REPUBLIC VRS SOFO (B3/10/2022) [2024] GHADC 247 (25 March 2024)

SITTING IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WENCHI IN THE BONO REGION ON MONDAY THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH,2024,BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ISSAH ABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) CASE NO. B3/10/2022 BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC VRS: IBRAHIM SOFO JUDGMENT The accused, Ibrahim Sofo was arraigned before this court on a charge of Threat of Death, contrary to section 75 of the criminal offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The accused person, pleaded not guilty to the charge after same was read and explained to him in twi. Upon a careful examination of the particulars of the offence and the facts,the following issues were set down for trial; (1) Whether or not the accused person herein spoke the said words to wit “someone will disappear like a fowl”, “ I will kill your mother and step father”. (2) Whether or not the said words constitute any threat of death. (3) Whether or not the said words did put the complainant into any fear of death. (4) Whether or not the said threats were unlawful. 1 The facts as presented by the prosecution are that the complainant one Francis Iriyeru age 36years is a driver and a step father of one Sylvia Enyonam Ibrahim a witness in this case. That the accused, Ibrahim Sofo is a mechanic and the biological father of the witness Sylvia Ibrahim. That both complainant and the accused live at Buoko near Wenchi. That complainant is currently married to the accused person’s ex-wife with whom accused had two (2) children. That the said children live with their mother and the complainant without any support from the accused. That on the 7th day of November,2021 at about 6:30pm, accused called Sylvia Enyonam Ibrahim, his daughter to his house and told her that he (accused) wanted her and her younger brother to come and stay with his wife (their step mother) because he (accused) will be travelling very soon. That the daughter replied that she will think about the proposal. That there accused passed the comment that “someone will disappear like a fowl very soon” and threatened that “ I will kill your mother and step father. That Sylvia Enyonam Ibrahim quickly went home and informed her mother and the complainant of the threat from the accused (her father) which put complainant into feat of death together with his wife. That the complainant reported the matter to the police and accused was arrested. After careful investigations it was revealed that the accused made those threats and so he was charged with the offence and put before this court. The overall evidence adduced by the prosecution in prove of the charge, consisted of the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses including the police investigator of the case. 2 The first witness for the prosecution was the complainant (P.W.1) one Iriyeru Francis. He told the court he lives at Buoko with his wife and two children fathered by the accused herein. That he (P.W.1) knows the other prosecution witnesses as well as the accused who also lives at Buoko. That on the 7th day of November,2021 at about 5:30am he (P.W.1) was in the house when his (P.W.1) step daughter by name Ibrahim Enyonam Sylvia (P.W.2) came to tell him (P.W.1) that she (P.W.2) met her father (accused) when she (P.W.2) went to fetch water. That the accused called her (P.W.2) to his house and told her (P.W.2) that he (accused) wants her (P.W.2) and her younger brother to come and stay with him (accused) and after that he (accused) will kill him (P.W.1) and his (P.W.1) wife (accused’s ex-wife) P.W.1 said he was gripped with fear of death upon receipt of the threat from accused through his (P.W.1) step daughter. So he reported the case to the police in Wenchi. Then later accused came to his (P.W.1) house with two (2) cans of coke which accused gave to the children and hold them not to inform their parents and that if the children drink the coke and died he (P.W.1) will be held responsible. That the children did not drink the coke and brought same to him (P.W.1). When told by the accused he was not present when he (accused) spoke to P.W.2, P.W.1 said yes he was not present when told them the issue of the threat was his (P.W.2) idea and that he (P.W.2) added it, P.W.1 said he did not tell P.W.2 anything and that it is the accused who always comes to the house to insult him. When asked if he (P.W.1) know the woman he (P.W.1) has now as his (P.W.1) was his wife, P.W.1 said he knows but that accused left the woman for several years before he (P.W.1) took her in the year 2019. The second prosecution witness (P.W.2) was Sylvia Enyonam Ibrahim a primary six (6) student. She said she lives at Buoko near Wenchi with her mother and the complainant (P.W.1). That P.W.1 is her step-father and the accused is her biological father, who also lives at Buoko. That on the 7th day of November,2021 at about 5:30pm she (P.W.2) went to fetch water at an area where the accused lives and she met the 3 accused. That the accused called her (P.W.2) to his house and told her he (accused) wanted her (P.W.2) and her younger brother to come and live with him. That the accused also told her (P.W.2) it wont be long her (P.W.2) step father (P.W.1) and her (P.W.2) mother will disappear like fowls. That he (accused) will kill her (P.W.2) mother and the step father (P.W.1). The witness (P.W.2) said she informed the complainant (P.W.1) about the threat. When accused asked P.W.2 to name the other person who was also present when he talked to her (P.W.2) P.W.2 said there was one teacher. When asked if he issued the threat to P.W.1 and her mother P.W.2 said yes, accused issued the threat. What asked by the accused what he said, P.W.2 said the accused said he will kill her (P.W.2) mother when told P.W.1 coculied her (P.W.2) to say what she (P.W.2) said, the witness said P.W.1 did not tell her anything. Closing the case for the prosecution, the third and final witness for the prosecution (P.W.3) was No. 11844 PW Cost Evelyn Faanye stationed at the Wenchi Police District DOVSSU. That he knows the accused and the other prosecution witnesses. That on the 8th day of November,2021 whiles she was at the station as the available investigator, a case of threat of death was reported by one Iriyeru Francis (P.W.1) against the accused (Ibrahim Sofo). That the case was referred to her for investigations. She then took statements from the complainant (P.W.1) and other witnesses. That the complainant (P.W.1) later identified the accused to the police and he was arrested and cautioned. The cautioned statement was tendered and marked as ‘A’. That police investigation revealed P.W.1 is married to a woman who has two (2) children with the accused and the woman broke up before the woman married the complainant for the past four (4) years and the accused’s children live with their mother. That on the 7th day of November,2021 the accused’s child (P.W.2) went to fetch 4 water and met the accused. That prior to that accused has been evoking curses on the complainant and threatening him (P.W.1) that he will put him (P.W.1) into trouble. So when accused saw P.W.2, called P.W.2 to his (accused) house and told P.W.2 to come with her younger brother to live with him (accused). That after the accused told P.W.2, that it will not belong for her (P.W.2) mother and P.W.1 to disappear like fowls”. That I will kill them”. That P.W.2 went home and informed P.W.1 and the mother of what the accused said. That P.W.1 then filed a complaint with the police. That after police investigations the accused was charged with the offence and put before the court. The charge statement was tendered and marked ‘B’. After the prosecution closed their case, the court took the view that the accused opens his defence. In his evidence in chief the accused told the court he is Sofo Ibrahim, and he lives at Buoko. That he and the complainant (P.W.1) attended school up to JHS Level. That he got married to one woman and they had two (2) children. That they had problems because he suspected the woman was seeing someone else. That the woman always had strange calls and did not always want him (accused) to know. Accused said he later found the phone number calling the woman and it was the phone number of the complainant (P.W.1). That he called the number but complainant (P.W.1) refused to mention his name. this brought a problem between him (accused) and the wife. Then later the wife left his (accused) house and went to live at the place near the complainant’s house. Accused said whiles they were trying to resolve their problems he was told the complainant (P.W.1) has taken his wife. But that his (accused) ex-wife did not tell him she and the complainant (P.W.1) will take care of his children. Accused said he also stopped giving the children money for their upkeep. 5 Accused said when he was informed that the complainant (P.W.1) has taken his wife, he (accused) investigated and saw it was true. He (accused) then reported the matter to the complainant’s step father. Accused said the complainant (P.W.1) told him accused if he ever goes near the wife again, he (P.W.1) will put his (accused) poster on the wall. Accused said he rained curses on the complainant (P.W.1) and again reported the matter to the Chiraa police. The police told him (accused) they will talk to the complainant. Accused said whiles he was talking with P.W.2 one man came to him and he told the man he (accused) he wanted to leave Ghana. Then later P.W.1 said his (accused) daughter (P.W.2) told P.W.1 he (accused) said he will take him (P.W.2) out of Ghana. When asked if he (accused) said he reported the alleged threats by P.W.1 to the Chiraa police, accused said yes. The sole witness of the accused (D.W.1) told the court he is Siekyere Elvis and that he knows the accused as well as P.W.2. That he (D.W1) got to know P.W.1 one Sunday evening when P.W.2 came to the accused. The accused told him (D.W.1) P..W.2) is the daughter. That P.W.2 is the eldest daughter of the accused and that accused told him (D.W.1) he has eight (8) children. D.W.1 said he then asked the accused why he likes changing woman. The witness said he told the accused to try and live with one woman as that will help him. The witness said (D.W.1) whiles he was talking with the accused in the presence of P.W.2, accused then made a comment that “ a person will get missing”. D.W.1 said when the accused made that comment he (D.W.1) did not ask accused anything again because accused also expressed his desire to travel outside and will not tell any one where he will go. And that when he (accused) travels he will change his phone number so that no one will get him. So D.W.1 said because of these things the accused said to him (D.W.1) in the past, when he (accused) said that day that someone will disappear, he (D.W.1) took it in that context. That is his (accused) desire to travel outside. That after the conversation they all left, and P.W.2 also went away. 6 From the evidence as adduced, it is very clear that the relationship between the complainant (P.W.1) herein and the accused has been a strained one due to some disagreement over a woman. That the accused has not been happy with the complainant (P.W.1) because he said complainant (P.W.1) is currently living with a woman who was the wife of the accused and with whom the accused has two children including P.W.2 herein. The prosecution witness (P.W.1) stated this and the accused himself corroborated same when he said the complainant (P.W.1) now lives with the said woman together with his (accused) two (2) children. Again the prosecution contended that due to this bad blood between the accused and the complainant over the decision by P.W.1 to marry accused person’s ex-wife, the accused has always been issuing threats to P.W.1 and P.W.1 even at a point reported the accused to the chief of Chiraa. This was again corroborated by the accused in his evidence in chief when he told the court complainant (P.W.1) reported him to the chief and he (accused) also told the chief the complainant (P.W.1) also threatened him (accused) so clearly the evidence has over whelming established the fact that the accused was furious with P.W.1, because P.W.1 married his ex-wife and is also staying with the said woman together with her two (2) children she had with the accused. This was then the remote cause of the incessant threats that the accused issued to the complainant (P.W.1) at every given opportunity. This was completely needless because of the fact that the accused left the woman does not mean she has no right to remarry if she wants to. And if it is the decision of the woman to marry the complainant I do not see why that should be a reason for the accused to make life a living hell for the complainant. Moreso, if the accused is not happy with the children living with their mother in the house of the complainant (P.W.1) herein, the most reasonable step to take is to apply to the court for custody of the children and not to issue death threats. 7 That obvious is unlawful. Indeed the children are for the accused and the ex- wife, but the woman is not for the accused. And the fact that they are divorced does not mean she cannot move on with her life. And if that means marrying P.W.1 that is her decision and so the accused cannot declare P.W.1 as an enemy. That is not right. Also, it is must be stated that the prosecution said the accused issued the said words of threats in the presence of P.W2, who is his biological daughter. And the threats are “some one will disappear like a fowl,” very soon”. I will kill your mother and step father”. These were spoken in the presence of P.W.2 who is the daughter of the accused and the step daughter of P.W.1. So why will a child tell this kind of life on the father. If she did not hear same. And it must be noted that even though the accused tried to deny using those words, his own witness (D.W.1) Sekyre Elvis corroborated those words when he, said he was present at the scene, with accused and P.W.2 when the accused said someone will disappear and that he did not understand what the accused meant by that and he did not also ask the accused. The witness though tried to relate the said statement to certain previous sentiments accused expressed in his desire to travel outside. This in the view of the court was untenable. This is especially so to when D.W.1 said he came to meet the accused and P.W.2 talking. So it means that D.W.1 was not part of the full discussion between the accused and his daughter (P.W.2) so if D.W.1 only heard the comment someone will disappear” and did not understand that was understandable. P.W.2, who started the conversation with the accused understood clearly what the accused meant by “someone will disappear like a fowl”. This is because the accused said so many things before D.W.1 joined them and so D.W.1 did not hear all. The only part D.W.1 heard is the comment on someone will disappear like a fowl” and which corroborated the evidence of the prosecution. From the evidence therefore, I found the following as facts’ 8 (1) That accused and P.W.1 live in the same community and know themselves well. (2) That accused left or divorced his wife with whom he had two children including P.W.2 herein. (3) That the complainant (P.W.1) married the said ex-wife of the accused and is currently living with her together with the two children of the accused. (4) That the accused is not happy that the ex-wife is now with P.W.1 and so has been threatening P.W.1. (5) That on the said 7th day of November,2021 the accused issued the said words of threat of death complained about. In a criminal trial the burden of proof in the sense of the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and failure on the part of the prosecution to discharge that must lead to the acquittal of the accused. See Donkor Vs The State {1964} 2GLR, 598 SC. The standard burden of proof required of the prosecution is set out in section 11 (2) of the Evidence Act of 1975 (NRCD 323) which provides that “ in a criminal action, the burden of producing 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 reasonable doubt”. It is again the law as was set out in the case of Yeboah Vs The Republic {1972} 2 GLR, 289, that the guilt of the accused must be proved with the degree of certainty that is required by law. The offence of threat of death is created by section 75 of the criminal offences Act 1960 (Act 29). And per the provisions of section 75 of Act 29 the prosecution must prove the ingredients of the offence which are; 9 (a) That the accused used those words of threat of death. (b) That the said words constituted threat of death. (c) That the said threats did put the complainant (P.W.1) into an apparent feat of death and (d) That the threats were unlawful. In relating the evidence as adduced to the law, it must be stated that the accused obviously been unhappy with the union between the complainant (P.W.1) and his (accused) ex-wife threatened the complainant with death. That these words of threat of death were spoken in the presence of witnesses including accused person’s own witness (D.W.1) who testified before the court. That the words were words of threat of death and they clearly put the complainant (P.W.1) into a fear of death as he still lives with the said ex-wife of the accused person. From the evidence and the law as stated therefore, it is my conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused and the accused, Sofo Ibrahim has been found guilty of the offence and convicted accordingly. The reasons for the above conclusion include; (1) That the complainant’s wife he lives with now the ex-wife of the accused and with whom the accused has two (2) children. (2) That the accused has not been happy that the complainant (P.W.1) married his ex-wife and so has been issuing threats to complainant (P.W.1). (3) That on the said 7th day of November,2021 accused threatened the complainant (P.W.1) in the presence of witnesses. (4) That the said threat put the feat of death in the complainant (P.W.1). (5) That the conduct of the accused was unlawful. (6) That prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 10 Mitigation-on Mitigation the accused person pleaded for leniency and said eh is sorry for what happened. That he has a wife and children. Accused is a first-time offender. Accused is sentenced to a fine of 150 penalty units or in default 6 months imprisonment. …………SGD………….. ISSAH ABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) 11