AKOSAH v. THE REPUBLIC

Amua‑Sekyi J. allowed an appeal from convictions for unlawful possession of Indian hemp arising out of cushions and pouffes delivered to the appellant’s premises that later proved to conceal cannabis. The prosecution’s case relied on possession, but the court emphasized that unlawful possession requires proof of knowledge of the nature and quality of the item. Drawing on authorities, including R. v. Onuoha, R. v. Obiase, Lagos v. Commissioner of Police, and Amartey v. The State, the judge held that the evidence did not establish the appellant’s knowledge. The court rejected the argument that interlocutory rulings cannot be questioned on an appeal from the final judgment, noting section 19(4) of the Courts Act and appellate practice permitting such challenges. Interpreting section 47(1) of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, the court concluded that the “proof of which shall be on him” clause does not shift the burden until possession with knowledge is shown. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.