ANTHONY ASOMANI @ ANTHONY AWUAH VS THE REPUBLIC
2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- PWAMANG JSC (PRESIDING)
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC
- KULENDI JSC
- ACKAH-YENSU (MS.) JSC
- DARKO ASARE JSC
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, a fetish priest, was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and murder based on circumstantial evidence after the decapitated body of a ten-year-old boy was found on his property. Despite appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, his conviction and the death sentence were upheld. The Supreme Court found that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and clarified the legal duties of the trial judge concerning submissions of no case. Key legal principles from the case include the trial judge's duty to determine whether a case has been made out and the admissibility of police statements in criminal trials.
PROF. MENSA-BONSU JSC:
This is an appeal from judgment of Court of Appeal dated 11th March 2020. Facts The appellant (also referred to as 1st accused herein) was a fetish priest whilst the 2nd accused (now late) was unemployed.
Both of them were resident at Sefwi Asafo in the Western Region.
The facts of the case on which the prosecution built its charges were that on 10th September, 2007, ten-year old Emmanuel Kwasi Mensah Essah (also referred to as ‘Kwesi’ or ‘Saah’) was sent by his mother to sell corn dough at Sefwi Asafo.
The appellant purchased three old cedis or thirty Ghana pesewas (30p. ) worth of corn dough on credit, and asked the boy to collect his money later in the day.
The identity of the person who had bought the corn dough on credit was, then, not known by the parents.
The buyer-on-credit turned out to be the 1st accused.
He admitted purchasing the corn dough and using some of it to prepare Banku, which he ate with his friend, the 2nd accused person, Samuel Boah.
Later that afternoon, around 3p.
m. , the evidence showed that the deceased did go to the compound of the appellant to collect the money, but contrary to what the appellant promised, he told the boy that he did not as yet have money to pay him.
The boy refused to leave, insisting that if he returned home without the money, his mother would be displeased with him.
The 2nd accused left the premises with the boy still demanding payment.
That was the last time the boy was seen alive.
When the boy failed to return home at about 5: 30pm, his parents began a search for him.
A report was also made to the police that the boy was missing, but when no assistance was to be had from the police, a gong-gong was caused to be beaten in the town to announce the disappearance.
Despite the best efforts of the community, and the accompanying publicity, Emmanuel was not found that night.
The next day, ie 11th September, PW3, the father of the deceased, received information that it was the appellant who had bought the corn-dough on credit, and that it was from him the boy had gone to collect the money.
The information turned out to be accurate, for as the evidence showed, Emmanuel was seen on the verandah of the 1st accused at about 4: 30pm (according to the 2nd accused) and 6. 00 pm (by an account of a friend of Emmanuel’s), demanding the money, and refusing to leave the premises.
Having received information on the previous day’s sighting of the missing boy, the father, (PW3), mobiliz