GEORGE ABORMEGAH v. THE REPUBLIC
April 27, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)
- DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC
- PROF. KOTEY JSC
- LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
April 27, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court appeal by George Abormegah arises from his conviction, alongside Charles Modzaka, for conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery involving six computers stolen from Phase Two Consultants and Contracts Limited in Adenta, Accra, on 19 February 2006. The company’s security guard, Asare Larbi Bruce, was found violently killed at the scene. The prosecution’s proof included the appellants’ admissions to the theft, their leading police to recover the stolen computers in James Town, and circumstantial evidence of force used to overcome resistance. The Court emphasized that, under the amended Section 23(1) of Act 29, conspiracy is complete upon agreement to act together; and that robbery requires theft with force or threat to defeat resistance, which the facts supported. The Court rejected complaints about failure to call the queen-mother witness, noting evidentiary quality sufficed, and held the caution and charge statements were properly admitted and could not be repudiated later. The convictions were affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC:-
This case arose because two young men who chose friendship with one another, which choice turned out to be unwise, ended up with prison terms, having been accused of committing a heinous crime. They “loved but not too wisely.”
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
The 1st accused, Charles Modzaka, was employed as a driver by a company known as ‘Phase Two Consultants and Contracts Limited’ (hereinafter referred to simply as Phase Two) at Adenta near Madina in Accra. This company was owned by one David Ararat Tetteh, who also doubled as the Technical Director of the company. The 2ndaccused (and appellant herein), George Abormegah (also spelt Abomagah during the trial at the High Court) was a welder and friend of the 1staccused. They both inhabited the same compound house – the 2ndaccused (now appellant) as a tenant, and the 1staccused, as a guest of his cousin who was co-tenant to 2ndaccused.
The 1st accused was employed at Phase Two on probation for six months. He was, however, discharged after two-and-a-half months on the job, for unsatisfactory service. It transpired that at some point, the 1st accused was asked by his cousin to move out of the room he shared with him because he intended to get married. Homeless and jobless, but in possession of a vehicle – a red Ford Escort vehicle - the 1st accused began to use it as a sleeping place, though his personal effects remained in the room of his cousin. His homelessness and joblessness seemed to have had some connection with his urgent need for money, for that led to the commission of the offence with his associate, for which they were tried, convicted and sentenced to prison.
On Sunday, 19th February, 2006,at about 7 a.m., the 1st accused together with 2nd accused, drove in the Ford Escort car to the premises of the Company. They managed to enter the premises, carry six computers and accessories out of the office, pack them into the vehicle and drive off. All of these activities on the premises, took place despite the supposed presence of a security man who was resident on the premises. A witness at the trial, Juliana Brown (PW1), also an employee of the company and niece of the owner, went to the premises around 9 a.m., as she normally did, to switch off lights and air conditioners. She saw the caretaker lying on the floor. Thinking he might be drunk or needing help she raised an alarm, and it was when help came that it was discovered that the security man was lying dead in a pool of bloo