GREGORY AFOKO v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH, JSC (PRESIDING)
- DOTSE, JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- PWAMANG, JSC
- MARFUL-SAU, JSC
- DORDZIE (MRS), JSC
- KOTEY, JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana had before it a writ challenging the Attorney-General's entry of a nolle prosequi, which halted the plaintiff’s trial for murder at its final stage, re-arraigning him for fresh proceedings. The plaintiff argued that this action was unfair and constitutionally inconsistent, particularly with Articles 23 and 296(c). The Court determined it had jurisdiction, found that the Attorney-General’s action fell within Article 88(3) and not subject to Articles 296(c) and 11(7) as nolle prosequi is an executive act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's writ. Notably, Justice Pwamang dissented, opining that the Attorney-General's action should comply with Article 296(c) and recommended regulatory frameworks for such discretionary powers.
J U D G M E N T
MARFUL-SAU, JSC: - The plaintiff in this writ before us, is not questioning the constitutionality of the power of nolle prosequi vested in the Attorney- General in criminal prosecutions in our courts. The plaintiff in the main is urging us, through his writ, to determine whether the nolle prosequi entered by the Attorney- General in his case as an accused person is fair and just in terms of Articles 11 (7) and 296 of the Constitution, particularly, Article 296 (c). It is thus important, to make it clear, in this judgment that this writ is not invoking the jurisdiction of this court to determine the constitutionality or otherwise of the right vested in the Attorney-General to enter nolle prosequi in criminal trials.
The plaintiff by his writ invoking the original jurisdiction of this court sought the following reliefs: -
‘’1. A declaration that the statutory exercise of the power to enter a nolle prosequi on the 28th January, 2019, pursuant to S. 54 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960, Act 60, by the defendant in the case of Republic v. Gregory Afoko, Case No. CR 180/16, is inconsistent and a violation or infringement of Articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution and as a result unconstitutional, null and void.
2. An order setting aside the said nolle prosequi and that the High Court, Accra should continue to hear the case of Republic v. Gregory Afoko, Case No. CR 180/16 to its logical conclusion.
3. A further order terminating the purported prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant in the case Republic v. Gregory Afoko and Asabke v.Alangdi, Case No. G/AC/DC/B1/05/19 or any further prosecution of plaintiff in respect of facts arising and forming the basis of the prosecution of the plaintiff in Republic v. Gregory Afoko Case No. CR 180/16.
4. Any further order that this honourable Court may deem fit for the enforcement of its orders.’’
The brief facts of the case deduced from the processes filed before this Court, are that on the 21st May 2015, the plaintiff was arrested on suspicion of murdering one Adams Mahama, after pouring acid on the said Adams leading to his death. After investigations and committal proceedings the plaintiff was arraigned to stand trial at the High Court, Accra for the offence of murder. The trial proceeded and the plaintiff closed his defence on the 24th January 2019. The trial Judge then adjourned the case to the 20th February 2019 for addresses by the prosecution and defence, aft