AGYEMAN v. THE REPUBLIC

Archer J. allowed the appeal of an accused convicted of stealing in a circuit court. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, stood mute throughout the prosecution’s case, neither cross‑examining witnesses nor presenting a defence. The trial judge recorded that a medical officer had certified the accused fit to plead, yet relied on that certificate without taking sworn medical testimony, and proceeded to convict after the accused refused to make a statement or give evidence. On appeal, Archer J. held that section 133(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates a formal inquiry and sworn medical evidence where unsoundness of mind is suspected; reliance on a certificate or oral information is impermissible. Section 138 was also highlighted as a safeguard when an accused cannot understand the proceedings. The judge declared the trial a nullity, refused to order a retrial in light of the appellant’s treatment for hallucinations and substantial time served, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence, and discharged the appellant, noting the charge technically remains pending and urging the State to consider whether further prosecution—over items as trivial as two old chamber pots—is warranted.