ELLIS TAMAKLOE v. THE REPUBLIC

J U D G M E N T

ANSAH, JSC:

Each accused was charged with and convicted for the offences of:

“COUNT ONE

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.

Attempted exportation of Narcotic Drugs without lawful authority contrary to Sections 56 (a) and 1(1) of the (Narcotic Drugs Control enforcement and Sanctions) Law, PNDCL 236.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.

1 ROGER OCLOO 2 ELLIS TAMAKLOE on or about 29th August 2006 at the DHL Office, Kanda in Accra, in the Greater Accra Region did attempt out of Ghana without any licence issued by the Minister of Health, a quantity of Cannabis Sativa a Narcotic Drug, weighing 695g.

COUNT TWO

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Possession of Narcotic Drugs without lawful authority contrary to Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs (Control Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, 1990, PNDCL) 236.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

1 ROGER OCLOO, 2 ELLIS TAMAKLOE, on or about the 29th August 2006 in Accra in the Greater Accra Region, without lawful authority, did have in your possession and under your control a quantity of Cannabis Sativa , a Narcotic Drug weighing 695 g.”

The accused were found guilty on both counts, convicted and sentenced to the minimum 10 years jail term on each count to run concurrently.

The prosecution gave evidence through five witnesses and closed its case, after which the accused persons opened their defence but called no witnesses.

The second accused (hereafter called the appellant) was aggrieved by the conviction and sentence and appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on both counts. The appellant once again appealed to this court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:

1. “The learned Appeal Court judges erred in law on the facts when they made wrong inferences from the evidence advanced at the trial that the appellant attempted to export narcotic drugs without lawful authority contrary to Section 56(a) and (1) of the Narcotic Drugs Act, PNDCL 236.

2. The learned Appeal Court occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice and in the process erred when they held that the appellant had possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority contrary to section 2 of PNDCL 236 when no evidence was adduced to support that finding.

3. The learned Appeal Court Judges failure to consider the evidence led at the trial that the parcel originated from one Harry Campbell occasioned a miscarriage of justice when they concluded that the parcel originated from the appellant.

4. The learned trial judge and the Appeal Court J