court has decided to withhold told the court she was the one accused contacted to call PW2 for him because he had some items to be delivered to her mother and when all three of them decided to visit accused, he asked for PW2 first and whilst in the room PW1 & PW3 said they peeped through the window and saw accused fondling PW2’s breast and later had sex with her. PW2 herself told the court how she was related to accused but despite that he managed to have sex with her on two occasions. She described how she was led to remove her dress and under wear and how accused tried penetrating her but it was difficult and he used saliva from his mouth to apply to the tip of his penis, thereupon he was able to penetrate her and went ahead to have unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The evidence of PW1 and PW3 were also that they entered the room in turns after PW2 had her turn and accused also had sexual intercourse with them whilst the two waited for the last one for them to leave. All three said he gave them each GHC10.00 as and when he finished having sex with them and asked them not to disclose to anyone the sexual escapes they had, else he risked being exposed. Having earlier indicated that all three victims gave evidence without taking the oath because they were young and did not appreciate what oath taking meant, corroboration will be very necessary so as to trust their various accounts. Infact, in the case of MOSHIE v. THE REPUBLIC [1976] 2 GLR 310-321 the judge stated the rule as: "The rule of evidence is that unsworn evidence given by a young child needs corroboration. It has been said that the evidence of young children is always subject to doubt, for very young children live largely in a world of imagination, and their powers of observation, understanding, memory and expression are rudimentary. It has also been said that most children are influenced by what they hear from adults, not necessarily by way of deliberate suggestion or instruction. Yet the evidence of children may be acute and accurate particularly with regard to offence committed against themselves” In the case of Anane v. The State [1963] 2 G. L. R. 65, S. C. the court stated among other things that, quite apart from that it is the practice to require corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix in charges of rape and connected offences and continued that the need to corroborate the unsworn evidence of a child is not a mere rule of practice but it is firmly rooted in law, section 10 of the Oaths Act, 1960 (C. A. 12), provides in no ambiguous terms that: "No person shall be convicted or judgment given upon the uncorroborated evidence of a person who shall have given his evidence without oath or affirmation." It is discernible however from the evidence that PW1 & PW3 told the court they peeped through the window and saw accused fondling PW2’s breast and thereafter went ahead to have sexual intercourse with her. This encounter both saw and gave separate accounts of how they witnessed it. PW2 herself then described how accused struggled to have an ingress into her vagina and had to use his saliva to facilitate entry. They all also spoke to how they were given 10 cedi each by the accused person after each encounter and that they used the money to buy food. Apart from specific cases of strict liability offences, the general rule is that throughout a criminal trial the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person remains with the prosecution. Therefore, though the accused person may testify and call witnesses to explain his side of the case, where at the close of the case of the prosecution a prima facie case is made against him, he is generally not required by the law to prove anything. Accused by law is only to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as to the commission of the offence and his complicity in it except where he relies on a statutory or special defense. See Sections 11(2) 13(1), 15(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and COP V ANTWI [1961] GLR 408. However, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond a shadow of doubt. The guilt of an accused person is sufficiently proved if the tribunal of fact is convinced that he committed the offence though there remains a lingering possibility that he is not guilty. See OTENG V THE STATE [1966] GLR 352. To prove the three essential ingredients of the offence of defilement, prosecution produced the national health insurance card of PW1 and it is stated she was born on 16/11/10, PW2’s age was also proven by a birth certificate and the date it bore was 21/12/10 and finally PW3’s age was also proven by a health insurance card having the date 16/08/11. The court asked that the proof of the ages be shown to the accused and he could challenge their ages if he had contrary evidence but accused admitted the victims were children. I will therefore resolve the issue as to whether or not the ages of all three were proven to be below sixteen (16) to the effect that PW1, PW2 & PW3 are under the ages of 16 and having sexual intercourse with them passes as defilement. Whether or not there is enough evidence to conclude that accused person was the one who carnally knew all three victims? Prosecution led this charge by unleashing an onslaught on accused person when he tried denying having a cordial relationship with all three accused persons earlier, that led to them visiting him and him preparing meals for them at his residence. Below is the confrontation PW1 gave the accused: Q. I put it to you that I never called you to my room though I agree I had a meeting with your sister and her colleagues earlier in your house when you were present. A. I met you having the meeting and you asked me if I knew PW1 and I said yes and so you asked I bring her to you which I did. When we arrived you paid for the Tricycle and went ahead to prepare Indomine for us and we ate and you took PW2 into the room. Q. It is not true I did not prepare any Indomine for you. A. At the time you had chased your wife away and we were those you were always with and will call us over when you need us. You even wrote your number on a paper for us to call u anytime we were free. Q. It is also not true that I was playing with the breast of PW2. A. On that day PW3 Shifted the curtain to your window at the veranda to show me what you were doing to her and later you gave her GH¢10.00. Q. I also put it to you that I never asked you to sit on my thighs. A. You were in a boxer and a singlet, you fondled my breast and asked me to move unto the bed. I did and you took off my pant and went ahead to have sex with me afterwards I forgot my underwear and you called me back and gave it to me and I stood in the veranda to wear it. Q. Again it is not true that I used saliva to assist gain ingress into your vagina. A. I swear that you had sex with me why will I say it if it did not happen. Q. It is not true you returned to my house the next day. A. We called you and you said you were home so we should come and we did and you paid the tricycle. Q. On the issue of your description of my room, the only day you were there was when Police took me there with you after I was arrested. A. I have personally been in your room severally for you to have sex with me and I know how the room looks like. Q. It is also not true I took any of you to the bush to have sex with you. A. I will not lie against you for any reason, you took us to the bush behind your house and each will hold the carrier to your motorbike and you will penetrate us. Q. I never asked you to hold on to the motor in the bush. A. You have done a lot to us. Sometimes we even run away from you. The extract of cross examination indicates the victim did not mince words in response to the denials of the accused. Devlin J. wrote in his book Trial by Jury, page 64 that: “….. there is in truth a fundamental difference between the question whether there is any evidence and the question whether there is enough evidence . . . It is the business of the judge as the expert who has a mind trained to make examinations of the sort to test the chain of evidence for weak links….” My examination of the evidence has produced no weak links as another witness corroborated the account of PW1 as follows: Q. I never asked anyone to come to my house for a gift. A. You told me to come for diapers and other gifts for my mother. Q. It is not true I asked you to come in first. A. You did so. Q. I also did not ask you to return the next day for the gift. A. You did and I was the first to enter your room and you did that to me. Q. I did not meet any of you on the day. A. On the first visit you did not give us the gift you asked us to come for my mother but asked us to return the next day we did but you still did not give it to us and the third day you picked us home and we were chased away by the angry youth who tried beating you up. Q. I never called you separately to have sex with me in my room. A. The incident happened admit it. Court: What incident happened? A. (Witness sighs and stared at accused in pain) You removed your penis and inserted in me and had sex with me and when you were done sperm gushed out of your penis. Q. I also did not take you to the bush to have sex. A. I can swear that you took us there and asked that we bend down for you to enter us Q. I also have not given you my phone number to call me A. Oooh how! I have the number and mention it off heard. Court to Accused Person: Do you use a mobile phone. A. Yes I have two numbers. A. 0207073724 was the number you gave us Q. I admit using this number but I don’t remember giving it to her. COURT: These are not your colleagues so how will they have your contact number. A. It is PW1's sister that has my contact because I hold meetings with her at home. Q. I put it to you that I have no idea of what you are saying. A. You are not the only man in Wa why will I single you out to accuse you of having sex with me? My search for weak links is an exercise in futility because the victims keep giving blow by blow accounts of their engagements with the accused and I am satisfied that the first ingredient of the offence of defilement that is the age of the victims saw enough evidence to prove that their ages fell below 16 years. KWESI DONKOR VS THE REPUBLIC AND SEKAI VRS THE STATE 1985 BLR 43 (HC) said evidence is said to be sufficient when it is of such probative force as to convince and which if uncontradicted will justify a conviction. In further proof by prosecution to confirm that the victims were sexually known and that it was the accused who had sex with them, prosecution called in a medical doctor, who examined the three victims on the 25/05/23. Section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1960 (Act 30) provides that in any criminal proceedings, a scientific report may be used as evidence of the facts contained in it. A scientific report is prima facie evidence of the matters contained in it and not conclusive evidence. Thus, the law requires that where the accuracy of a scientific report is disputed in proceedings, then the person who undertook the investigation or examination and produced the report should testify and subject himself to cross examination. See NYAMENEBA & ORS V THE STATE [1965] GLR 723. The medical doctor gave evidence that each victim, upon examination, he did not find any signs or deposit of sperm in their vaginal canals, that there were no abrasions or lacerations seen in their vaginal walls and could state with certainty that none had their hymen on, suggestive they were sexually active prior to the examination. In accepting the evidence of the medical officer as expert evidence, I have been mindful of the caution by the Supreme Court in the case of SASU V WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO. LTD. [1960] GLR 4, at pages 5 & 6 where the court stated thus: “expert evidence is to be received with reserve, and does not absolve a Judge from forming his own opinion on the evidence as a whole.” The effect of the finding of the medical officer which I assessed as very objective has aided me to put more weight on the accounts of the victims in their evidence-in-chief and in cross-examination. These pieces of evidence I have evaluated and I form the opinion that the three victims were sexually known by the accused person. To further fortify my opinion, I remind myself of the accounts in their evidence-in-chief ahead of their cross-examination, which I earlier presented in this judgment: An extract from paragraph 7 of PW1’s witness statement adopted as her evidence in chief is instructive: “When we got to the accused person’s home, instead of giving us the gift the accused person told us he wanted us to be his wives. He further asked us to wait and come to his room in turns” This was the introduction the accused gave the victims prior to seeing them individually in his room. Reference to one asking a female to be his wife means he is putting into PW1’s mind that he will get intimate with her. Further in paragraph 10 PW1 told the court this again: “When I got to his room, he asked me to sit on his thighs. The accused was seated in his sofa chair. I sat on his laps and he began fondling my breast” In evaluating the language of the child that she was asked to sit on accused person’s thighs meant she was asked to sit right on the thighs and it is evident the thighs and his penis were proximate. In effect, the child was reporting what she saw and I trust her account because she did not immediately sit right at the thighs but at his laps. In paragraph 11 she said: “He asked me to raise my school uniform which I did and he then asked me to remove my underpant and lay on his bed.” In paragraph 12 she continued that: Whilst I lay on his bed, he removed his erect penis and inserted it into my vagina slowly. He did not have it easy penetration until he used saliva to rub the tip of his penis and forced same into my vagina. He then had unprotected sexual intercourse with me. These were the blow by blow account of the child PW1 who had earlier in paragraph 3 told the court that this happened somewhere in 2021, a day she did not specifically recollect. These narrations, I am convinced, pass the test of a vivid account of a sexual encounter being narrated by a child of 13 years of age, as was the evidence led by the victim of the rape case in the case of GLIGAH & ANOTHER V THE REPUBLIC [2010] SCGLR 870, where prosecution was able to prove by the account of the victim that she was raped. I am convinced by the evidence of PW1 and the corroboration by her colleagues that she was sexually known by the accused on two instances as was her account and the charges in count one (1) and count five (5) against the accused. On count two and count six, where PW2 claims to have been defiled on a Monday and the next day a Tuesday in April 2022, she gave evidence in paragraph 5 of her witness statement that: “That day after school, I went to the accused person’s with PW1 & PW3. We picked a tricycle from the Wa Police Station to his house. On reaching his house, the accused person paid the tricycle rider. The accused was wearing a long Islamic dress” This account by PW2 was corroborated by PW1 & PW3 and in paragraph 11 of the same witness statement she told the court again that: “The accused person removed my underpant, held my hand and led me to his bed. He made me climb the bed and asked me to lie in a supine position. He climbed the bed, removed his boxers and inserted his penis into my vagina. The accused person had unprotected intercourse with me” The description of climbing a bed was the victim’s description of how she got unto the bed which was elevated and that accused inserted his penis into her vagina. She recounts how the penis went into her vagina and in paragraph 12 she then added that: “I must say that during the intercourse I did not shout even though it was painful because the accused person warned me to keep quiet. After he was done with me, I came out of the room and PW3 entered” To introduce the activities of the next day PW2 said in paragraph 15 that: “The next day PW1 & PW3 and herself went to the house of the accused person again. PW1 asked us to go for the pampers but I reminded her the accused lied to us the first time. She however convinced me to go saying the second time would be different. We picked a tricycle along the Wa insurance road to the accused persons’ house” Further in paragraph 17 she said: “PW1 was the first to enter his room. I was the second to enter his room. When I entered, the accused person was seated on the sofa chair in his boxers. He removed my pantie and placed me on his lap and inserted his penis into my vagina. The accused person had unprotected sexual intercourse with me” The narration of PW2 of her first and second visits to the room of the accused person gives a compelling account to trust that she was merely reporting what had happened and I trust her account and hold that accused did have sexual intercourse with the second victim. The third victim who had counts three (3) and six (6) of having been defiled by the accused person said it occurred on the same Monday and Tuesday of April 2022 when she went to accused person’s house in the company of her two friends. She said in her paragraph 4 of her witness statement that: “When we got to his house, the accused person asked us to wait outside and took PW2 to his room where he had sexual intercourse with her. He also had sex with PW1 and myself and gave us Ten Ghana Cedis (GHC10.00)” She went on to state in paragraph 6 that: “The next day he again had unprotected sex with all of us and gave us Ten Ghana Cedis (GHC10.00) each. He also warned us not to tell anyone” It was however instructive to note that PW3 recounted four instances accused had sex with her and the last time was April 2023, when she and PW1 met him at a program and he asked them to come home, whereby he asked PW1 to wait outside and he went ahead to have sex with her before calling in PW1. PW3 said she recollects other girls also go to accused and went ahead to mention about four (4) girls who accused has had sex with. In the various accounts of the victims, they all could not recollect the very dates the accused had taken them in. I have also taken note of the fact that they did not report the incidents immediately till the video went viral. There is a plethora of decisions that goes to emphasis that time lapse in reporting defilement to the Police alone will not make the charge bad but the evidence must be adduced to make the case certain that the victim was defiled. See THE REPUBLIC V. YEBOAH [1968] GLR at page 248, where it took a week for the mother of the victim to report the case to the Police and the accused person was convicted for defilement, based upon the evidence adduced. The Judge held that; “I have not lost sight of the fact that the second prosecution witness failed to make any report or complaint to her mother or anyone until a week later but this in my view merely goes to show perhaps that the second prosecution witness was a willing victim but the consent of the girl is no defense to such charge” The Court, again in the decision supra, said that it is not material if the prosecution failed to provide the exact date the child was defiled, provided it could be established that at the time the offence was committed, the child was under 16 years. Defilement cases may be reported years later after the incident has happened and the accused may plead guilty. Under such a circumstance, the delay in reporting will not have any impact on the outcome of the case. As was applied in the case of ERIC ASANTE V THE REPUBLIC J3/72013, it was held that time was not to be material, provided it could be proved that it was the accused person who committed the offence. I have painstakingly made extracts from the accounts of the victims to prove that they corroborated each other in proving that the accused person had sexual intercourse with them, on the various occasions he met them. I have no issues with the credibility of the victims because they were consistent and did not contradict themselves. The third element of defilement is that it ought to be proved that it was the appellant and no other person who had sexual intercourse with the victims. Here too, it is only the testimony of the victims that the prosecution proffered as proof that accused had sexual intercourse with the victims, in addition to the account of PW4 & PW6 the complainant and the police investigator. All three victims vividly described the accused person and went ahead to identify his room and held that they mostly met him after he had officiated Islamic activities, including wedding and naming ceremonies. Accused himself did not deny what he does and that he could usually call these young ones to dance ahead of the beginning of a program as a way of entertaining the waiting crowd. It will be pertinent at this stage to discuss corroboration in relation to proof in criminal trials in general and sexual offences in particular. The testimony of all three victims was corroborated in the legal sense. There has never been a general rule in this country that a court in a criminal trial cannot convict an accused person on only the testimony of one witness if that witness is found to be credible and the evidence of the accused does not raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. See REPUBLIC V ASAFU-ADJEI (No2) 1968 GLR 567 CA. Section 7 (3) of NRCD 323 provides as follows: “Unless otherwise provided by this or any other enactment, corroboration of admitted evidence is not necessary to sustain any finding of fact or any verdict.” Then at Section 7 (5) it is provided as follows: “Nothing in this section shall preclude the court or any party from commenting on the danger of acting on uncorroborated evidence or commenting on the weight and credibility of admitted evidence or preclude the tribunal of fact from considering the weight and credibility of admitted evidence.” This implies that the good sense in the policy that it is dangerous to convict an accused person on uncorroborated evidence is given recognition in NRCD 323. Corroboration is evidence which supports the testimony of a witness by confirming that the witness is telling the truth in some material particular in his testimony, thereby giving credibility to his story. Corroborative evidence must be independent of and from a source other than the witness whose testimony is sought to be corroborated. Having heard the three victims, the evidence corroborates the activities of the day and they gave credible accounts of what accused did to them and I find their evidence as reliable to convict on, that accused had sexual intercourse with them individually, whilst the two waited in the veranda of the accused to have their turns to be paid the GH10.00 to spend. Mindful of the decision in BEDIAKO V THE REPUBLIC [2010-2012]1 GLR 566 which requires a court of law to examine the defense put up by an accused person after the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, to ascertain whether the defense is acceptable, I proceed to do so. In the defense of the accused, he told the court he does not remember knowing PW3 from anywhere but for PW1, he recollects meeting her sister at their house for a CBO meeting where she was home. On PW2, he admitted he knew her but had never asked her to come to him for any gifts for her mother, though he was very well aware her mother had delivered at the time. The accused was however in absolute denial of having anything to do with these three girls, let alone defile them. Infact, he kept the same response for prosecution on many of the questions on the girls, with the emphasis that since he had no dealings with them, he never could have defiled them. The defense of the accused was that he did not have the opportunity to even interact with all three girls, let alone defile them. This prosecution refuted and situated its case that indeed accused person had run into a misunderstanding with the wife because he was in the habit of over interacting with these young children in their matrimonial home. Prosecution went ahead to cite instances where accused could cook for these girls to come and eat at his house and that he could not deny having girls in his company most of the time and so it was not his case to deny that he could use that cordiality to subsequently defile them. Accused went on and on but admitted to the marital feud he had with the wife that led to her removal to her sister’s place briefly. Prosecution also took on the accused for going into hiding when the video went viral and thereafter granting two radio stations interviews from his hide out. Accused however did not challenge the interviews he is alleged to have granted the media houses where he is believed to have told them that he was advised to stay away from Wa until such a time that public interest in the matter had subsided. Accused as well did not challenge the ages of all three victims and went ahead to deny their various accounts of having had sexual intercourse with them. Faced therefore with evaluating the evidence of all prosecution witnesses, especially that of PW1 to PW3 who variously described the circumstances under which they had the sexual encounters with accused, I am left to trust the versions of all prosecution witnesses that accused was the one who met up with them in his room on those two encounters, where he had sex with the three girls. So despite the accused person’s denial of having sexual intercourse with the victims, I find his defense as unacceptable. Having found his defense as unacceptable, I am enjoined by criminal jurisprudence to find out if his defense was reasonably probable and if it is so, the accused shall be acquitted and where it is not reasonably probable as I have again found out, I am again further required to examine the entire record to ascertain whether there are other defenses which may inure to the benefit of the accused. I have engaged in this practice of a search in the evidence to see if any plausible defense exists but unfortunately, I find none and I proceed to make the impression that, the accused person was not truthful in his defense. The law is that, when an accused person takes refuge in telling lies before a trial court, the only inference of his behaviour was that he had a guilty mind and wanted to cover up. SEE GORMAN VRS. THE REPUBLIC (2009) 21 MLRG 139 CA. andMUNKAILA VRS. THE REPUBLIC (1995-96) 1 GLR 367 SC. I am therefore but compelled to find accused guilty of all six counts of defilement and convict him for same because the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323).. The law remains that where a party in a trial refers to matters that are capable of independent proof in a positive manner and those matters are denied, the party does not establish the truth of those matters by stating them in the witness box and failing to proffer the other evidence which in the circumstances of the case should be available. In REPUBLIC V YEBOAH (supra) despite the accused person’s denial of having sexual intercourse with the victim, the court convicted him on the corroborative evidence. The graphic details of how all victims narrated their accounts to the court gives a bird’s eye view account which is comparative to the evidence that was led by the victim of the rape case in the case of GLIGAH & ANR. V THE REPUBLIC [2010] SCGLR 870, Sentencing Principles Mitigation is put up where the accused person admits his guilt and proceeds to plead for leniency when the court prompts for prosecution to make submissions on whether or not he is known and general comments about the crime and the incidence of the crime in the community that prosecution wants the judge to be aware of and ends up praying for a stiffer punishment. The accused on the other side make a plea in mitigation. The accused up to the time of sentencing did not admit his guilt and did not therefore plead for mitigation. However, prosecution drew the court’s attention to the many young girls who had fallen prey to the escapades of the accused person and invites the court to punish him to represent the disdain in the community about his conduct. The court will also not be applying proper principles of sentencing if it disregards clause 6 of Article 14 of the Constitution 1992; that is failure to take into account the period the accused spent in lawful custody before the completion of his trial. SEE BOSSO VRS. THE REPUBLIC (2009) SCGLR 420, FRIMPONG BADU VRS. THE REPUBLIC (2016) 95 GMJ 105 SC. OWUSU VRS. THE REPUBLIC (2016) 98 GMJ 95 SC. Accused was arrested on 8/08/23 and his trial ended on 1/09/23 in this docket. Having reviewed the circumstances under which I should proceed to pronounce judgment on the accused person because I have found him guilty on all six counts of defilement, I sentence accused as follows: Conviction and Sentence On count one where the particulars of offence states that accused in April 2022 in his bedroom at Adadbia Islamic School section of Wa you did carnally know AKB (Name Withheld) aged 12 years, I convict and sentence you to eight years (8) IHL. On count two where the victim is aged 12 years, you are convicted and sentenced to seven (7) years IHL, on count three where the victim is aged 12 years you are sentenced to seven (7) years IHL. On count four which charge involves the same victim as in count one, you are again sentenced to Eight (8) years IHL on count five which count involves the victim in count two you are sentenced to seven (7) years and finally on count six which is the second count affecting the third victim, you are sentenced to seven (7) years IHL. Accused will therefore serve the sentence concurrently, meaning he will serve the highest of all the sentences which is eight (8) years IHL on this docket. HIS HONOUR JONATHAN AVOGO ESQ CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, WA 28